Minute Bk. 24 1/1984 - 1/1985 City Council Minutes
January 3. 1984
The Council convened into a joint meeting with the Planning and
Zoning Commission at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room.
COUNCIL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger;
Council Members Barton, Chew, Hopkins, and
Stephens
COUNCIL
MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Alford was on vacation
P&Z MEMBERS
PRESENT: Sidor, Juren, LaForte, Pearson, Escue, and
Cole
1. The Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed
the proposed changes to the mobile home park ordinance and plat
processing.
Charlie Watbins, Senior Planner, introduced Elizabeth Evans of the
Development Review staff.
Evans reported that ordinances of several other cities had been
reviewed regarding the requirements for street widths in mobile home
parks.
Council Member Chew asked how the staff had arrived at the proposed
lot size requirements.
Evans responded that the area required for a double wide mobile home
had been taken into account and the 5000 square foot lot size was
the result.
.... Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked with the 5000 square foot
requirement, how many units could be placed on an acre.
Evans responded between 5 and 6. A provision for variances for lot
sizes had been written in the proposed ordinance, but the variances
for street width had been deleted. The staff felt that residents
would park on the street and this was the rationale behind
requesting the additional width. Evans also stated that the Council
might want to consider removing the provision requiring 5 feet
screening fences.
Gary Juren, Member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, stated
that he was not anxious to remove the fencing provision and would
like to see the street length requirement compatible with the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
Bob LaForte, Member of the Planning and Zoning Commission referred
to a section of the proposed ordinance which dealt with the naming
of internal street in mobile home parks.
Evans responded that street would be named by the Building Inspector
to avoid duplication.
LaForte then stated that the Council was concerned about recapturing
__ cost of service fees and asked if the proposed ordinance would
accomplish this.
Evans responded that one section would need to be revised from a
$2.00 fee to a $4.10 fee. Other charges were not included in the
original fee study.
Juren stated that the staff was requiring 14 sets of drawings and he
felt this was expensive.
Evans responded that the drawings were for the' members of the
Development Review Committee.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3. 1984
Page Two
Juren asked what some of the penalties were no lenient,
Evans responded that was according to state statute.
LaForte referred to the section of the proposed ordinance which
recommended violators be given a "reasonable" period of time to
comply as opposed to a specific time.
City Attorney Taylor responded this wording would allow an inspector
in the field to determine the length of time to allow a person to
comply. Times could vary from 2 days to 2 months, etc.
LaForte asked if this would apply to existing mobile home parks.
Evans responded it would only apply if the existing parks were to
remodel or expand.
Mayor Stewart asked if existing mobile home parks would be given an
extended period of time, such as 10 years, to comply to the
regulations.
Taylor replied that if the City were to require existing parks to
comply over a period of years, the City would have to look at
amortization of costs,
The question was asked if the 34 feet street width was too wide and
would encourage on street parking.
Mr. R. J. Button, mobile home community developer, stated that his
park had 30 feet wide streets and would voluntarily increase the
width to 32 feet.
A representative of the Wilson Harshone Development Company stated
that the Council needed to consider the economics of the larger lot
sizes. His development would be forced to raise lot rent if the
5000 feet square lot size was approved.
Mr. Kellogg, Champion Homes, stated that the width of the roads were
not a concern as mobile homes were not moved into and out of the
parks very frequently. His company used 21 feet wide streets and
would also be in favor of smaller lot sizes,
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger motion to require 34 feet wide streets.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations allowed for cluster type homes and flexibility in
design. He felt the mobile home developers should have the same
flexibility. The developers could petition for planned developmeDt
zoning to obtain this flexibility.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that he was in favor of the
proposed ordinance taking the planned development option into
account and would approve with the concensus of the Council on the
street width with a resaonble engineering standard for the thickness
and with a concensus on the lot size.
Council Member Chew stated that he was in agreement on the width of
the street, but had questions regarding the thickness. If the
streets were private, the developer would maintain them, but if the
streets were public, the City would have to maintain them,
Council Member Chew seconded Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger's motion
for 34 feet street width. Motion carried unanimously.
The concensus of the City Council was for 5000 square feet lot size
with 40 feet minimum frontage width.
C'ity of Denton City Council Minutes '-"
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Three
2. The Council was to have received a report concerning the
status of the application for a Community Development Block Grant.
Due to the length of the discussion on the proposed mobile home park
ordinance, this item was not discussed.
3. The Council was to have received a report on south Denton
residential development on property zoned for higher uses.
Due to the length of the discussion on the proposed mobile home park
ordinance, this item was not discussed,
4. The Council did not convene into the Executive Session.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger:
Council Members Barton, Chew, Hopkins, and
Stephens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Alford was on vacation
The Mayor read a Proclamation for Dallas-Fort Worth Airport Week
from January 9 to 17, 1984.
1. Consent Agenda
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9215 - Mobile radios
2. Bid 9 9216 - Distribution transformers
3. Bid # 9217 - Air switches
4. Bid ~ 9218 - Loader/Backhoe
5. Purchase Order # 61328 to General Electric
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda
addendum. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda Addendum:
A. Purchase Orders:
1. Purchase Order # 61429 to Caruthers Oil
2. Purchase Order % 61434 to Ben Ivey Oil Co.
3. Purchase Order # 61452 to Reeder Distributing Co.
2. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
water/wastewater rate ordinance.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that Gilbert and
Associates had completed a study of the City of Denton's
water/wastewater rates. Nelson introduced A1Hermann of Gilbert and
Associates,
Mr. Hermann reported that the study had been ordered as a result of
the cost of services study results. At the direction of the Pubic
Utility Board, a study had been conducted to assign costs to various
classes of customers. Mr. Hermann presented a summary of revenue
and operating expenses for the last fiscal year which showed
operating expenses of $4,000,000, expenses of $3,700,000 and revenue
available for debt service in the amount of $238,000.
~ City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Four
Mr. Hermann also stated that each portion of the utility system
should stand alone in covering the transfer of funds to the General
Fund. The Public Utility Board was recommended the proposed rates
'which would cover debt service and allow for the transfer to the
General Fund. Costs would be allocated to classes by the summation
of expenses. Bond issues should be split according to use. The
wastewater utility had three times the debt service of the water
utility but the debt service had been divided equally among the
two. Mr. Hermann then presented slides depicting a further
breakdown of costs.
Hermann reported that adequate revenue was not being generated to
recover debt service and the General Fund transfer amount. Under
the current rates, at the close of fiscal 1983-84 the residential,
inter-governmental sales, and fire protection accounts would not
recovering their costs. To achieve the goal of cost recovery, a
debt service ratio of 1.90 would be required. A comparison of the
current and proposed rates for each customer class was shown.
Gilbert and Associates recommended increases for all classes as a
first step in achieving cost based rates.
Under the current rates, the wastewater utility revenues would have
a deficit of $1,250,000 for fiscal 1983-84. The reason for this
deficit was the new wastewater treatment plant. The new rates had
been structured to attain a 1.0 debt service but would not allow for
a transfer of funds.
Slides were shown on the current and proposed rates and the
percentage of the increases. Also shown were the customer class
revenues in the water and wastewater utilities with a breakdown of
the increases. The customer component was $3 per customer per month.
Charles Cryan, Utility Department, presented a slide of the adjusted
performa of last year, the current year and next year with and
without the new rates. If implemented, the water utility would
still show a deficit due to the fact that four months of the current
fiscal year were over. The system loss was due to the increase in
the cost of raw water and in the cost of energy. The study proposed
a 1.25% debt service ratio. Proposed residential water rates were
given and contrasted to current rates. A graph was shown of the
costs for summer and winter rates. A comparison was shown on the
usage and rates for Denton, Dallas, Carrollton, McKinney and Addison.
Other changes included a facility charge, or greater charge for
larger meters. The City of Corinth would be charged in a different
class than they were currently being charged. For customers outside
of the Denton city limits, a increase in the premium rate from 115%
to 150% was proposed.
The net loss of the system and the projected loss was the reason for
the increased rates being proposed and was intended to return the
water system to parity with the other utility systems.
Council Member Chew stated that it appeared that the bulk of the
increase would fall on small businesses.
Cryan responded that as usage increased, so would the cost and did
not believe the small businessman would be hurt.
Mayor Stewart asked if the rates for the other cities on the graph
were the current rates.
Cryan responded yes.
Council Member Hopkins asked if new customers coming on-line during
the next year had been taken into account.
Cryan responded that was in the projected revenues.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Five
City Manager Hartung stated that a series of articles had been
published recently about 6 new sewer treatment plants in the
region. None of these had met permit requirements while Denton's
wastewater treatment plant did. Those systems which did not meet
permit requirements would have to in the future.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the staff report stated an
increase was recommended now and again in the fall of 1984.
Nelson replied in the next budget year, the staff wanted to get the
debt service ratio over 1.0%.
Council Member Stephens asked if this could be accomplished
gradually or could services be provided in a more efficient manner
to avoid rates increases.
Nelson responded that the staff was exploring ways to hold down
increases.
Council Member Stephens stated that prior to the recommendations
being presented as an ordinance, the Council should have met with
the Public Utility Board and discussed their thoughts on efficiency
and quality of service and costs.
Mr. Roland Laney of the Public Utility Board reported that the board
had studied the Gilbert and Associates report extensively. There
were areas which the board was not completely satisified with but
felt this was the best way to go.
Council Member Stephens asked if there had been any difficulty in
getting the current rate data.
Hermann responded yes: the Finance Department had the information
for billing purposes but not in the form which the consultants had
needed.
Council Member Hopkins suggested that the City Council and the
Public Utility Board meet on January 10 in a work session to further
discuss the proposed rates.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger expressed his appreciation to the Public
Utility Board and Gilbert and Associates for their efforts.
Ed Coomes, Public Utility Board, reported that the PUB had gone
through the Capital Improvements Program in minute detail and had
tried to reach a compromise on projects and priorities while trying
to balance maintenance on the utility systems,
Mr. Clarence Moore spoke stating that he was the owner of a coin
operated laundromat and felt the proposed increases would impact on
his business.
Council Member Hopkins asked Mr. Moore how much he would have to
raise his rates to offset the water rate increase.
Mr. Moore responded 10~ per washer load.
Mayor Stewart stated that he would like to elaborate on the increase
in the debt service. The City of Denton had a new wastewater
treatment plant which was now operational. The plant had just come
on-line and the cost now had to be paid. Since the City could not
charge until the plant was operational, these costs were lust now
showing up.
City Manager Hartung suggested that Mr. Moore might meet with Bob
Nelson for further clarification of his questions.
Ms. Nancy Boyd, Public Utility Board, stated that the Council and
board needed to look at the whole gammit and not lust public
utilities.
C~.,y of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Six
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
W. J. Roddy requesting approval of a specific use permit for a
mobile home park (197 lots with a typical size of 50' x 100') on a
36.96 acre tract located approximately 3,500 feet east of the 1-35E
service road. This property is currently located within the City of
Denton extra-territorial ~urisdiction (ETJ); however, final action
on a pending annexation which may include this property is scheduled
for January 3, 1984 Denton City Council action. (S-176)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that the P&Z had
no formal recommendation. The proposed mobile home ordinance had
been discussed in the work session and this request met or exceeded
all of the requirements. The area was currently in the extra-
territorial jurisdiction. If the request were approved, the zoning
ordinance would be passed after annexation.
Page Road was in poor to moderate condition and the traffic load
would be increased. However, any development in this area would
increase traffic. Currently there was no policy on locating mobile
home parks in any specific quadrant of the City. Requests and
inquiries regarding new mobile home park developments had not
decreased. The staff recommended approval as the petition did meet
technical standards. There were 4 suggested conditions to the
petition approval,
Council Member Barton expressed confusing over the proposed
annexation also on the agenda and asked staff what the Council was
being asked to approve at this time,
Ellison responded this petition was a request for a specific use
permit.
Chew motion, Barton second to table.
City Attorney Taylor reported that no ordinance was before the
Council for official action,
Mayor Stewart continued the public hearing.
Mr. Brian Burke, consulting engineer for Mr. Roddy, stated that he
had approached the Planning and Zoning Commission with the plans and
would modify these to meet any requirements if the property was
annexed.
Ms. Eileen Powell spoke in opposition stated she was as resident of
the area and the citizens had tried to upgrade the neighborhood.
The residents did not need another mobile home park and Mr. Roddy
had allowed raw sewerage to drain on the property in the area.
Ms. Joy Powell spoke in opposition and presented photographs of
drain pipes which ran under the road and dumped raw sewerage onto
the land. Ms. Powell also presented photographs of Mr. Roddy's
current mobile home park in the area and stated that if he did not
take care of the park he now owned, she did not believe he would
take care of a new park,
Mr. Kevin McCormick spoke in opposition stating that he lived near
the area for the proposed mobile home park and asked the Council to
look at the area from the viewpoint of proper land use.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mr. Roddy responded to the opposition by stating that the sewerage
was handled by a septic system when he had purchased the property
and he was not the only one in this area that had experienced
problems. The sewer problems had been corrected.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Seven
Chew motion, Barton second to table the request until the proposed
mobile home park ordinance was approved. Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Joe Belew requesting an amendment to planned development (PD-50) to
permit an approximately 20' x 60' handball/racquetball recreational
facility on a site presently approved for playground use. Planned
development (PD-50) is the site of the Ramsgate multi-family
_ development which begins at the northeast corner of Bernard and
Lindsey Streets. (Z-1620)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Jester, representing Joe Belew, stated his client was trying
to build a recreational building of approximately 1200 square feet.
This building would allow for ping pong tables, pool tables,
racquetball/handball courts and an elevated table area. A provision
for a playground had been included in the original planned
development zoning; only 10 children resided in the apartments and
Mr. Belew felt that a change to the recreational facility would be
more appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked what had been the objection.
Mr. Jester replied that he did not know.
Council Member Stephens asked how much playground area would be left.
Mr. Jester replied that he did not know.
Council Member Stephens stated that the minutes of the Planning and
Zoning Commission reflected opposition to the substitution of the
recreational facility for the playground area.
Mr. Robert Martin, architect for the apartments, spoke in favor of
the petition stating that the developer had originally reduced the
density to allow for green space. Approximately 40% of the 9 to 10
acres would remain open for sidewalks and play area,
Ms. Cindy Lott, property supervisor, spoke in favor of the petition
stating the management did not intend to disgard the playground
equipment and alternate space would be designated for this use.
Mr. Greg Herman, resident of the apartments, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that he believed the racquetball court would
benefit the residents. He had voluntered to teach other
recreational activities and the facility would give a meeting area
for the residents. The management of the apartments was very health
oriented and had provided a weight room and a jogging track.
Mr. Monty Day, apartment resident, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that he felt someone was worried about invading the grassy
area at the Ramsgate. The recreational facility would keep the
residents happy.
Mr. Chris Gattis, resident of the apartments, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that he did not understand the opposition. The
Ramsgate apartments had more grassy area than any other apartments
he had seen and was not like "cement city" near North Texas State
University. He felt the space could be used for the recreational
facility.
Mr. Terry Shepherd, apartment resident, spoke in favor of the
.petition stating he felt the recreational facility would be
beneficial.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Eight
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, stated that the Planning
and Zoning Commission was not opposed to the facility. The original
planned development as approved by the P&Z had allowed for a
playground for resident children.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Marvin Morgan Construction Company, Inc. requesting a change in
zoning from agricultural (A) to the planned development (PD)
classification on a 11.877 acre tract beginning approximately 130
feet west of Bellaire Drive and approximately 850 feet north of East
McKinney Street. If approved, the planned development (PD) will
permit single family detached land use with a typical lot size of
6,000 square feet (60' x 100'). (Z-1623)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Marvin Morgan, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that the
Planning and zoning Commission had approved the petition with 3
conditions and he had been working to comply with those conditions.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 25 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 1 in opposition.
This was a low intensity area. Single family dwelling would be
consistent with the area and 6000 square feet had been typical size
over the last few months. The major concern for staff had been
drainage. If the area were developed, the drainage would not be any
worse, although it would not improve either.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the planned
development (PD) classification to permit single family detached
land use on a 11.877 acre tract beginning approximately 130 feet
west of Bellaire Drive and approximately 850 feet north of East
McKinney Street.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 11.877 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE M. YOACHUM SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1442,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing concerning d~claring
an Eligible Blighted Area.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Randy Staples, representing FW Development Company, spoke in
favor of the petition stating his client was asking that a
particular area be designated as an Eligible Blighted Area to
qualify for industrial development bonds. A large area of south
Dallas had been designated as an Eligible Blighted Area and was now
in various stages of development. The designation would encourage
CiUy of Denton City Council Minutes G
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Nine
development of the area by owners and other potential developers
which would have the effect of' increasing the tax base to the City.
The proposed project would employ 5 people. Currently a large
portion of the area was unimproved vacant lots.
Council Member Hopkins asked if Mr. Staples intended to remain
actively involved in the project.
Mr. Staples responded that he was a bond attorney representing the
petitioner and as such would only be involved in the preparation of
the legal documents.
Mr. No].an Browne, FW Development Company, spoke in favor of the
petitioa stating that he would remain functionally and financially
involved during the construction of the project. Mr. Browne
presented the architectural sketch of the proposed mini-warehouses.
No one :spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that the definition of an
Eligible Blighted Area was flexible. In depth information had been
provided to the City Council in the agenda back-up material. Staff
recommended the designation.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to designate as an Eligible Blighted
Area. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 1014.4 acres of land located
south of Highway 380 and west of 1-35. (Z-1610)
Council Member Stephens stated that he felt the annexation
ordinances before the Council should have the vote of the full
Council..
Stephens motion, Chew second to table agenda items 3.A (Z-1610), 3.B
(Z-1611}, 3.C (Z-1612), and 3.D (Z-1613) due to the absence of
Council Member Alford. Motion carried 5 to 1 with Council Member
Barton casting the nay vote.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
restricting parking on Windsor Drive between Locust and Hinkle.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that the Citizens Traffic
Safety Support Commission had recommended the approval of this
ordinance. The staff felt the restriction of parking in this area
would be an advantage for future development.
Council Member Stephens asked if the City would paint the curbs and
put up signs.
Svehla responded that since the painting of curbs was expensive to
repaint and maintain, signs only would be used.
Council Member Hopkins asked why the staff recommended this as there
were not many problems in the area or traffic accidents.
Svehla responded that there was a lot of development in the area.
Council Member Stephens asked who had raised the issue.
Svehla responded the staff had initiated the request.
The following ordinance was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Ten
NO. 84-02
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON THE
NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINDSOR DRIVE BETWEEN LOCUST
AND HINKLE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS: AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "nay", Stephens "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "nay", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried 4 to 2 with Council Members Hopkins and Chew casting the nay
votes.
Mr. Dears Headlee stated that he owned undeveloped land and asked
the Council to leave a portion of Windsor from Carroll to Locust for
parking.
Riddlesperger motion, Barton second to reconsider. Motion failed by
a vote of 3 to 3 with Barton, Stewart, and Stephens casting the nay
votes.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the issuance of City of Denton Certificates of
Obligation, Series 1984.
Mr. Frank Medanich of First Southwest Company, reported that his
firm and McCall, Parkhurst and Horton had been directed by the
Council to prepare the ordinance. Changes were noted on the
document to change from Fort Worth Bank to First State Bank of
Denton as the paying agent. The bid was $420,000 with $63,000 of
contingencies. The ordinance would authorize $550,00 and all CO's
not used would be redeemed. Certificates of Obligation were all due
in 1989.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-03
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF
OBLIGATION
Riddlesperger motion, Barton second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
1. The Council considered a private placement
agreement relative to the Certificates of Obligation.
Hopkins motion, Barton second to approve the agreement. Motion
carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
closing the hearing and levying an assessment on the real and true
owners of property abutting Ridgeway Drive.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that this ordinance was
required to levy the assessment for the abutting property owners.
This assessment provided a vehicle by which the City could
accomplish a paving pro~ec~ at no cost to the City.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-04
AN ORDINANCE CLOSING THE HEARING AND LEVING AN ASSESSMENT
ON THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING THE
STREETS SPECIFIED HEREIN: FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT EACH
AND EVERY PARCEL OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SAID STREETS
City of Denton City Council Minutes '!|
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Eleven
WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED WILL BE SPECIFICALLY BENEFITED
AND ENHANCED IN VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COST
OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS; FIXING A CHARGE AND LIEN AGAINST ALL
SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS
THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE
CERTIFICATES UPON THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAID
WORK; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF PAYMENT OF SUCH
ASSESSMENT, THE RATE OF INTEREST AND THE CONDITIONS OF
DEFAULT.
Hopkins motion, Barton second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Resolutions
A. The Council considered adoption of a resolution
establishing the City of Denton's financial responsibility for the
construction, operation, maintenance and proper closure of the
Mayhill Road sanitary landfill.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that the resolution was a
part of the new regulations in the permitting process. The State
Health Department had asked the City to include this resolution in
its application.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas has applied for a permit
from the Texas Department of Health to operate and maintain a solid
waste facility to be known as the Mayhill Road Landfill site: and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton as part of the permitting
procedure is required to give assurance of the City's financial
responsibility to provide sufficient assets to properly operate the
site and to provide proper closure;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City of Denton, Texas accepts responsbility for
the construction, operation, maintenance and proper closure of the
City's solid waste facility to be known as the Mayhill Road Landfill
site in full compliance with the Texas Department of Health's Solid
Waste Management regulations and all permit conditions issued
pursuant to those regulations.
SECTION II.
That the City accepts full financial responsibility for the
construction, operation, maintenance and proper closure of the above
referenced facility.
SECTION III.
That the City will provide adequate funds for the
construction, operation, maintenance and closure of the above
referenced facility in its annual budgets and will acquire
additional funds from the City's Capital Reserve Fund or other
sources of funding available to the City as may become necessary to
properly construct, maintain, operate and close the above referenced
facility.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Twelve
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 3rd day of January, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be passed.
On roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of a resolution of the
City Council designating an Eligible Blighted Area: making the
findings required by rules of the Texas Economic Development
Commission: and containing other matters relating to the subject.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, by resolution of the City Council (the "Governing
Body"), of the City of Denton, Texas (the "City"), authorized and
approved the creation of the Denton Industrial Development Authority
(the "Corporation" ) as a nonprofit industrial development
corporation under the provisions of the Development Corporation Act
of 1979, Article 5190.6, Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, as
amended (the "Act"); and,
WHEREAS, the Corporation is authorized by the Act to issue
bonds on behalf of the City for the purpose of paying all or a part
of the costs of a "project" as defined in the Act, and to lease or
sell the project or to loan the proceeds of the bonds to finance all
or part of the costs of a project: and,
WHEREAS, the definition of "Project" in the Act includes
the land, buildings, equipment, facilities and improvements (one or
more) found by the Board of Directors of the Corporation to be
required or suitable for the promotion of commercial development and
expansion and in furtherance of the public purposes of the Act, or
for use by commercial enterprises, all as defined in the rules of
the Texas Economic Development Commission (the "Commission" ),
irrespective of whether in existence or required to be acquired or
constructed thereafter, if such project is located in blighted or
economically depressed areas: and,
WHEREAS, as used in the Act, the term "blighted or
economically depressed areas" means those areas and areas
immediately adjacent thereto within a city which by reason of the
presence of a substantial number of substandard, slum, deteriorated.
or deteriorating structures, or which suffer from a high relative
rate of unemployment, or which have been designated and include in
the tax incremental district created under Chapter 694, Acts of the
67th Legislature, First Called Session, 1981 (Article 1066e,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, or any combination of the foregoing,
the City finds and determines, after a hearing, substantially impair
,.~y of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Thirteen
or arrest the sound growth of the City, or constitute an economic or
social liability and are a menace to the public health, safety or
welfare in their present condition and use; and,
WHEREAS, General Rule .00Z(b)(9) of the Texas Economic
Development Commission (the "Commission") as stated in the fourth
printing of Industrial Development Bond Financinq in Texas, sets out
special rules for approval of commercial projects in blighted or
economically depressed areas; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the City desires to
authorize the financing of certain projects for commercial uses as
provided in the Act and the above referenced Rule of the Commission
establishing one or more eligible blighted areas; and,
WHEREAS, the Act requires that notice of a hearing at which
a city considers establishment of an economically depressed or
blighted area shall be posted at the city hall prior to such
hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the notice of such public hearing was published
once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City and notice of the public hearing was posted
at the City Hall on December 29, 1983; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1983, the Governing Body of the
Unit gave notice to the Texas Economic Development Commission of
such public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the notice provided to the Commission and as
published and posted included both a description of the area or
areas proposed by the City to be designated as eligible blighted
areas and the date, time and location of the public hearing
concerning such designation; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was opened and ,held January 3,
1984, in the City Council Chambers, pursuant to the Act and the
Rules of the Commission for the purposes of establishing one or more
eligible blighted areas: and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the City has concluded to
request the Commission to approve projects for commercial uses and
therefore desires to adopt this resolution in compliance with the
requirements of the Act and the Rules; Now, Therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
Section ~. The Governing Body hereby finds, determines and
declares that the area shaded in red on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" to this Resolution shall be declared to be an eligible
blighted area ("EBA") because such area, by reason of the presence
of a substantial number of substandard, slum, deteriorated, or
deteriorating structures and which suffers from a high relative rate
of unemployment or a combination of the foregoing, substantially
impairs or arrests the sound growth of the City, constitute an
economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health,
safety or welfare in its present condition and use. It is expressly
provided that the area "immediately adjacent" to this EBA is
confirmed to encompass only areas one foot in distance from the EBA.
Section 2. The overall objectives of the City for
redevelopment and recovery of the EBA are as follows:
A. To promote the present and prospective health, safety,
rights to gainful employment and general welfare of the
people of the City and the State of Texas.
B. To promote the continued existence, development and
expansion of commerce and industry essential to the
economic growth of the City and the full employment,
welfare and prosperity of its citizens.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Fourteen
C. To encourage the economic growth and stability of the
City by increasing and stabilizing employment
opportunities, significantly increasing and stabilizing the
property tax base and promoting commerce within the City
and the State of Texas.
D. To encourage employment of the inhabitants residing in
the vicinity of the EBA by encouraging employers to locate
pro~ects which will employ such persons in or adjacent to
the EBA.
Section 3. The Governing Body hereby finds, determines,
declares and represents to the Commission that the availability of
financing of pro~ects to be located within or adjacent to the EBA
for commercial uses under the Act will contribute significantly to
the alleviation of the blighted conditions found to exist in the EBA.
Section 4. The Governing Body of the City, in order to
enhance its development efforts, desires and authorizes all
commercial pro~ects that are an integral part of the local economy,
including, but not limited to, office and retail pro~ects. The
commercial pro~ect must contribute to the economic growth of
stability of the Unit by (a) increasing or stabilizing employment
opportunities: (b) increasing or stabilizing the property tax base:
or (c) promoting commerce within the City and the State.
Section 5. The Governing Body of the City will not approve
any pro~ects for commercial uses in or adjacent to the EBA unless
the applicant desiring approval of such pro~ect demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Governing Body that:
A. The project conforms with the limitations, if any,
provided in Section 4 of this Resolution;
B. The pro~ect will significantly contribute to the
fulfillment of the overal~ redevelopment objectives of the
City for the EBA;
C. The pro~ect conforms to the pro~ect approval standards
of the Rules and this Resolution by increasing or
stabilizing employment opportunities, significantly
increasing or stabilizing the property tax base and
promoting commerce within the City and the State; and,
D. The pro~ect is in furtherance of the public purposes
of the Act.
Section 6. The Governing Body of the City hereby
convenants and represents that it will review all pro~ect
descriptions for approval of specific pro~ects for commercial uses
in order to determine whether such projects are consistent with the
City's objectives for redevelopment of the EBA.
Section 7. The Mayor of the City is hereby directed to
provide a certified copy of this Resolution, including all exhibits,
to the Executive Director of the Commission as required by the
Rules. Unless the City shall be notified' by the Commission to the
contrary in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt
of such certified copy of this Resolution, the EBA shall be deemed
accepted by the Commission, and the City and the Corporation may
thereafter approve pro~ects for commercial uses in and adjacent to
the EBA in compliance with the Act, the Rules and this Resolution.
Section 8. This Resolution is adopted for the purposes of
satisfying the conditions and requirements of the Act and the Rules,
and for the benefit of the Corporation, the Unit, the Commission,
the residents of the City and all other interested persons.
Section 9. The Governing Body has considered evidence of
the posting of notice of this meeting and officially finds,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 3, 1984
Page Fifteen
determines, recites and declares that a sufficient written notice of
the date, hour and place of this meeting and of the subject of this
Resolution was posted on the bulletin board at a place convenient to
the public in the City Hall of the U~it for at least seventy-two
(72) hours preceding the scheduled time of such meeting: such place
of posting was readily accessible to the general public at all times
from such time of posting until the scheduled time of such meeting:
and such meeting was opened to the public as required by law at all
times during which this Resolution and the subject matter thereof
were discussed, considered and formally acted upon, all as required
by the Open Meetings Law, Article 6252-17, Vernon's Annotated Texas
Civil Statutes, as amended.
ADOPTED: January 3, 1984
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
Barton motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be passed. On
roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
5. The Council consider the sale of diesel engines.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that a contract had
finally been agreed upon for the sale of the old diesel engines.
Chew motion, Stephens second to approve the sale. Motion carried
unanimously. -
6. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel and board appointments.
7. The following items of new business were suggested:
Council Member Barton asked the staff to cut down the areas for the
Mayhill annexation.
Council Member Barton asked the staff to cut down the annexation
area on the tract east and west of IH-35 to exclude the horse
breeding area.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHAR~b~TE ALLEN, CItY SECRE~~~
1366C
City Council Minutes
January 10, 1984
The Council convened into the Work Session to consider institution
of annexation proceedings on 175 acres of land beginning at the
existing city limits on the north side of Highway 380 E. (Z-1621)
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger: Council
Members Alford, Barton, Chew, Hopkins, and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this annexation
would address the greenbelt issue of Lake Ray Roberts.
Chew motion, Stephens second to institute the annexation
proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Council considered the Emergency Agenda Addendum to
consider an appointment of a member to the City of Denton's
Industrial Development Authority.
City Manager Hartung stated that this appointment would be to fill
the vacancy on the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority
created by the loss of Bill McNary.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to appoint Assistant City Manager
Betty McKean to the vacancy. Motion carried unanimously.
Council then convened into the ~oint meeting with the Public Utility
Board.
PUB MEMBERS
PRESENT: Board Members Coomes, Boyd, Laney, and Herring
3. The Council and the Public Utility Board held a discussion
on the proposed Water/Sewer Rate Ordinance.
City Manager Hartung reported that the City Council had requested
input from the Public Utility Board which was the reason for this
~oint meeting.
Mr. Roland Laney, Public Utility Board Member, stated that the
purpose was to further clarify the board's position on the
water/wastewater rate increases as proposed. The Board was
recommending adoption of the ordinance and would be glad to answer
any questions the City Council had. Laney also stated that the
percentage of the rate increase looked large, but the dollar number
was fairly small. The average water customer would pay $1.70 more
and $3.30 additionally per month for wastewater to the average
customer. Gilbert and Associates had conducted a study and were
instructed by the Public Utility Board to recommend water/wastewater
rates to allow the various utilities to stand alone, or generate
enough income to pay expenses, debt service payments, and the
transfer to the General Fund. The study showed that a 76% increase
would have to be made in the wastewater rates to accomplish this
goal. The Public Utility Board had made judicious cuts and had
eliminated the Water/Wastewater General Fund transfer. A 1% debt
service had been arranged. The new rates would generate enough to
pay the bills and the debt service. The City Council had requested
the Public Utility Board to investigate further efficiencies. Laney
reported that more cuts could be made but the City would be taking a
chance of getting into the situation regarding maintenance which
existed in Fort Worth. Further cuts would affect reliability. The
proposed water rate was pro~ected to have a 1.94 coverage of ratio
on debt service.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 10, 1984
Page Two
With the water/wastewater and electric treated as public utilities,
the total projected revenues would pay the 6% transfer to the General
Fund but this would have to be taken from the electric utility.
Electric rate payers would be subsidizing the water/wastewater rate
payers.
Council Member Stephens asked if utility consumers outside of the
city limits should pay a surcharge.
Council Member Chew responded that this amount would not make up the
subsidy.
Board Member Laney stated that Ranch Estates was connected to the
City of Denton Water/Wastewater, but receives their electric
utilities from Texas Power and Light. The water utility was
breaking even, the wastewater was losing money, and the electric
utility was making money.
Council Member Chew asked if those persons residing in the city
limits who do not use the electric utility could be made to pay a
surcharge.
Laney responded that you could not discriminate against consumers
who were on a different electric utility.
City Manager Hartung stated that he believed that this would be in
violation of the anti-trust laws.
Laney further reported that the Public Utility Board wanted to make
each utility entity autonomous but felt at the present time the PUB
would have to come back to the Council at a future date with another
wastewater rate increase. Laney further stated that the PUB had to
face the fact that to generate the 6% necessary for the utility
transfer, more revenues would have to be generated.
Council Member Chew asked if the 150% surcharge on outside city
users of city utlities would pay the cost of service.
Laney responded yes, however, it was an intangible. It was hard to
say exactly what it cost to provide service outside of the city
limits. The present 150% surcharge was the maximum amount the State
would allow the City of Denton to charge. The board had been very
concerned that the three separate utilities be operated on a prudent
basis to generate the 6% profit to cover debt service and 1.5%
capital expenditures.
Leonard Herring, Board Member, stated that the City Council, as
elected officials, were obligated to see that the rates were
justified. The Public Utility Board had reduced the increases
recommended by Gilbert and Associates and felt that additional cuts
should be made by the City Council. Mr. Herring stated he felt that
the Public Utlity Board had cut the revenues to the bare bone. This
recommendation including a phasing in as opposed to an immediate
increase to the amount necessary to cover the cost of service.
Nancy Boyd, Board Member, stated that she felt that good progress
had been made during the meeting on addressing policy questions.
Ed Coomes, Board Member, referred to the summary sheet of the rate
stating that a rate increase was needed in October.
Laney stated that the City of Denton Water/Wastewater Treatment
Plant was one of the most modern in the State and the City was lucky
to have received a federal grant which had saved many dollars.
Mayor Stewart asked if any of the utility systems in the State would
have to increase rates.
Laney responded yes.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 10, 1984
Page Three
Mayor Stewart stated that over the long run. this would be more cost
effective to the City. Stewart also commended the Public Utility
Board for the work which they had done.
Mayor Stewart then asked Bob Nelson. Director of Utilities. if he
was satisfied with the plan.
Nelson responded that the staff would be watching the budget very
closely for the next six to seven months. Nelson also stated that
three months of the current fiscal year had already passed and that.
depending on the weather, it would be difficult to generate the
revenues.
Council Member Stephens commended the Public Utility Board on the
good presentation and stated that he would like to have had this
presentation prior to the public hearing. Stephens also asked what
types of cuts were made.
Nelson responded that there are a number of areas which were cut
from the capital improvements program including backhoes, extra
crews, and dump trucks,
Council Member Stephens asked if that would not have a crippling
effect.
Nelson responded it would not but work would be delayed.
Leonard Herring of the board stated that the need was still there
but all could not be done in 1984.
Council Member Hopkins asked how the water/wastewater utility had
gotten so far behind,
Nelson responded that this was not too far off in the water utility
and that an adjustment should have been made last year. The first
debt service payment had come due at the end of last fiscal year.
Mayor Stewart asked when the Water/Wastewater Plant had come on
line.
Nelson responded that the bonds were issued and the payments were
due when the plant had begun working.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the staff or Gilbert and Associates
had assumed the same number of customers or had potential growth
been factored in.
Nelson responded that it had been factored in.
Council Member Hopkins asked how the revenues were looking in all
three of the utilities.
Nelson reported the electric utility was well up and the City had
sold more water. The wastewater utility was approximately where the
staff had expected it to be,
City Manager Hartung reported that the City had experienced three
unusually warm, wet winters,
Council Member Hopkins stated that the staff needed to look at all
three utilities and philosophically felt the need to make all three
utilities pay for themselves, but he did not feel at the present
time this could be accomplished.
Hartung reponded this could not be done without the utility bond
refunding last spring.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 10, 1984
Page Four
Council Member Hopkins stated the staff should be looking at
transferring overage from the electric utility to the water and
wastewater. If rates continued at this pace, it would drive up the
cost on water/wastewater and could reduce power costs. If an
overage existed, it could be applied to the water/wastewater
utilities and could reduce some customer rates and city users.
Hopkins stated he philosophically agreed on the stand alone concept
for the three utilities but did not see how this could be done right
away.
Laney responded that the Public Utility Board would like to discuss
at a future ~oint meeting with the City Council the TMPA future
charges and the separation of the three City of Denton Utilities.
City Manager read a portion of a charter regarding a transfer of
funds which stated that if retained earnings remained on the balance
sheet, this transfer could be accomplished.
Laney stated that the Council and the Public Utility Board needed to
examine the good and the bad points of autonomy among the three
utilities. Laney also stated this would be very easy if all the
customers used the same amount of water every month but he did not
feel that customers who used only one utility should subsidize the
water and wastewater which might be a utility they did not use.
Council Member Chew asked about demand charges.
Nelson responded this raised the question of equitability between
the classes of customers and costs would vary by the size of the
meter.
Council Member Stephens asked about people who used sprinkler
systems since the wastewater usage was based on returned water.
Nelson responded that this had been factored in and would take an
average of the November, December, and January bills.
4. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
No new items of business were suggested for future agendas.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Char l'oftwe~ ~11 en~
City Secretary
1384C
City Council Minutes
January 17, 1984
The Council convened into the work session at the Service Center to
view a presentation and receive a report on the City of Denton's
Economic Development Program.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger:
Council Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins and
Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City
Secretary
MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Barton was out of town
handling a law case
1. Assistant City Manager Betty McKean welcomed members of the
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Team and stated that the
members of the City Council had seen a preview of the slide show
presentation at the National League of Cities conference in New
Orleans. The slide show was the culmination of efforts and the
staff felt it was very marketable, copies of the slide show would
be available for public use. The video slide presentation was then
shown.
McKean distributed the Economic Development Fact Books stating that
the books would be turned over to the Chamber of Commerce. Site
plans would be available for realtors and the contents of the books
would be updated annually. McKean pointed out the development
checklist in the fact books which gave a step by step process for
development activities. McKean also reported that the advertisement
with the East Texas Chamber of Commerce had resulted in 125
responses.
Council Member Stephens stated that he felt the checklist was an
excellent idea and should be given to developers on the first
inquiry on zoning.
McKean added the checklist would help to streamline the process
through City departments.
Council Member Alford stated that he wanted the Chamber of Commerce
to know that the reception for the slide presentation at the
National League of cities conference was phenomenal.
Roy Appleton, Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Team,
commended Assistant City Manager McKean and the City staff on the
presentation and the Fact Book. Appleton stated this was a pro~ect
which would bear fruit in the future for the City of Denton. He
also thanked the City Council for helping to provide the funds to
make this possible.
Mayor Stewart stated that he had been working with pro~ects of this
nature of 15 years and this was the best he had ever seen. Denton
could benefit from the cooperation between the Chamber and the
Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that he had not anticipated that
the presentation would be so good and expected a new vigor in the
economic development program for Denton.
2. The Council then considered Phase II of the Fixed Asset
Inventory Pro~ect.
City Manager Hartung reported that the staff had been talking about
the development of a fixed asset inventory control system for a long
time. During the recent computer conversion, this pro~ect had been
put on a back burner. A survey had been done to determine the
magnitude of the project. Phase I was now complete and planning had
been done for Phase II.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 17, 1984
Page Two
Julie Nelson, representative of Arthur Andersen, detailed the
findings of Phase I, the Scope Definition. (A copy of the report on
the Scope Definition Project is attached to and made a part of these
Minutes.)
Council Member Chew asked what the total estimate was for the fee to
Arthur Andersen.
Ms. Nelson responded approximately $250,000 to $300,000 plus the
software costs.
Mr. Schmidt of Arthur Andersen stated that the cost could be reduced
if the City could provide additional staff for the Phase II portion.
Mayor Stewart asked how many representatives from Arthur Andersen
would be assigned to the project.
Ms. Nelson responded it would be a team approach with 3 people from
Arthur Andersen and 1 from the City.
Mayor Stewart asked if Arthur Andersen had done any preliminary
studies using a City staff member.
City Manager Hartung reported that staff would be involved in
actually identifying City equipment and tagging. This was a very
complex procedure with information required from many sources. It
would be necessary to know where to account for fixed assets as well
as conducting a physical inventory. This had not been done before
due to the size of the project. A work order system needed to be
done, especially in Utilities, as 80% of the City's fixed assets
were in that department.
Mayor Stewart questioned the cost of maintenance of the system once
in place.
Ms. Nelson responded that Arthur Andersen would have a better idea
of the maintenance cost after the design.
Council Member Hopkins asked the City Manager if he felt this
project was absolutely necessary.
City Manager Hartung responded that during the water/wastewater rate
study, Gilbert and Associates had commented that they could not tie
back exact costs because of the lack of a fixed asset system.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the system would not be impossible
to maintain.
Ms. Nelson replied that maintainability would be a prime concern in
setting up the system.
Council Member Chew asked if this would affect the City's bond
rating.
City Manager Hartung responded that he could not say that the lack
of a fixed asset system would affect the bond rating; however, it
could cause a problem in obtaining the certificate of compliance
from ~4FOA. Hartung summarized by stating that he wanted the Council
to see the whole project so there would be no surprises. The work
order system needed to be done and the fixed asset system could be
done later but did need to be done.
Mayor Stewart stated that perhaps one solution would be to look only
at the larger assets rather than tables and chairs. He felt an
appropriate action would be to proceed with the next step and then
reassess.
The consensus of the Council was to bring this item back at a future
date.
I,,LI -' 0
i~ u.. 0
P?
33
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 17, 1984
Page Three
3. The discussion of the City health insurance program was
deferred to the 7:00 session.
4. The Council held a discussion on the annexation of
approximately 53 acres of land proposed for single family
residential development located on the east side of Highway 377
south of Brush Creek Road.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that one-half of the
parcel was inside the City limits and one-half was out.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to proceed with annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
5. The Council received a report on the status of grants.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that several grants had been awarded to various City departments,
such as the Library, sewer plant, Parks and Recreation Department,
Police Department and the Airport. The Airport had received more
grants than any other airport in the state. This was the first year
that Denton was an entitlement city for Community Development Block
Grant funds and would automatically receive a grant. Meyer stated
that old projects under this grant should be completed as the City
had made a commitment to those neighborhoods.
Council Member Hopkins asked what the level of funding for the CDBG
would be this year,
Meyer responded that the City would be notified toward the end of
January or the first of February but the total grants would be for
approximately $650,000 per year.
6. Due to lack of time, the Council did not receive a report
on south Denton residential development on property zoned for higher
use.
7. Due to lack of time, the Council did not convene into an
Executive Session.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger:
Council Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins and
Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City
Secretary
MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Barton was out of town
handling a law case
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of November 15, 1983 and the Special Called Meeting
of November 22, 1983.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9209 - Drainage and paving of Ridgeway Drive
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 17, 1984
Page Four
2. Bid ~ 9219 - Ambulance
3. Bid # 9220 - Switches for Electrical Distribution
4. Bid # 9221 - Transformer bases
5. Bid # 9223 - Concrete slab
6. Bid # 9224 - Roll-off refuse vehicle (truck)
7. Bid # 9225 - Water and sewer supplies
8. Bid ~ 9230 - PVC conduit 5"
9. Purchase Order # 61209 to MAPCO, Inc., in the
amount of $3,590.00 -
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of the preliminary plat of lots A and B,
Denton Square Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of the final replat of part of lots 1
and 2, of the First Installation of the Carroll
Park Addition. (The Planning and zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. Approval of the final replat of part of lot 9,
block 4, of the College Addition. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consideration of approval of Phase II of the Fixed Asset
Inventory Project was withdrawn from the agenda by staff.
4. Ordinances
Mayor Stewart moved items 4.C, 4.D, 4.E and 4.F forward on the
agenda as several citizens were in the audience concerning these
issues.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 1014.4 acres of land located
south of Highway 380 and west of 1-35. (Z-1610)
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that the last day the
Council could take action was February 7.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to table items 4.C (Z-1610), 4.D
(Z-1611), 4.E (Z-1612), and 4.F (1613) due to the absence of Council
Member Barton. Motion to table carried unanimously.
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter Four (4) of the Code of Ordinances to revise the
definitions of stray animals and establishing mandatory animal
registration.
Bill Angelo, Senior Administrative Assistant, reported that the
first change proposed for the animal control ordinance was the
defining of the term "stray" which would have the effect of a leash
law. The second change would be mandatory pet registration.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked what was the change in the leash
law portion.
Angelo responded that at the present time, an animal must physically
leave its owners property before there is a violation.
Council Member Hopkins asked if this change was legal.
City Attorney Taylor responded yes; this amendment would provide for
a real leash law in that the animal must be confined in a pen or
yard or on a leash. At the present time if someone observed a pet
off of his owner's property but the pet had returned home when the
Animal Control officers arrived, the officers could not issue a
citation.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 17, 1984
Page Five
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second that the ordinance be adopted.
Council Member Stephens asked if the animal registration program was
only to increase revenues.
Angelo responded that it was also requested to ensure public health
threats caused by rabid animals and to alleviate administrative
problems in Animal Control in addition to the revenue.
Council Member Stephens stated that a previous rabies problem was
caused by real stray animals and not dogs which were owned.
Stephens further stated that some dog owners have their animals
trained not to leave the yard whether they were leashed or not.
This registration fee appeared to be another tax.
Council Member Chew stated that it was not just another tax as it
would be hard to say which dogs were trained and which were not.
Council Member Hopkins stated that it appeared to be a little harsh
to restrain an animal which was in its own yard.
Angelo reported that when Animal Control officers receive a
complaint it would take a few minutes to respond. An animal could
leave the yard, wander about and return to the yard before the
officers arrived.
Council Member Hopkins stated this was a follow-up to the budget,
but the redefinition of "strays" had not been discussed.
Dr. Garretto local veterinarian, stated that the dog tax issue had
been discussed at a veterinarians meeting and the vote was
unanimously to oppose. Dr. Garrett praised the job done by Animal
Control and stated that she realized they could use more money but
the dog tax was not the answer. People who let dogs run loose do
not buy tags. It seemed that the wrong people were being charged.
Council Member Chew asked if Dr. Garret was in favor of the lease
law but not the registration fee.
Garrett responded that she was in favor of the lease law and higher
fees for strays but also felt that cats could not be treated as dogs
because you could not successfully keep a cat on a lease.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated the objection was a dog
registration as a collectible fee but everyone was in agreement with
stiffer fines for dogs who run loose.
Staff was directed to bring back to the Council a list of fines.
Council Member Chew withdrew the motion to adopt the ordinance.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to table until the staff reported
on fine structure and removed cats from the leash law.
Council Member Hopkins also requested a report on the amount of
revenue from the registration program which had been pro~ected in
the budget.
Motion to table passed unanimously.
B. The Council considered adotion of an ordinance
approving an amendment to planned development (PD-50) to permit an
approximately 20' x 60' handball/racquetball recreational facility
on a site presently approved for playground use. Planned
development (PD-50) is the site of the Ramsgate multi-family
development which begins at the northeast corner of Bernard and
Lindsey Streets.
The item had been previously approved by the Council.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 17, 1984
Page Six
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY AMENDING AND
REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 83-06, RELATING TO THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT NO. 50 PROVIDING FOR THE ADDITION THERETO OF A
HANDBALL/RACQUETBALL RECREATIONAL FACILITY, AS THE SAME
APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 8.956 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE
ALEXANDER HILL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 623, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS: AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
reinstating the Data Processing Advisory Board until January 19,
1986.
Gary Collins, Director of Data Processing, reported that original
ordinance creating the Data Processing Advisory Board contained a
two year "sunset" clause. For the board to continue another
ordinance would have to be adopted. The ordinance before the
Council would extend the board in a functioning advisory capacity to
the Council and staff. The new ordinance called for the board to
meet on an "as needed" basis rather than monthly.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the board had been very helpful
and he would hate to see it disbanded.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-06
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, CREATING A "DATA
PROCESSING ADVISORY BOARD" AND PROVIDING FOR THE
APPOINTMENT AND MEMBERSHIP: PROVIDING FOR POWERS AND
DUTIES: PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance with the
deletion of the "sunset" clause. On roll call vote Hopkins "aye",
Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and
Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an amendment to the
Code of Ordinances, Section 2132-35 concerning the replacement of
sidewalks within the City.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that the current ordinance
provided for an assessment of costs and the holding of a public
hearing. The landowner bore the full cost of sidewalk replacement
with the exception of any grading work. Six cities had been
surveyed and four required the landowner to pay the entire amount,
one city divided the cost 50/50 and one city paid the entire
amount. The City Street Department has reviewed the cost and
believed that landowners would agree to paying some of the cost. As
the City had the manpower, the City would provide the labor and the
landowner would pay for the materials. This would eliminate the
assessment and public hearing requirements. The staff would
contract with the landowners for the replacement.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked about new sidewalk construction.
City of Denton City Council Minutes o
Meeting of ,January 17, 1984
Page Seven
Svehla responded that the staff could review that. Most requests
had been for replacement of small portions and he felt that new
sidewalks could best by handled by the bid process.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ADDING A NEW
DIVISION 3, SECTIONS 21-37, 21-38, AND 21-39 THERETO,
RELATING TO REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND
GUTTERS BY AGREEMENT OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER TO PAY
FOR COST OF MATERIALS, PROVIDING CRITERIA FOR SIDEWALK
REPLACEMENT AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously,
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
repealing Ordinance 83-132 relating to the consumption of alcoholic
beverages in motor vehicles.
City Attorney Taylor reported that the proposed ordinance would
repeal the "open container" ordinance. This was in response to an
Attorney General's opinion which concluded that it was the
responsibility of the state to pass legislation relating to the
control of alcoholic beverages.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-08
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 83-132 RELATING TO THE
CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance.
Mayor Stewart stated that he had written letters to the State
legislators regarding the City of Denton's open containers ordinance
and received an excellent response. He was opposed to having an
unenforcable ordinance on the books; however, he could not vote to
repeal.
Council Member Chew stated that the Council must deal with the
legality of the ordinance and also the liability of the issue. The
Council should petition the legislators to pass a state law.
Council Member Stephens asked if the City had a liability if the
ordinance was not repealed.
Taylor responded stating that the City did not have the jurisdiction
to enforce the ordinance. The liability came in having an ordinance
which you did not try to enforce. The Attorney General had ruled
the ordinance was not valid, the City should response in good faith
by repealing.
Council Member Stephens asked how other cities who had passed
similar open container ordinances were responding to the Attorney
General's opinion,
Taylor responded other cities were repealing their ordinances.
Council Member Hopkins stated that it did not behoove the City to
place itself in a liability situation. The Council could pass a
resolution in support of a state statute.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 17, 1984
Page Eight
City Manager Hartung stated that this was a very serious issue.
From an administrative standpoint, if the ordinance was
unenforceable it should taken off the books. The City had been
informed that this should be a state statute. The Council should
communicate to the State Senators and Representatives that Denton
had tried but had been forced to repeal the ordinance and bring
pressure for a state law or local option.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that he agreed. The City of
Denton was on record as being absolutely opposed to drinking while -
driving. Having been told by a higher authority that the ordinance
could not be enforced, there was no choice but to repeal.
Mayor Stewart agreed that he did not feel the ordinance could be
enforced but the feedback which he had received from legislators had
been positive and he felt this issue should be pursued.
Council Member Chew agreed with City Manager Hartung that the
ordinance should be repealed first to avoid any liability problems
and then a campaign for state passage should be launched.
Council Member Hopkins reported that he had been a Council voting
representative to the National League of cities conference and that
the Texas Municipal League was pushing this issue in Texas.
Pressure would be brought to bear for the passage of state open
container laws and also to raise the minimum drinking age.
On roll call vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "nay", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "nay". Motion
carried 4 to 2 with Stephens and Stewart casting the nay votes.
5. Resolutions
A. The consideration of approval of a resolution that
would allow County Commissioners to do work on streets within the
City of Denton was withdrawn at the request of County Judge Buddy
Cole.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to sign and submit to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development a final statement of objectives and
pro~ected use of funds with appropriate certifications, as
authorized and required by the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that the resolution would
allow the City to incur costs associated with the Community
Development Block Grant prior to the award of the grant. This was
possible since Denton was now an entitlement city.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN AND SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT A FINAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF
FUNDS WITH APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATIONS, AS AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED BY
THE HOUSING AND COMbTUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas. is concerned with the
development of viable urban communities, including decent housing, a
suitable living enviroment and expanded economic opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, has a special concern
for persons of low and moderate income; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, as an entitlement City,
has prepared, through a citizen participation process, a program for
utilizing its first year entitlement funds in the approximate amount
of $610,000: and
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~
Meeting of January 17, 1984 4!
Page Nine
WHEREAS, a public hearing will have been held in accordance
with the law; and
WHEREAS, the Act requires an application and appropriate
certification:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Denton,
Texas, authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development a grant application and
appropriate assurance for entitlement funds under the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended.
SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Denton,
Texas, authorizes the Director of Planning and Community Development
to handle all fiscal and administrative matters related to the
application, the Housing Assistance Plan and the assurances.
SECTION 3. That this Resolution shall take effect
immediately from and after its passage.
SECTION 4. That the City Secretary is hereby authorized to
furnish copies of this Resolution to all interested parties.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 17th day of January, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be passed. On roll
call vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
6. The Council considered approval of a construction and
maintenance agreement for bridge replacement on Masch Branch Road
with the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that the City had been
notified that funds would be available for the bidding of bridge
design. The City would pay for 20% of the bridges to be designed
and built by the State Highway Department,
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the agreement. Motion
carried unanimously.
7. The Council held a discussion of the City health insurance
program.
Kathryn Usrey, Personnel Administrator, reported that the City had
had a self-insured program for 5 years. Rates had been raised only
3 times during those 5 years. Rates had recently had to be raised
due to large increases in the number and amount of claims. Meetings
had been held with City employees regarding the rate increases and
the reaction had been that the 2.5% pay increase had been consumed
by the insurance rates.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 17. 1984
Page Tpn
The City work force had 74 employees between the ages of 50 and 65
representing 135 dependents. If an estimate was made of 5 retirees
per year over 10 years, the number of retirees became significant.
The staff recommendation was not to change the present insurance
plan. If the Council wanted coverage for retirees, further guidance
would be needed by St~ff in preparing a proposal.
Council Member Chew asked if any retired employees were now covered
under the old policy.
Usrey responded that 18 retired employees had been "grandfathered"
into the old policy.
Council Member Chew asked if these would still be covered under the
new plan.
Usrey responded yes.
Council Member Hopkins asked about the possibility of separating the
City employees and the retirees into two different groups and
investigating an HMO for retirees. The staff had been looking at
standard policies and suggested they look at new ideas.
Usrey stated that the staff had considered separating the employees
from the retirees but the insurance firms would not consider the
retiree group due to the age factor. The HMO in Lewisville was not
certified- at the present time. When the certification was
completed, the staff would check into that as an option.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if employees were dropped from the
insurance coverage when they retired.
Usrey responded that they could convert the policy. No physical
examination was required, but the premiums were high.
Mayor Stewart asked how many City employees retired before the age
of 65.
Usrey replied that she did not know,
Mayor Stewart stated that he had retired at age 60 and his insurance
was reduced until the age of 65 when Medicare took effect.
Council Member Stephens thanked Ms. Usrey for the report and stated
that perhaps the employees who had given faithful service to the
City could receive service credits towards insurance coverage. The
HMO might be another alternative.
City Manager Hartung stated that the City employees had been briefed
regarding the insurance. The staff was looking to controlling costs
through better medical shopping and wellness.
Council Member Chew instructed the staff to look into the ~40
alternative for 50, 55 and 60 year olds.
7. There was no official action on Executive Session Items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel or board appointments.
8. New Business
The following items of new business were suggested:
Council Member Chew asked the staff to prepare a resolution urging
the state legislators to pass an open container law.
Council Member Stephens asked to give a report on the clean city
efforts in the metroplex.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 17, 1984
Page Eleven
With no further business the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLOTTE~ ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
1368C
City Council Minutes
January 24, 1984
The Council convened into the special called meeting to consider
adoption of the water/wastewater rate ordinance,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger:
Council Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins, and
Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City
Secretary
MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Barton was out on town
handling a law case
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, stated that the Council had had
an opportunity to receive a presentation on the proposed rates by
Gilbert and Associates and had met in a ~oint session with the
Public Utility Board. Nelson also stated that he would be glad to
review the rates again if that was the Council's wish.
Mayor Stewart asked Nelson to go through the sewer charges again and
explain the reasons for the 79% increase.
Nelson stated that there was a $14,000,000 investment in the sewer
system. Ten million was invested in the water/wastewater treatment
plant and interceptor lines and four million was invested in the
Hickory Creek sewer line and lift station. At the last increase
only a portion of the bonds had been sold and Utilities was now
having to pay debt service. Other factors were the increases in
labor costs and more maintenance items. The cost of service for
each system (water, wastewater and electric) was looked at in the
first proposal. This would require a 78% increase in wastewater
rates. The Public Utility Board had directed the staff to phase in
the increase. The 6% utility system transfer had been deleted.
Mayor Stewart stated that he had asked the question to bring out
that the increase was due to debt service and increases in meeting
operating costs only and did not include the transfer.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the utility systems would be able to
make ends meet and how much money was directly attributable to the
City's use, or how much was the City paying itself.
Charles Cryan, Utility Department, responded that the total revenues
generated by the increase would be from $16,700 to $17,200 for
wastewater utilities. Intragovernmental increases would be from
$23,400 to $83,000.
Council Member Alford stated that basically the increase would
realize the debt service. Alford asked if the staff had estimated
future needs.
Nelson replied that the City should now have the capability to serve
90,000 residents. That should take the City until the year 2000.
Alford then stated the residents should not be mislead regarding the
sewer lines. There were still old sewer lines in town but the
wastewater treatment plant was in good shape.
Mayor Stewart added that most cities around Denton would face water
and wastewater problems in the near future.
City Manager Hartung reported that other cities would not receive
the same amount of grant money as Denton had for future wastewater
treatment plants.
Council Member Stephens asked about the proposed water rates stating
that they would put Denton in a higher charge range, such as
McKinney.
Nelson cautioned that you must be careful in comparing water rates,
Carrollton buys treated water while Lewisville and Denton buy raw
water. Carrollton was not competitive with Denton on the proposed
rates. Newer and developing cities were close to Denton rate-wise.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 24, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Stephens asked what commercial rates increased by a
different percentage.
Nelson responded that these were based on the cost of service
study. One had to look at the cost components in fixed charges.
Either the residential or commercial accounts would pay a larger
percentage. The purpose of the cost of service system was to not
penalize one class to subsidize another.
Council Member Stephens asked if non-taypaying customers would fall
into the commercial category.
Nelson responded yes. There would be a flat rate across with no
drop in the rate of larger users.
Council Member Chew asked if the implementation of the new rates
could be delayed to allow citizens to recover from the high water
bills due to the cold weather.
Nelson stated that if the implementation were delayed, the new rates
would go into effect at the same time usage would increase in the
spring months.
Council Member Hopkins stated that if delayed, the revenues would
not be collected and the effect would be that the utility systems
would get further behind their budget pro~ections.
Council Member Stephens stated that the costs existed and the only
question was from where the costs would be paid.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council needed to look at all
of the utilities. It would be nice to have them stand alone but
this might have to be phased in over 2 to 3 years.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated the utilities should be separate
and self-supporting.
Council Member Stephens asked what effect development along the new
sewer lines would have on future increases.
Nelson responded that this was a bright spot as the debt service was
already in place.
Council Member Stephens asked if there were any surprises such as
demand charges.
Nelson replied he hoped not. The staff was looking at the cost of
service for each meter. Mobile home rates were not included in the
last rate increase. There were approximately 800 mobile home units
located outside of the City limits who used City of Denton sewer
lines.
Council Member Hopkins asked in what category were hotels and motels.
Nelson responded that were in the commercial class. Charges would
be based on average usage.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-09
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, SECTION 25-60 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PERTAINING TO
WATER RATES AND CHARGES; AMENDING SECTION 25-49 OF CHAPTER
25 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PERTAINING TO
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
city of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 24, 1984
Page Three
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye"," Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
C~R~OTT~ ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
1369C
City Council Minutes
January 31, 1984
The Council convened into the Special Called meeting at 5:00 p.m. at
Flow Hospital to meet with the County Commissioners, Flow Hospital
Board of Directors and the Hospital Administrator to discuss Flow
Hospital.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger; Council
Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins, and Stephens
City Manager, Assistant City Attorney and City
Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member Barton was ~andling a law case out
of town.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
The following official action on Executive Session board appointments
was taken.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to appoint Mr. Stanley Monroe to the Flow
Hospital Board of Directors. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council had been concerned regarding
the loss report which had appeared in the newspaper.
Judge Cole then stated that this was a discussion item only and that
no action would be taken.
Mary Williams, Flow Hospital Board of Directors, stated that the
Board was equally surprised at the audit report which had been
received on January 19.
Jeff Hausler, Flow Administrator, handed out copies of the audit
report which had been prepared by the firm of Peat, Warwick and
Mitchell. Hausler reported that assets had declined from $3.5
million to $3.1 million. Fixed assets had declined due to
depreciation, accounts payable had declined, but accrued expenses
had increased.
Council Member Chew asked about the "doubtful accounts" category: how
did the hospital establish these as doubtful to be collected.
Hausler responded that the audit firm determined these accounts by
trends from month to month.
Council Member Chew asked what procedure was now being used to
collect accounts.
Hausler responded that 6 months before, there had been no system to
collect accounts. There was no structure to follow-up on delinquent
accounts. A step by step structure had been implemented with a staff
person to follow-up on only old accounts.
Council Member Stephens asked at what point were accounts written
off.
Hausler responded that the collection process was completed and if
still not paid, the accounts were written off in 120 days.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the trend in collections still
prevailed. After the last meeting which had been held with Flow
Board members, the Council had felt the situation was improving.
Hopkins expressed shock at the newspaper article on the audit report.
Hausler replied that the new collection system had been implemented
just before the previcus meeting and the results were just now being
seen.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 31, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Hopkins asked if patients were being screened prior to
admission to the hospital.
Hausler replied this could be done and had been initiated.
Mayor Stewart asked if a report was being made to the Flow Board of
Directors on a monthly basis°
Hausler responded yes.
Mayor Stewart stated that a change had been made in the report. The
previous reports reflected when a payment to the hospital had been
made and not when the patient had been dismissed.
Don Hill, County Auditor, asked how the hospital administration
planned on paying back the deficit.
Hausler responded the hospital had been working on a month to month
basis during the last year. The $670,000 payback to Medicare/
Medicaid was now due.
Hill asked since this was a nationwide problem, would the Federal
Government make provisions for the payback.
Hausler replied no: the money was due on March 9 and there would be
heavy financial penalties for delayed payment.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that the County and City would
have to look at a tax to support the hospital.
Judge Cole responded that the County was looking for the City to do
their part in the support of Flow. -
Wallace Batey, County Commissioner, stated that now there were two
political entities with joint responsibility for the hospital.
Batey felt that the hospital should be under only one entity and
that the County should take it over.
Judge Cole stated that the City Council and the County Commissioners
should get together and discuss how to help Flow Hospital.
Bill Switzer, County Commissioner, stated he believed a non-binding
referendum election should be held on the hospital district tax
issue.
A discussion followed on various options and opinions on the funding
of the hospital in the future and the Medicare/Medicaid payment.
With no official action to be taken and no further business, the
meeting was adjourned.
0575g
City Council Minutes 7-~'
February 7, 1984
The Council convened into a joint work session with the Planning and
Zoning Commission to consider approval of initiation ef annexation
proceedings on the latest proposed mobile home developments.
COUNCIL MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger;
Council Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins, and
Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member Barton was out of town handling a
law case
P&Z MEMBERS
PRESENT: Juren, Claiborne, Escue and Sidor
P&Z MEMBERS
ABSENT: LaForte, Pearson, and Cole
1. Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that the staff
had discussed developments in the extra-territorial jurisdiction
near the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Some mobile home parks and
some site built homes were in various stages of development in this
area. There also were developers proposing a 32 acre mobile home
park near the Solar Way Addition. The land in the south extra-
territorial jurisdiction was less expensive and therefore attracted
more attention from prospective developers.
Watkins also stated that the City of Lewisville had limited mobile
homes in its extra-territorial jurisdiction to 10% of the housing
stock. Two petitions for mobile home subdivisions in Lewisville had
been denied as the 10% limit had been met. The proposed mobile home
parks in Denton's extra-territorial jurisdiction would be targeted
to those persons who worked in south Denton County or north Dallas
County and could commute from Denton,
The staff presented several option for actions to ensure controlled
growth:
1. Legislative changes in Austin
2. Do nothing (would benefit the city through retail sales)
3. County could upgrade their standards
4. Apply city subdivision standards in the extra-territorial
jurisdiction
a, A legal opinion had been requested - this could be
done by ordinance amendment
b. Disadvantages to extending city subdivision rules and
regulations into the extra-territorial jurisdiction -
there would be increased developmental costs and would
require additional staff time to review plats
5. Annexation procedures:
a. Conduct a large annexation - this would allow
approval or denial of individual petitions for
developments, would discourage leap-frog
development, would ensure that all developments
would meet city standards, and would bring
developments under the new mobile home ordinance
b. Disadvantages to large annexation - the city
would be responsible for existing developments in
the area and would have to provide city services
such as Fire and Police protection, street
maintenance, animal control services and garbage
pick-up
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Two
c. Conduct a limited annexation - this would allow
the city to bring in areas now which were prime
for future development and would give the city
zoning authority
6. Revise utility extension policies (oversizing participation
agreements)
The staff recommendations were to impose the subdivision rules and
regulations into the extra-territorial ~urisdiction and to conduct
limited annexations, especially of proposed mobile home parks.
Council Member Hopkins asked why the staff now felt the subdivision
rules and regulations could be enforced in the extra-territorial
~urisdiction,
Watkins responded that this was based on an Attorney General's
opinion and a legal opinion on dual city/county standards had been
requested from the City Attorney.
Council Member Hopkins stated he had the same question regarding
oversizing: how could the city require a developer to put in an 8"
line when they only would use a 4" line,
City Attorney C. J. Taylor responded that the opinion did not apply
to standards such as inches of asphalt on the street, etc. The city
could regulate the development if it was a subdivision with a plat
filed with the County Clerk.
Mr. Sidor, P&Z Member, stated the subdivision rules and regulations
should be extended into the extra-territorial jurisdiction if that
indeed was possible.
Chew motion to institute annexation proceedings on the area
extending to the flood plain and to proceed with applying the
subdivision rules and regulations in the extra-territorial
jurisdiction.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that he was interested in all
developments meeting City of Denton standards but not in annexing
farm lands. Riddlesperger second. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Stephens voiced an endorsement from the Council to
the Planning and Zoning Commission to look into the possible need
for a Sign Code Board.
Sidor, P&Z Member, stated the P&Z would need to consider what would
be the purpose of such a board. First, an ordinance must be
prepared. The P&Z would work with staff to write the ordinance.
Council Member Stephens stated when the sign ordinance was approved,
this would be the controlling board,
Sidor responded that a public hearing had been held, staff had taken
input and had prepared a draft ordinance. At the last public
hearing, all of the responses had been negative. If the Council
only looked at what was said at that hearing, there would be no need
for a sign ordinance,
Council Member Chew stated that perhaps the possible liabilities of
the sign ordinance should be investigated by a committee.
Gary Juren, P&Z Member, stated that, contrary to input from the
public hearing, he had not been convinced that portable signs
increased commerce.
The Council convened into Executive Session to consider legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Three
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting in the Council
Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger;
Council Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins, and
Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member Barton was out of town handling a
law case
1. Consent Agenda
Council Member Stephens asked that items 1.D.2. and 1.D.3. be
removed from the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger requested item 1.B.4. be removed from
the Consent Agenda.
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second to approve the Consent Agenda
except items 1.D.2, 1.D.3, and 1.B.4. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that he had received a call from
Mr. Rogers regarding drainage problems with the Mesquite Ridge
development but all questions had been resolved.
Council Member Stephens asked if both contracts on the Consent
Agenda were for City Hall, and if so, why were there two separate
contracts.
Ann Bingman, Program Administrator, stated that two different issues
were being addressed: one contract was for the space planning and
the other was for interior design which would try to incorporate
staff's needs and wishes.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Council would have an
opportunity to see the plans for the renovations before construction
began.
Bingman responded yes.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve item 1.B.4. Motion
carried unanimously.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve items 1.D.2 and 1.D.3.
Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid 9 9135A - Lease/purchase of equipment bid ~
9224 refuse truck
2. Bid # 9222 - Insecticides/herbicides
3. Bid ~ 9226 - Refuse containers
4. Bid # 9227 - Four cubic yard compactor
5. Bid ~ 9228 - Wood pole treatment
6. Bid 9 9229 - Saw and valve operator
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Four
7. Bid % 9232 - Three-wheel police vehicles
8. Bid ~ 9233 - Refuse packer body
9. Bid ~ 9235 - Turf fertilizer
10. Bid # 9236 - Roof replacement
11o Bid % 9241 - Fire boots and helmets
12. Purchase Order ~ 61590 to JS Equipment
13. Purchase Order ~ 61938 to Texas Waste Management,
Inc. for the use of the DFW landfill
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Bent Oak
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
2. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Bentwood
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
3. Approval of the preliminary plat of lot 1, block
1, Jones Addition° (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of the final replat of the Mesquite
Ridge Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
5. Approval of the final replat of lots 1-11, block
1, Northridge Subdivision. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
6. Approval of the final replat of the west one half
of lot 3, block i1, of the Alex Robertson
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
C. Payments:
1. Consider approval of Community Development Block
Grant Pro~ect payment for work completed in the
amount of $9,912.80.
Contracts:
1. Consider approval of a contract (Purchase Order ~
61813) with the City of Farmers Branch for the
use of the Camelot landfill°
2. Consider approval of a contract with Jerry Wright
for planning and design services in connection
with the Municipal Building renovation pro~ects.
3. Consider approval of a contract with Catherine
Conrady for planning and design services in
connection with the Municipal Building renovation
pro~ects.
2. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
the First Church of the Nazarene requesting a variance of Article
III, Section 4.09, subsection (A), of the Denton Subdivision
Regulations and Land Development Code. The petitioners were seeking
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Five
plat approval and a building permit for the construction of a
church, and the above provision required the extension of water and
sewer mains across the full width of the development lot in such an
alignment that it can be extended to the next property in accordance
with the master water and sewer plans of the city. The subject
property was 2.1138 acre triangular shaped parcel located adjacent
and south of Hercules Lane, adjacent and west of Sherman Drive (FM
428), and adjacent and east of lots 1-5, block 18, Royal Acres
Addition, Section 5. (V-2)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor of the petition.
Mr. Lyle Springer, 2610 Picadilly Lane, spoke in opposition stated
that he was representing 5 property owners who wanted to urge the
City Council to agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation for denial.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that this was
the first request for a variance of the subdivision rules and
regulations. The subdivision rules and regulations could be varied
with P&Z or City Council approval. The regulations require water
and sewer mains to be extended across the full width or length of
the lot to accommodate future growth. The church was aware of the
water and sewer extension requirements but were requesting a
variance to this provision. Five reply forms had been mailed with
zero returned in favor and three returned in opposition. This
request did not meet any of the requirements for a variance.
Council Member Hopkins asked what the cost of the water and sewer
line extension would be.
Ellison responded that the cost had not been calculated, but
homeowners would have to meet the same requirements.
David Ham, Assistant Director of Utilities, presented a slide of the
lot showing the existing and proposed extensions of the water and
sewer lines. Ham reported that the ordinance had been adopted to
ensure that each developer would pay the fair cost of water and
sewer extension. This policy had been in effect for many years.
Hill Haven was being planned north of Sherman Drive and would want
to tie on at the Church of the Nazarene. If the variance was
granted to the church, the Hill Haven developers would have to pay
more.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to deny the petition for the
variance. Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Ana Rocco Pena requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A)
to the planned development (PD) classification on a 14.0734 acre
parcel located along the east side of Riney Road, adjacent and south
of U. S. Highway 77, and north of Windsor Drive at a point beginning
approximately 220 feet east of Riney and Windsor. If approved, the
planned development (PD) would permit the construction of single
family detached housing (15 lots with a typical size of 80' x 110')
along Riney Road, single family attached (townhouses - 56 units),
and duplexes (13 lots or 26 total units). (Z-1624)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Ms. Ana Rocco Pena, 3419 North Elm, spoke in favor of the petition
stating she had met with developers and neighbors regarding the
proposed development and felt this was the highest and best use of
the land. The 100 year flood plan had been considered to protect
the North Ridge residents. Also considered had been the benefits to
the City of Denton without penalizing the developer and the owners.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Six
Personal and written contact had been made by the owners with the
neighbors within 200 feet. Ms. Pena also stated that the developers
could not assume the responsibility for paving Riney Road due to the
cost. The neighbors had stated they did not want Riney Road widened
because of a hazardous corner. Ms. Pena concluded by stating that
she declined paving Riney Road under 6.7 density: however, if the
Council would approve 11.2 density, she would consent to the paving.
Mr. Ron Arrington, 620 North Ridge, spoke in opposition to the
petition stating that he would be in favor of single family detached
homes in this tract. Mr. Arrington presented a petition with 283
signatures in favor of the single family housing. The Planning and
Zoning Commission had approved zoning in January, 1983 for a tract
of single family homes south of Windsor. Mr~ Arrington then asked
those persons in opposition to stand.
Ms. Jane Mort, 610 North Ridge, spoke in opposition stating that she
was concerned about water run-off from the proposed development and
the traffic problems stemming from the increase in the population in
the area if the development was approved. Parking had been banned
on Windsor due to this traffic problem. Also multi-family housing
would set a precedent for other multi-family developments. Ms. Mort
also stated a concern regarding a market for apartments, duplexes
and townhouses in this area. The residents wanted to maintain the
character of the neighborhood. In 1974 the 20 year master plan
showed single family in this area and in 1983 the City Council had
taken the position that Highway 77 was a natural dividing point
between single family and multi-family housing,
Mr. Don Beck, 320 Mimosa, spoke in opposition stating that he had
appeared before the Council in 1976 in favor of controlled growth.
Mr. Beck asked the Council to consider the nature of the request and
the impact it would have on the neighborhood and the city. Mr. Beck
felt the approval of this petition would open the door to commercial
development. A proposed apartment development on this parcel was
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in May but was
subsequently denied by the Council. The petition was resubmitted,
withdrawn, then resubmitted again to the P&Z and approved by a vote
of 4 to 3. Mr. Beck concluded by stating he felt this would be a
malignacy to this neighborhood and would do damage to the
neighborhood and the city,
Ms. Beverly Cottle, resident of Riney Road, spoke in opposition
stating that she had not been contacted by Ms. Pena and did not want
duplexes across the street from her home because of the increased
traffic.
Mr. Charles Cuthberson, 429 North Ridge, spoke in opposition stating
that the residents were fighting to maintain their neighborhood.
Hundreds of apartments were being built around them and the
residents feared they would be surrounded and choked out.
The Mayor allowed Ms. Pena rebuttal time,
Ms. Pena, the petitioner, quoted a newspaper article from Dallas
reporting on the comparison of building costs for apartments and
single family dwellings. She could not put through roads and still
realize a profit.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that the land
use would be single family detached with 80 x 110 feet minimum lot
size and 26 duplex units to be placed on 18 lots. A point of
contention had been that there were no public streets for access.
Density would be 6.9 units per acre. The P&Z had evaluated this
petition using the Denton Development Guide. The staff had
identified 5 critical issues. There had been questions regarding if
low, medium and high density standards were applicable to alternate
city of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Seven
housing. Ma~or street access would need to be provided; however the
impact on the streets was considered to be negligible. Site plan
control would be provided to insure proper development. Green open
space had been provided in the plat which would prevent a "concrete
city" effect. Input on the development had been received from the
neighborhoods. The original petition in May, 1983 proposed a
density of 11.2 units per acre and had been reduced to 6.7 units per
acre. The paving of Riney Road was required by the subdivision
rules and regulations which states the developer is responsible for
the widening, paving and dedication of frontage on roads. The P&Z
had recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 2 with 6 conditions.
Mayor Stewart stated that if the petition were approved, it would
eliminate the single family zoning to the east.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the planned
development (PD) classification on a 14.0734 acre parcel located
along the east side of Riney Road, adjacent and south of U. -S.
Highway 77, and north of Windsor Drive,
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to deny. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Joe Belew requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the
planned development (PD) classification on a 127.25 acre tract
located between Windsor Drive, North Locust and Hercules Street.
The proposed residential uses began at the northeast corner of
Windsor Drive and North Locust with approximately 1,700 feet of
frontage along the north side of Windsor Drive, approximately 3,500
feet of frontage along the east side of North Locust, and
approximately 1,400 feet of frontage along the south side of
Hercules Street. A proposed 4.14 acre neighborhood service section
begins at the southeast corner of Windsor Drive and North Locust,
If approved, the planned development (PD) would permit the following
specific land uses:
(1) Neighborhood services on 4.14 acres located at
the southeast corner of Windsor Drive and North
Locust
(2) Multi-family beginning at the northeast corner of
Windsor and North Locust (22 units per acre on
16.1 acres)
(3) Duplexes/fourplexes along Windsor Drive (12 units
per acre on 24°9 acres)
(4) Single family attached garden homes (10 units per
acre on 9 acres)
(5) Single family detached on 60 acres beginning at
the southeast corner of Hercules and North Locust
(minimum lot size 7,000 square feet)
(6) Floodway/open space on 10 acres between the
proposed single family detached and single family
attached garden homes. (Z-1626)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Br~an Burke, civil engineer, spoke in favor of the petition
reporting that he had been working with the developer. The proposal
was to abutt single family units with single family and multi-family
to multi-family. The developers were striving to build private
neighborhoods. Drainage ditches would be cleared out and widened
and retaining poods such as in the North Lakes area would handle
drainage problems.
Mr. Bill Brady, President of Denton Savings, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that this was a joint venture. The single family
housing portion would be completed first and financing would be
available through bond money for first-time buyers.
''~ ~ City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Eight
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked why the southern portion of the
parcel could not be developed as single family.
Mr. Brady responded that due to property values, it would be
prohibitively expensive for first-time buyers to build or buy in
this area.
Ms. Gerry Veeder, 3505 Huisache, spoke in opposition to the petition
stating that she believed the duplex and multi-family units would
destroy the character and integrity of the neighborhood.
Mr. Bob Tripp, 3001 North Locust, spoke in opposition stating that
he represented the interests of the property owners on the west and
would offer a compromise with the city staff and the developers.
Mr. Tripp felt more specifics should be provided regarding the
streets and the drainage near Strickland school. Mr. Tripp also
stated that Bell Avenue needed to be rerouted and should be extended
north. Land values immediately appreciate if zoned other than
single family. Mr. Tripp concluded by stating the Council should
refer this petition back to the staff for consideration.
Kathie Smallwood, 2907 Brook Hollow, spoke in opposition stating
that she was a counselor at Strickland school and felt the area
adjacent to the school should remain single family.
Ms. Donna Fielder, 520 Aspen, spoke in opposition stating that the
flood way open space was directly north of Aspen and felt that once
the area was developed, the water would run-off and collect in the
Aspen neighborhood.
Mr. Roger Boehm, 3801 Redstone, spoke in opposition stated that he
did not like apartments due to the increase in traffic and wear on
the streets. If the development were approved, something should be
done about the streets. If Redstone were extended to Windsor, the
children could walk to school.
Mr. Bert Hill, 524 Aspen, spoke in opposition stating that he had
lived on Aspen for 4 years and had experienced drainage and rlln-off
problems during heavy rains. There was no room for the run-off now
and was opposed to the retaining ponds.
Council Member Hopkins asked if Mr. Hill did not think the retaining
ponds would be of benefit to the area.
Mr. Hill responded he did not know. The land in this area got
saturated with heavy rains.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked Mr. Hill if he was not opposed to
single family development in this area.
Mro Hill replied that it was very much in favor of single family
development.
Mr. Robert Hansen, 3228 Huisache, stated that the flood way was on a
natural storm water route and could not be built on~ Mr~ Hansen
asked if the retention pond was built, who would maintain it.
Mr. Burke rebutted questions regarding the retention pond stating
that the flood way now was a stock tank. This tank and the north
and south ditches would be excavated to construct the retention
pond. The developers had contacted the Parks and Recreation
Department regarding the requirements for maintenance of the
retention pond.
Mayor Stewart expressed concern about what types of businesses would
be located in the neighborhood services portion of the petition.
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~"~..~
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Nine
Mr. Brady responded that there would be ample open space and felt
the petition represented an appropriate land use.
Council Member Stephens stated that several opponents to the
development had stated that they would prefer to see the entire
parcel developed as single-family.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger suggested the Council approve the
northern portion of the development and approve the southern portion
later.
David Ellisono Development Review Planner, reported that 24 reply
forms had been mailed with 4 returned in favor and 5 in opposition.
The Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission had been pleased to
receive such a comprehensive plan. Perhaps the opposition was a
reaction to the increases in multi-family housing in Denton. The
developer would concentrate on the single-family first and would
develop the multi-family housing later in the project. The idea of
"flip-flopping" the development had been discussed and Ellison
presented different revisions to the plan which had been
considered. The Staff had checked with the Principal of the
Strickland Junior High School regarding the introduction of
multi-family housing and neighborhood services in the area adjacent
to the school. The Principal had stated that a recent study saw no
problem with multi-family housing being adjacent to a school and in
fact, saw a preference with a diversification of housing. The
Principal also did not see a problem with the neighborhood services
portion being adjacent to the school property. Mr. Gilbert
Bernstein of the Denton School District had expressed some concern
if a convenience store was located in the neighborhood services area.
Ellison further reported that the major problems were the
concentration of multi-family development in the south Windsor Drive
area and the traffic capacity problem on North Locust Street.
Hercules and Windsor were adequate to handle the traffic, but North
Locust Street would be a problem no matter what the land use. The
Planning and Zoning Commission felt many of the specifics of the
project would be controlled through site plan and plat approval.
Council Member Alford asked why Bell Avenue was shown on the plan to
loop back into North Locust.
Ellison responded that this was shown on the approved thoroughfare
plan and the Denton Development Guide.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the thoroughfare plan and the
Development Guide were approved prior to the proposed extension to
Loop 288.
Council Member Alford stated that Mr. Belew, the contractor, did
quality construction work; Alford's concern was funneling traffic
onto Locust Street,
Council Member Hopkins stated the staff should keep very close watch
on the retention ponds.
Ellison responded that Mr. Burke's concept was approved by the City
Engineer.
Mayor Stewart expressed concern that the neighborhood services
portion of the petition should be handled as a planned development.
Mr. Tom Jester, speaking for the developers, responded that the
neighborhood services would come before the Council at the time of
construction,
The Mayor closed the public hearing,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Ten
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the planned
development (PD) classification on a 127.25 acre tract located
between Windsor Drive, North Locust and Hercules Street and a 4.14
acre tract located at the south east corner of Windsor Drive and
North Locust.
Chew motion, Alford second to table. Motion failed with a vote of 3
to 3 with Council Members Alford, Chew and Riddlesperger voting
"aye" and Council Members Stephens, Hopkins and Mayor Stewart voting
"nay",
Stephen motion to deny. Motion died for lack of a second.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to table for the purpose of giving time
for the staff and the developers to get together to work out
solutions to some of the citizen concerns. Motion carried
unanimously.
Do The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Mike Neblett requesting a change in zoning from single family (SF-7)
to the two family (2-F) classification on a proposed 80'x143.5'
parcel beginning adjacent and east of Bradley Street approximately
150 feet north of the intersection of Bradley and Scripture Streets,
and adjacent and north of 1922 Scripture Street. (Z-1627)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Neblett, petitioner, spoke in favor stating this rezoning
was for a single lot. Mr. Neblett stated that it believed the
duplex zoning would be an asset to the neighborhood.
No one spoke in opposition,
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Developer Review Planner, reported that the Planning
and Zoning Commission had considered the long range effect of lot by
lot duplex zoning and had felt this petition would be very good in
this area.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from single family (SF-7) to the two
family (2-F) classification on a proposed 80'x143.5' parcel
beginning adjacent and east of Bradley Street approximately 150 feet
north of the intersection of Bradley and Scripture Streets.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 0.263 ACRE
OF LAND OUT OF THE ROBERT BEAUMONT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 31,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye", Motion carried
unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
George Hopkins and Carroll Goen requesting a change in zoning from
agricultural (A) to the single family (SF-16) classification on a
14.619 acre parcel beginning approximately 160 feet north of Hopkins
Drive. Z-1628
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Eleven
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. George Hopkins, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that he
had filed an application for SF-16 zoning which was the most
restrictive. The land use was compatible with the neighborhood and
this represented the balance of property in this development parcel.
Dr. Bill Midgett spoke in favor stating this was a good use of the
land and that he would like to see it developed.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 23 reply
forms had been mailed with 8 returned in favor and 1 in opposition.
The Planning and Zoning Commission was pleased with the petition and
recommended approval.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the single
family (SF-16) classification on a 14.619 acre parcel beginning
approximately 160 feet north of Hopkins Drive.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 14.619 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE R. H. HOPKINS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1694,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: AND MORE PARTICULARLY ,DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
F. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Randy Axtell requesting a change in zoning from office (O) to the
planned development (PD) classification at 1100 North Locust
Street. If approved, the planned development (PD) would permit the
establishment of a framing, gallery and art supply establishment
(Art Alley). Z-1636
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Randy Axtell, petitioner, spoke in favor and complimented the
staff who had worked with him. Mr. Axtell wanted to move his
business to this location and remodel the existing building.
Council Member Alford stated that Mr. Axtell had developed his
business at another location and he believed that the move to this
neighborhood and the remodeling would be an asset.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 21 reply
forms had been mailed with 4 returned in favor and 0 in opposition.
This particular parcel was a non-conforming use. Parking problems
had been experienced. Mr. Axtell had agreed to lease 3 parking
spaces from Texas Woman's University which would provide the optimum
parking situation possible for the location.
~O'City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Twelve
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from office (O) to the planned
development (PD) classification at 1100 North Locust Street. If
approved, the planned development (PD) would permit the
establishment of a framing, gallery and art supply establishment
(Art Alley).
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 1100
NORTH LOCUST STREET, DENTON COUNTY~ TEXAS; AND MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alford motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Section 4-7 of the Animal Control Ordinance°
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the Council had
previously considered an ordinance which covered animal registration
and penalties for strays. At the Council's request, these had been
separated into two ordinances. Information was still being gathered
on the animal registration ordinance. ,
Council Member Stephens stated that the Council had also asked for
information on expenses and cost increases.
Svehla responded that the plan was to proceed with the existing
staff and expenses as approved in the budget.
Bill Angelo, Senior Administrative Assistant, responded to a
previous question regarding how the leash law would apply to cats by
stating that cats would be handled on a complaint basis. The legal
issue of the ordinance had been addressed as other cities did have
leash laws. Revenues for Animal Control would be increased due to
the citation fees, but this was not the primary goal of the
ordinance.
Council Member Stephens asked if the main purpose of the ordinance
was regulatory, could the fees be lowered.
Angelo responded that the fees were set by the Council.
Mayor Stewart asked about the situation of an unleashed dog who was
under voice control.
Angelo responded that the Animal Control Officers had a certain
amount of discretion in enforcement. If a dog were under voice
control and unleashed, the animal would not be impounded.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 ("ANIMALS") OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO REQUIRE CERTAIN
ANIMALS BE RESTRAINED BY A LEASH, FENCE OR ENCLOSED
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Thirteen
STRUCTURE: PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO
HUNDRED ($200.00) DOLLARS FOR VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
expanding the membership of the Utility Account Review Committee.
Joe LaBeau, Administrative Assistant, reported that the Council had
approved the Plus I Utility Assistance program in December. This
ordinance amendment would allow a representative of the Plus
agency to be appointed to the Utility Account Review Committee.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-6(d)(3) OF CHAPTER 25 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO
PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL NONVOTING MEMBER TO SERVE ON THE
UTILITY ACCOUNT REVIEW COMMITTEE: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES
IN CONFLICT HEREWITH: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 1014.4 acres of land located
south of Highway 380 and west of 1-35. (Z-1610)
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this was one of four
annexations which were in progress and had been discussed by the
Council previously.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-15
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 1014.4
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE B.B.B. &
C.R.R. Co. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 192, W. BRYAN SURVEY,
ABSTRACT NO. I48, J. PERRY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1040, A.
COBERLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1542 AND THE J. SCOTT SURVEY,
ABSTRACT NO. 1222, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: CLASSIFYING THE
SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY: AND DECLARING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion carried
unanimously,
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 43.9 acres of land located west
of 1-35W and south of the existing city limit line. (Z-1611)
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that no development was
proposed on this parcel at the present time. This was a voluntary
annexation.
'Cityof Denton City
Council
Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Fourteen
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-16
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 43.9
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE O. BREWSTER
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 56, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING
THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion carried
unanimously,
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 367 acres of land located
between 1-35W and the Santa Fe Railroad. (Z-1612)
Charlie Watkinso Senior Planner, reported that there had been some
new developments on this proposed annexation. The staff had
received 3 inquiries regarding proposed mobile home parks on the
east side of IH-35 near the Solar Way Addition. The Council could
consider three alternatives:
1. annex all of the parcel
2. delete the ranching operation of Mr. Jones
3. delete the ranching operation of Mr. Jones and the 1
1/2 acres belonging to Mrs. Wilson
Alford ~otion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance with the second
option (to delete the ranching operation of Mr. Jones).
Council Member Stephens stated that if deletions were to be done, he
would like to see Mr. Rogers be able to complete the development of
Solar Way.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger responded that it was his understanding
that the annexation would not affect Mr. Roger's future development,
Mr. Rogers, developer of Solar Way Addition, reported that if his
property were annexed, it would be impossible for him to develop on
a city lot size basis. He would like to complete the development
with 1 or more acre parcels.
Council Member Chew stated that he would like to see Mrs. Wilson
deleted from the annexation (option 3)°
Council Member Hopkins called the question.
On roll call vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "nay", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "nay", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
failed by a vote of 4 to 2 as 6 affirmative votes are required for
passage.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance with option 1
(annex all of the parcel). On roll call vote Hopkins "aye",
Stephens "aye", Alford "nay", Riddlesperger "nay", Chew "aye", and
Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion failed by a vote of 4 to 2 as 6
affirmative votes are required for passage.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to table and instruct staff to
provide another option which would delete the Solar Way Addition and
undeveloped land from the annexation parcel. Motion to table
carried by a vote of 5 to 1 with Council Member Stephens casting the
nay vote,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Fifteen
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 1,125 acres of land located on
both sides of Mayhill Road north of 1-35. (Z-1613)
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that there were two
options available to the Council:
1. annex all of the parcel
2. annex the Henry S. Miller property and 500 feet strip,
the proposed Singleton mobile home subdivision
property and the proposed Roddy mobile home park
property
option 2 would annex 300 acres of the Henry S. Miller property with
a 500 feet strip extending from the existing city limit line which
would take in 15 acres of the Singleton property. Also a 500 feet
strip behind the Andrews property would take in the proposed Roddy
mobile home park,
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-17
AN ORD I NANCE ANNEX I NG A TRACT OF LAND CONT ! GUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 348
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE J. TAFT
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1256, J. WHITE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO,
1433, D. HOUGH SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 646, D. LAMBERT SURVEY,
ABSTRACT NO. 784, M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 950
AND THE G. WALKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1330, DENTON COUNTY:
TEXAS; CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT
PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance with
option 2 (annex the Henry $. Miller property and 500 feet strip, the
proposed Singletou mobile home subdivision property and the proposed
Roddy mobile home park property). On roll call vote Hopkins "aye",
Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and
Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
4. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution urging
the Texas State Legislation to adopt a state-wide open container law.
This item had been previously discussed by the Council and was on
the agenda for action.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
recognizes that the consumption of alcoholic beverages while
operating a motor vehicle is a significant factor in a large number
of tragic accidents and deaths on Texas Highways: and
WHEREAS, the Attorney General of the State of Texas has
declared that cities do not have the authority to adopt local
ordinances banning the possession of alcoholic beverages in motor
vehicles; now. therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
i~y of Denton City Council Minutes
~eeting of February 7, 1984
?age Sixteen
SECTION I.
That the Legislature of the State of Texas is urged to
~n,~ct legislation prohibiting the possession of alcoholic beverages
in motor vehicles or, alternatively, authorizing cities to do so by
local ordinance:
That all citizens of the City of Denton are hereby
en:ouraged to support such legislation by contacting their elected
state representatives: and
That the City Secretary is hereby directed to forward a
~oTY of this Resolution to the elected state representatives and
senators representing the citizens of the City of Denton, Texasp
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 7th day of February, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
~TTEST:
CHXRLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
~I~Y OF DENTON, TEXAS
~P :ROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
3. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CItY OF DENTON, TEXAS
8Y:
Ch.~w motion, Stephens second that the resolution be passed. On roll
ca .1 vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"a ,e", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
un ~nimous ly.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution in
su ~port of Flow Memorial Hospital.
As ~istant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the Council had
r~ ~uested this item be placed on the agenda.
Cc ~ncil Member Alford stated that no one could question the
Cc ~ncil's support of Flow but he was concerned that the resolution
mi ~ht be misconstrued as being in opposition to free enterprise.
Cc ~ncil Member Chew stated that he felt that was the semtiment of
th: entire Council: however, the issue before the Council was to
sh ~w interest in good health care and in support of Flow Memorial
Hc ~pital.
TP .~ following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of Denton, Texas is a ~oint owner
w~ :h the County of Denton, Texas, in Flow Memorial Hospital, a
px )lic, acute care, general hospital; and
WHEREAS, there exists an application subject to the review
ax ! approval of the Texas Health Facilities Commission, the
r~ ~ulatory body in the State of Texas responsible for granting
C( :tificates of Need for health care facilities in accordance with
S~ :tion 1122 of the Social Security Act as amended, and
City of Denton City Council Minutes / ~"~
Meeting of February 7, 1984 ~'
Page Seventeen
WHEREAS, said application made by First Texas Medical,
Inc., is for approval to construct, own, and operate a fifty-bed
general, acute care private hospital within the city limit of
Denton, Texas, and
WHEREAS, the construction and operation of such a facility
as proposed in the application to the Texas Health Facilities
Commission made by First Texas Medical Inc., is an unnecessary
duplication of existing facilities, is not necessary to meet the
requirements of the medical service area, and will not be accessible
to all patients in the medical service area, and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned proposed new hospital, if
Certificates of Need were to be granted by the Texas Health
Facilities Commmission, and is then subsequently constructed, would
have an adverse effect on Flow Memorial Hospital and its abilities
to continue to provide health care services to the population
served, predominantly the residents of the City of Denton, Texas,
and the County of Denton, Texas: now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the Texas Health Facilities Commission is urged to
deny approval for a Certificate of Need, based on the failure of the
application to meet the Commission's standards, for the project
proposed by First Texas Medical, Inc., to build a hospital in
Denton, Texas; and
That the City Secretary is hereby directed to forward a
copy of this Resolution to the Texas Health Facilities Commission in
Austin, Texas.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 7th day of February, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second that the resolution be passed. On
roll call vote Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart ~aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
5. The Council considered approval of a contract (Bid ~ 9234)
to acquire microcomputers for the Utility Department, the Public
Works Department, the Data Processing Department, and the Accounting
and Purchasing Divisions of the Finance Department.
Gary Collins, Director of Data Processing, reported that
justifications had been received from each department requesting a
microcomputer. These requests and justifications had been reviewed
by the Data Processing Board and were seen as a positive tool for
managers.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 7, 1984
Page Eighteen
Council Member Hopkins asked if these expenditures had been budgeted.
Collins responded yes. Each microcomputer must show a cost savings
payback of the purchase price within 24 months.
Mayor Stewart asked what the total cost would be.
Collins responded $66,284 which .included the software. Specific
software to meet departmental needs would be purchased by the
individual departments.
Council Member Hopkins asked what percentage of the total cost would
be borne by the Utility Department.
Collins responded approximately 55% depending upon the type of
microcomputers the department ordered.
Council Member Hopkins stated that if the microcomputers were not
being used by a particular department, they should be moved to an
area where they were needed.
Collins responded that the justifications would show where the need
was and follow-up checks would be made to assure the microcomputers
were being used in the most productive manner.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the bid for the micro-
computers. Motion carried unanimously°
6. The Council considered approval of a lease agreement for
rental of office space in the Airport Terminal Building.
Bill Angelo, Senior Administrative Assistant, reported that this was
a standard lease agreement. Members of the Airport Advisory Board
had been polled by telephone and recommended approval.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the lease agreement. Motion
carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered approval of final payment for the
Police Building Renovation Project.
Bill Angelo, Senior Administrative Assistant, reported this was the
final payment with a $28,422.20 adjustment on the existing purchase
order. Due to problems with the original contractor during the
early part of the renovation project, the City had taken over
management. The difference in price had been a result of certain
changes in design and other alterations during the completion of the
project.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he believed the cost over-run
would have been higher had the City not managed the project.
Hopkins second, Alford second to approve the final payment. Motion
carried unanimously.
8. There was no official action on Executive Session Items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel., or board appointments
9. The following items of New Business were suggested for
future agendas.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger requested a resolution be prepared
in opposition to the parole of John McCrory.
Council Member Hopkins requested a meeting with the County
Commissioners be arranged to discuss joint programs.
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~,~
Meeting of February 7, 1984 '
Page Nineteen
The Council then convened into Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business the meeting was adjou~
. ,~qned /
} "
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
1386C
City Council Minutes
February 14, 1984
The Council convened into the special called meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger:
Council Members Alford, Barton, Chew, and Hopkins
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member Stephens
1. The Mayor presented a proclamation to Thomasa Garcia for
LULAC activities.
Council Member Stephens ~oined the meeting,
2. Chew motion. Stephens second to remove annexation Z-1612
from the table. Motion carried unanimously.
3. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and service
plan annexing approximately 367 acres of land located between 1-35
West and the Santa Fe Railroad. (Z-1612)
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that, at the Council's
direction, four options for annexation were being presented:
1. annex the entire parcel
2. exclude the Jones ranching operation from the parcel
3. exclude the Jones ranching operation and Mrs. Wilson's
property
4. exclude the Jones ranching operation, Mrs. Wilson's
property and the land belonging to Mr. Rogers which
had not been subdivided
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council had received a petition and
request from Mr. Om Singla to have his property also excluded from
the annexation.
Council Member Stephens asked if that was one of the options
presented.
Mayor Stewart responded that it was not,
Mr. Singla stated that he resided in Coppell and owned 32 acres in
the proposed annexation area. The general condition of the area,
including roads, did not permit any reasonable development under
city guidelines. A railway line bisected the property and the sewer
line was more than one mile away,
Watkins responded that part of Mr. Singla's property was already in
the city limits.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the annexation
ordinance with option 2 (excluding the Jones ranching operation from
the parcel). On roll call vote Barton "nay", Hopkins "nay",
Stephens "nay", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "nay", and
Mayor Stewart "nay", Motion failed 5 to 2,
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-18
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 267.08
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS, AND BEING PART OF THE O. BREWSTER
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 56, A. THOMPKINS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
1246, A. HICKMAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 521 AND THE J.
EDMONSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 400, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY:
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 14, 1984
Page Two
Chew motion, Barton second to adopt the annexation ordinance with
option 4 (excluding the Jones ranching operation, Mrs. Wilson's
property and the land belonging to Mr. Rogers which had not been
subdivided). On roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye",
Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and
Mayor Stewart "nay". Motion carried 6 to 1 with Mayor Stewart
casting the nay vote.
The Council then convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
The following official action on Executive Session legal matters was
taken.
Barton motion, Chew second that the Mayor and the City Attorney be
authorized to sign a Stipulation Agreement in Cause No. 383-00278G
in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District, Dallas, Texas, on
behalf of the City of Denton, Texas.
Mr. Otho Henderson, Maverick Air, stated that his company was
looking forward to the future at the airport and putting the past
behind.
Mayor Stewart asked if Mr. Henderson was the primary owner of
Maverick Air.
Henderson responded yes.
On roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjour led.
CI~Lb~TE ALfrEd, CI~f §E~RETARY-~
1387C
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 21, 1984
The Council convened into a joint work session with the Parks and
Recreation Board in the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger: Council
Members Alford. Barton. Chew, Hopkins, and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
PARK BOARD
MEMBERS
PRESENT: John Travelle, Jane Malone, Robby Roberts, Linnie
McAdams
1. The Council held a discussion on the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
Assistant City Manager Betty McKean stated that the purpose of this
discussion was to give the Council a preliminary look at the master
plan. The staff had been working with 6 committees and approximately
150 citizens.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, introduced the
Parks Board and stated that the staff was looking for input from the
Council. A joint meeting had been held with the Planning and Zoning
Commission (additional meetings would be scheduled with the DISD and
School Board prior to final approval of the master plan). Many
people had already been involved in the discussions of park and
leisure needs, allowing input from staff and citizens rather than
hiring a consultant as was done by many cities.
The plan would create standards for park and recreation areas.
These standards would affect the programs which would be offered, as
well as identify deficit areas. The purpose of the master plan was
to provide for orderly improvement of existing areas and look for
most appropriate site for the future. The plan would also provide
for the maximum and cooperative use of public lands, give the
community a better quality of life, and provide meaningful leisure
services. A procedure was established for annual upgrading of the
plan.
There were three groups of information in the plan:
1. The citizen groups recommendations (representing ~nput
from approximately 150 people in the community)
2. The professional staff recommendations
3. The recommendations based on the results of community
surveys.
All recommendations had been taken to the Parks and Recreation Board.
The Board was involved in the review process looking at the standards
and recommendations to determine if they were reasonable and logical.
The finalized plan would be brought back to the City Council in May
or June.
Brinkman then addressed the standards stating that there were a
number of things which came into play such as:
1. The suggestions based on a comparison of national
trends.
2. That the standards directly affected the
recommendations
3. The recommendations of the Advisory Groups were
compared to the needs of Denton.
Council Member Barton asked if standard meant ideal,
Brinkman responded yes; it represented what was the actual need.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Barton asked if the standards in the preliminary plan
were presented in rank or preference order.
Brinkman replied no.
Mayor Stewart asked if the plan included areas at the schools.
Brinkman replied yes; an inventory had been completed on areas which
were actually available.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated he felt this was a real
opportunity for cooperation with the schools.
Brinkman stated that there would be great benefit to both the City
and the schools. The ideal situation would be to have 3 acres of
neighborhood park land per 1,000 population and 5 acres of community
park land per 1,000 population. The City was currently 100 acres
short in both categories.
Many facilities began in a central location and branched out, but
Denton's centers were not. The Denia and North Lakes Recreation
Center were on the west side of town while the heaviest population
concentration was on the east. The staff was recommending a central
recreational facility near the Mack Park area. In the lower income
portion of town, transportation to and from the center was a concern.
The teens wanted a place for social and team sports while physical
fitness services were the current trend and would include a track
for walking and a conditioning room. The most frequent suggestion
from the neighborhoods surveyed was for more swimming pools.
Council Member Barton asked if the City was currently serving more
school-aged children, families or adults.
Brinkman responded that it was difficult to say because there were
lots of children involved in departmental programs during the summer.
Ronnie Roberts, member of the Parks and Recreation Board, reported
that there would be approximately 800 boys and 400-500 girls in the
softball program during the summer.
Brinkman reported there had been high usage of the Senior Center and
the staff would like to expand by adding a multi-purpose room. The
staff would also recommend building gymns ~n elementary schools in
certain areas rather than build isolated recreation centers. The
idea was to allow use by the City of school classrooms for classes
and use by the school of the recreational areas. Park needs had
been identified and in every portion of the City with the exception
of the northwest quadrant, there were deficiencies in park acreage.
The hope would be to work with the schools to develop school park
sites. Some of the areas identified as needing park sites do not
have available property to develop. This would cause the staff to
focus on churches and bus,ness for property to be used as
neighborhood parks. There existed approximately 50 acres which
could be utilized for joint use and approximately 50 acres which
would have to be purchased.
In regard to athletic fields, Brinkman reported that the priority
recommendations were to build 2 additional lighted softball fields
~n the Mack Park area.
Council Membe~ Hopkins asked if the acreage for the parks included
developments which included recreational facilities.
Brinkman responded that this would take a special study outside the
master plan and brought into the plan. There were many
possibilities available with drainage ways, linear parks and
retention ponds.
,~ City of Denton City Council Minutes
~Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Three
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that no mention had been made in
the plan of the Y and asked if any effort had been made to cooperate
with the Y.
Brinkman replied that a day camp cooperative effort had been looked
into but one problem had been that the Y required a membership to
use facilities and the City did not.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Y required membership fees
but he understood that they also had a scholarship program and this
seemed comparable to the City's program,
Brinkman stated that the fields at Evers Park would be lighted which
would allow for expansion of facilities without land purchases.
These fields could be used for girls softball.
Mayor Stewart asked about the total dollar figure.
Brinkman responded the to%al would be in the $15 million range with
high priority items totalling approximately $10 million with medium
priority items totalling approximately $5 million. Realistically,
the staff would investigate a number of ways to work with churches
and businesses and funds available through the Capital Improvement
Program. Most of the financing would have to be accomplished by a
future bond issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that in the past, much of the
park lands had been donated by the public.
Brinkman stated that approximately 50 percent of the current parks
land had been donated.
Brinkman summarized the recommendations of the preliminary master
plan by stating the plan would give the City:
1. A parks acquisition and development program
2. Help to beautify the community
3. A community center
4. An upgrade to the recreational facilitles
5. A doubling of the size of the Senior Center
6. An opportunity to work in cooperation with the DISD
7. An opportunity to offer expanded programs to the public
8. Something to work towards.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if any thought had been given to
park development at the new Lake Ray Roberts site.
Brinkman responded that the plan would be reviewed annually and
priority needs would be looked at first.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the greenbelt areas had been
considered,
Brinkman replied yes.
Council Member Alford stated he felt the plan had citizen support
and enthusiasm which would give future support.
2. The discussion of Carroll Boulevard property dispositions
was not held due to lack of time,
3. The discussion of the sign ordinance for Parks facilities
was not held due to lack of time.
4. Discussion of the Parks and Recreation fees and charges
philosophy was not held due to lack of time,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984' ~-~
Page Four
5. The Council convened into executive session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
Council convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 in the Council
Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger; Council
Members Alford. Barton, Chew, Hopkins, and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council presented a retirement plaque and resolution in
appreciation of Mr. Earl Jones, for 38 years of service
with the City of Denton.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF
EARL E. JONES
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is losing one of its most valued
employees, Earl Jones, who was employed by the City of
Denton on February 18, 1946, serving until his retirement
on January 31, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Earl Jones has always served the City of Denton and its
citizens above and beyond the mere efficient discharge of
his duties in promoting the welfare and prosperity of the
City, and has earned the full respect and admiration of
his subordinates; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been extremely fortunate in having
enjoyed the dedicated and outstanding services of Earl
Jones:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
that the sincere and warm appreciation for Earl Jones felt
by the members of the City Council, employees of the City
of Denton, and citizens of the community be formally
conveyed to him in a permanent manner by causing this
Resolution to be transcribed into the official minutes of
the City of Denton, Texas, and forwarding to him a true
copy hereof; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
that the City of Denton does hereby officially and
sincerely extend its best wishes to the Honorable Earl
Jones for a long and successful retirement as a member of
our .community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and caused the official
seal of the City of Denton, Texas to
be affixed this the 21st day of
February, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
· Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Five
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ASSISTANT CITY
ATTORNEY, CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
i The motion was unanimous, the second was unanimous.
On roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye". Riddlesperger "aye". Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye". Motion carried unanimously,
The Mayor presented the proclamation to the Young People in Action.
The proclamation was accepted by Ray Richards and Eno Ek-Pen-yng,
The Mayor presented the proclamation for Nutrition Month. The
proclamation was accepted by a member of the Dietetic Association.
The Mayor presented a proclamation for March National Professional
Social Work Month. The proclamation was accepted by Eileen Short.
The Mayor presented a proclamation declaring February 20-26 as
Patriotism Week. The proclamation was accepted by Charles Hopkins
for the Denton Elks Lodge.
2. The Council received bids for the purchase of $1,000,000 of
Utility System Revenue Bonds.
Frank Medanich, representative of First Southwest Company, reported
that four proposals had been received. The first proposal was from
Dean Whitter Rentals Corp. with a net effective interest rate of
9.4366%, Rauscher, Pierce Refsnes, Inc. with a net effective
interest rate of 9.413%, Kidder Peabody and Company with a net
effective interest rate of 9.265278%, and Rotan Mosel with a net
effective interest rate of 9.196944%. Medanich then retired to
consider the proposals and would make a recommendation later in the
meeting.
3. Consent Agenda
Hopkins motion and Stephens second that the Consent Agenda be
approved as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9231 - Lee Meadows street
participation
2. Bid % 9237 - Concrete work, annual contract
3. Bid % 9238 - Police Sedans
4. Bid ~ 9239 - Dump trucks and body
5. Bid ~ 9240 - Pick-up trucks and van
6. Bid ~ 9242 - Street light poles and wire
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~--
Meeting of February 21, 1984 ~
Page Six
B. Replats:
1. Consider approval of the final replat of
part of lot 3, block D, Shady Oaks
Industrial Park Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
C. Tax Refund:
1. Consider approval of a tax refund to Ryan
Mortgage Company in the amount of $582.76
4. Council received a report of TMPA activities by the
Board of Director's representatives.
Dr. Roland Vela, TMPA Board of Directors representative,
reported that the scheduled close down of the plant for the
normal one year check up and overhaul had begun on February 17,
and the plat would reopen on March 19. Some revisions would be
made at the site in response to several problems defined during
the cold weather.
The cost of production of power during October was 40.46 mils,
43.07 mils in November, and 43.81 mils in December for an
average of 42.39 mils per kilowatt hour. The figure for Denton
was 54 mils per kilowatt hour.
The monetary management was going very well. A swap in bonds
in December had realized a profit of $14,000 with other smaller
gains also being realized.
Vela further reported that a management report prepared by the
agency stated that the question had been raised by board
members if lignite was being left and the answer was yes and
no. The board had been told there was enough coal for two
generators. Vela stated that he would like for the Council
Members and staff to examine the report.
Council Member Barton stated that the $14,000 savings was a
significant figure,
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that, according to the
report, the mining company was saving this extra coal to be
mined but once lost, it could not be regained.
Council Member Chew stated that the Council needed to protect
the interest of Denton citizens.
Council Member Hopkins directed the staff to investigate.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that there had been no intent
to withhold information by TMPA General Manager Waggoner or the
agency and a meeting would be held in the future to discuss
this issue.
Council Member Barton stated he felt Director of Utilities
Nelson should attend this meeting.
Council Member Stephens offered thanks to Dr. Vela for his
service on the TMPA Board of Directors stating that while on
the budget committee, Vela had helped to save hundreds of
millions of dollars. Dr. Vela was a valuable member of the
board and suggested a resolution reappointing him should be
prepared.
Council Member Chew stated that he would like to see the
reappointment resolution on the next Council agenda.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Seven
5. The Council considered approval of the use of Fred Moore
Park for the annual June 19th celebration and the request that the
park remain open until 12:00 midnight.
Council Member Chew asked for a legal opinion from the City Attorney
on his right to vote as he was a member of one of the organizations
requesting the use of the park.
City Attorney C. J. Taylor stated that as Council Member Chew was a
member of the NAACP, he could not vote.
Carl Young, President of the Denton County Vietnam Veterans
Association, requested use of Fred Moore Park for June 15, 16, 17,
18 and 19 and that the user fee be waived. Activities for June 15
included a 16 team ball tournament, a live band, and domino
tournament. There would be a parade on the 16th and a continuation
of the tournaments. Church services would be held on the 17th as
well as a general clean up of the park. Disco night with a dance
contest would be on the 18th. Other organizations could set up
booths in the park.
Carl Williams, President of the Denton County NAACP, stated the
organization was a 75 year old non-profit organization with several
on-going programs such as voter registration. Mr. Williams also
stated that if a conflict existed, the NAACP would bow out in the
spirit of community unity.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked why the two organizations did not
work out a plan in which both could take part in a united
celebration.
Mr. Young responded that the possibility of co-sponsorship had been
explored but since the Vietnam Veterans Association did not have a
charter, the NAACP could not jointly fund the celebration.
Mr. Williams stated that the Natlonal NAACP would pull the County
Charter if they worked with another organization without a charter.
Mr. Young stated tha~ he felt the Council should go with the
rotation system set last year.
Dr. Donald Cox, sponsor of Young People in Action, stated that for
the past three years his organization had attempted to be involved
with the Juneteenth celebration. When the group tried to set up a
booth, they had been threatened.
Barton motion, Riddlesperger second to give the 1984 Juneteenth
celebration at Fred Moore Park to the NAACP with the understanding
that they were to work with the Vietnam Veterans Association.
Motion carried unanimously with Council Member Chew obstaining.
6. Public Hearings
A. Z-34. This is the petition of Walter H. DeRonde (Jim
Stone Development Company) requesting a change in zoning from
agricultural (A) to planned development (PD) classification on a
78.112 acre tract out of the Benjamin Lew~s Survey. The property is
located adjacent and west of the Denton State School and east of the
Denton West Mobile Home Park with approximately 975 feet of frontage
along F.M. 2181 (Teasley Lane). If approved the PD would permit the
following uses:
neighborhood services - 5 acres
office/retail uses - 3.4 acres
s~ngle family - 51.7 acres with approximately 3.8 units per
acre (196 units)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Eight
medium density residential - 18 acres with approximately
216 residential units consisting of multi-family fourplex
and duplex
The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mr. Walter DeRonde,
petitioner, spoke in favor of the petition stating that the property
was bordered on the east by the Denton State School, and on the
north by the Sundown Horse Ranch, and on the south by the radio
station. The Sundown Horse Ranch would be most affected by the
zoning change and was supportive of their efforts. The Greenbelt
portion of the petition was to avoid SF-16 zoning being backed up to
commercial,
Mayor Stewart asked if Mr. DeRonde was planning on making the exit
and entrance to the office area off Teasley Lane.
Mr. DeRonde responded no, it would be through internal streets only.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if there was any progress on the
delineation of the Loop in this area.
City Manager Hartung responded that the Loop would be much further
south.
No one spoke in'opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, stated that 6 reply forms
had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. The staff was preparing several revisions to the Denton
Development Guide which would be brought to the City Council. The
first plan which Mr. DeRonde had brought in was very dense. The
present plan shows less density at the site. The Planning and
Zoning Commission felt that the 50 foot setback would be unfair to
developers as 30 to 40 more feet would have to be dedicated. A
condition placed by the Planning and Zoning Commission was for a 25
foot setback. This was a medium density residential area with
twelve units per acre. The petition required a final site plan
approval with medium density. The Planning and Zoning Commission
had voted 4-3 for approval with ten conditions. The conditions
included the developer's right-of-way, consist of highway and future
needs on 2181 and that there would be no access of curb cuts on 2181.
Council Member Stephens asked how many feet the staff was actually
talking about.
Ellison responded that Public Works had the exact figure.
Council Member Hopkins asked if this was legal.
City Attorney C.J. Taylor responded yes.
Ellison replied that the conditions fo£ the approval of the petition
were called out in the ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if the Greenbelt area would be
dedicated.
Ellison responded that it would be privately maintained.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if the Greenbelt area would be
used for recreational facilities.
Ellison responded no, but would be used as a living screen.
Mayor Stewart asked if consideration had been given in the Denton
7City of Denton City Council Minutes
~UMeeting of February 21, 1984
Page N~ne
Development Guide to trying to keep arterial streets as traffic
movers.
Barton motion, Chew second to approve the petition with the ten
conditions plus the two additional conditions as recommended.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the issuance of City of Denton Utility System Revenue
Bonds, series 1984, and approving and authorizing instruments and
procedures thereto.
Frank Medanich reported that First Southwest Company had looked at
the bids and confirmed their recommendation to award the bid to
Rotan Mosel. Hopkins motion, Chew second to accept the
recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Spuregeon, representative from McCall, Parkhurst, and Horton,
stated that the ordinance would be for $1,000,000 of utility bonds
beginning in 1985 at $50,000 over 20 years to the year 2,004.
The following ordinance was presented.
NO. 84-19
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF DENTON UTILITY SYSTEM
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1984, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending
Article XVII of Appendix B exempting public parks from the sign
restriction.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that this
amendment would permit the Parks and Recreation Department to allow
some advertising signs in City parks where there are scoreboards.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 17 OF APPENDIX B TO ?HE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ADDING A NEW
SECTION "N" TO SAID ARTICLE, EXEMPTING PUBLIC PARKS FROM
THE SIGN RESTRICTIONS OF SAID ARTICLE AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart ~'aye" Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance to
quitclaim a 0.434 acre strip of right-of-way located along the west
side of Teasley Lane and south of Londonderry Lane. (Q-62)
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that this had
been reviewed in the late 1983 ordinance.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21. 1984
Page Ten
Council Member Stephens asked if there would still be enough
right-of-way to meet state standards for the expansion of Teasley
Lane.
Ellison responded yes.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-21
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID EASEMENT TO THE
OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance to
quitclaim a portion of Ruth Street located between Cook Street and
Industrial Street with the condition that a 16 foot utility easement
be ~etained. (Q-63)
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that this
quitclaim had been requested by Belcher Corporation who owned two
pieces of property which was divided by this strip of right-of-way.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-22
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID EASEMENT TO THE
OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT; AND
DECLARING AN .EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion
carried unanimously,
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
notice setting a date, time, and place for public hearings
concerning the proposed annexation of approximately 75.21 acres of
land located west of 1-35W and south of the existing city limits.
(Z-1645)
Char!ie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this item had been
previously discussed by the City Council.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-23
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING,
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye". Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Eleven
F. Council considered adoption of an ordinance and notice
setting a date, time, and place for public hearing concerning the
proposed annexation of approximately 25.99 acres of land located
east of Highway 377 and on the south side of Brush Creek Road.
(Z-1641)
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-24
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING,
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye" Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously,
G. Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 175 acres of land beginning at
the existing city limits on the north side of Highway 380 east.
(Z-1621)
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-25
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 175
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE W. DABBS
SURVEY, ABST. NO. 328, AND THE J. WEST SURVEY, ABST. NO.
1331, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS
AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY: AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE,
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Barton "nay", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Aiford ~'aye",
Riddlesperger "aye". Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried 6 to 1 with Council Member Barton casting the nay vote.
H. The Council did not consider adoption of an ordinance
providing revisions and additions to the Subdivision Ordinance
~nclud[ng f~ling of plats, primary references, street costs and
participation, drainage and driveway culvert specifications. This
item was pulled from the agenda by staff.
I. Council considered adoption of an ordinance calling an
election for Mayor and two at-large council members to be held April
7, 1984.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-26
AN ORDINANCE CALLING AND ORDERING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD IN
THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ON APRIL 7, 1984, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ELECTING A MAYOR AND TWO COUNCILPERSONS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS FOR PLACES 7, 6
AND 5: ORDERING THAT THE PUNCH CARD ELECTRONIC VOTING
SYSTEM ADOPTED BY DENTON COUNTY BE USED IN SAID ELECTION;
PROVIDING FOR VOTING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION
OFFICIALS AND PROVIDING FOR ELECTION SUPPLIES.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Twelve
Chew motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye"° Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
8. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
allowing the County to do roadwork within the city limits.
City Manager Hartung reported that this was a procedural resolution
and a specific request would have to be made to the City for each
incident.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, there are within the City of Denton, certain roads
which are an integral part of the county road system; and one or
more County Commissioners of the County of Denton have expressed the
desire to cooperate in specific instances in the repair and
maintenance of certain roads within the city which are part of the
county road system: and
WHEREAS, for such County Commissioners to undertake any
road work upon roads within the city, the express consent of the
city is required: now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the County Commissioners of Precincts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of
the County of Denton are hereby expressly authorized to repair,
construct, reconstruct and maintain roads within their respective
precincts which are within the city limits of the City of Denton.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 21st day of February, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
~-Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Thirteen
Hopkins motion, Barton second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye~', Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye"
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Council considered approval of a resolution protesting
the parole of John William McCrory.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated this was an example of someone
who had admit%ed raping and killing a young woman but through a
fluke, the trial had been overturned. By means of plea bargaining,
McCrory had been given a 30 year term and was now eligible for
parole o
Council Member Barton asked if this did not place the City Council
in the position of reviewing paroles. Mayor Stewart asked the City
Attorney if the Council would be put in a compromised position by
approving this resolution. City Attorney C.J. Taylor responded this
particular parole was of current interest in Denton and did not
believe the Council would be compromised.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton is of the
opinion that the best interest of the citizens of Denton County
would be served if John William McCrory is denied parole: NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
The City Council of the City of Denton, Texas 0 hereby
objects to the release from prison of Denton County resident John
William McCrory and requests the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
to deny the request for parole by John William McCrory°
SECTION I I.
That the City Secretary is hereby directed to forward to
the Texas Board of Pardons, Room 711, Stephen F. Austin Building,
Box 13401, Austin, Texas 78711 a certified copy of this resolution
objecting to the parole of John William McCrory.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 21st day of February, 1924.
RICHARD Oo STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Fourteen
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye" The motion carried unanimously.
C. Council considered approval of a resolution postponing
the regular City Council meeting of March 6, 1984, to March 13, 1984.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a majority of the Council will be out of the City
of Denton on March 6, 1984, and it is necessary that the Council
meeting for such date be postponed until March 13, 1984; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the regular Council meeting to be held on March 6,
1984 be postponed until March 13, 1984.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 21st day of February, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye"
Motion carried unanimously.
9. Council considered authorizing the City Manager to enter
into an agreement with David M. Griffith and Associates to update
the cost allocation plan and fee study for the City of Denton.
City Manager Hartung reported that this study had been utilitized to
develop the indirect cost allocation plan and was the basis for the
administrative management of the Utility Fund. This process was a
standard method used by other cities in developing fee studies.
Council Member Stephens stated that several years ago the City had
used a group from A&M University to do a street study with the idea
that in the future the staff would take over. Stephens further
asked if this fee study survey could be done in-house.
~City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Fifteen
City Manager Hartung responded this could be accomplished by use of
a computer program which the City of Denton did not currently have.
This would be especially difficult in the absence of the Director of
F~nance. The purpose of the study was to show costs of various
activities and services provided by the City of Denton and to
retrieve those costs from the users. The fee study was separate
from the cost allocation plan.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second, to authorize City Manager
Hartung to enter into an agreement with David M. Griffith to update
the cost allocation plan and fee study, etc.
Stephens motion, Chew second to amend the motion to remove the ~ee
study portion for further study and to approve only the indirect
cost allocation plan, Motion carried 4 to 3 with Riddlesperger,
Alford, and Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" votes.
Stephens motion, Chew second to deny the request and postpone the
user fee study motion failed 4 to 3 with Barton, Alford,
Riddlesperger, and Stewart casting the ~'nay" votes.
10. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
11. The following items of new business were suggested:
Council Member Hopkins asked for an update on the Colorado Boulevard
traffic light situation.
Council Member Hopkins asked for a report on the tax collection levy
rate and the percentage rate of mobile home taxes and fees.
Council Member Barton asked for a review of the wrecking yard
ordinance to expand the screening portion. ~
Council Member Barton asked for bids and figures on the retirees
insurance program.
Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
The following official action was taken under Executive Session
I t ems:
A. Board Appointments
Stephens motion, Chew second to appoint Viv~an Edwards to the
Citizen's Traffic Safety Support Commission. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. Personnel
The Council considered approval of a resolution extending the
employment of City Manager Chris Hartung.
The followlng resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on September 19, 1977, the City Council of the
City of Denton, Texas entered into an employment agreement with G.
Chris Hartung to serve as City Manager of the City of Denton, Texas;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton is desirous
of retaining G, Chris Hartung as the City Manager of the City of
Denton, Texas;
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Sixteen
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby
authorized to enter into a revised employment agreement with G.
Chris Hartung to be effective immediately from and upon its date of
execution and for a period of one year thereafter.
SECTION II.
That this resolution be effective ~mmediately from and
after its passage and approval by the City Council of the City of
Denton, Texas.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 21st day of February, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens
"aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor
Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
The Council considered approval of a resolution extending the
employment of City Attorney C.J. Taylor,
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Attorney of the City of Denton is
appointed to office by the City Council and serves at the pleasure
of the City Council under the terms and provisions of Article VI of
the Charter of the City of Denton, Texas: and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 1979 the City Council of the City
of Denton appointed C. J. Taylor. Jr., City Attorney of the City of
Denton, Texas: and
WHEREAS, the employment contract of C. J. Taylor, Jr. has,
been extended by the City Council of the City of Denton from year to
year: and
%City of Denton city Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Seventeen
WHEREAS, after the annual performance review, the City
Council of the City of Denton is desirous of retaining C. J. Taylor,
Jr. as the City Attorney of the City of Denton, Texas:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
The City Council of the City of Denton hereby extends the
employment contract of C. J. Taylor, Jr. as City Attorney of the
City of Denton, Texas, for an additional one year to perform the
function and duties specified in the City Charter, the City Code,
and the laws of the State of Texas, and to perform such other
legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City
Council shall from time to time assign.
SECTION II.
The City Council agrees to pay C. J. Taylor, Jr. for his
services an annual base salary of $45,115.20 payable in installments
at the same time as other employees of the City are paid.
SECTION III.
An annual performance review will be conducted by the City
Council during the month of October of each year, and the City
Council agrees to increase said base salary, fringe or other
benefits in such amounts and to such an extent as the City Council
may determine that it is desirable to do so on the basis of the
annual performance review made at the same time as similar
consideration is given to other employees of the City.
SECTION IV.
It is recognized that the City Attorney has to devote a
great deal of his time outside normal office hours to business of
the City, and to that end. the City Attorney will be allowed to take
compensatory time off as he shall deem appropriate during said
normal office hours; provided, however, the City Attorney shall
devote his entire time to the performance of the duties and shall
not spend more than ten (10) hours per week in teaching, consulting.
or other non-City connected business without the prior approval of
the City Council.
The City Council hereby agrees to budget and pay the travel
and subsistence expenses of the City Attorney for professional and
official development and to adequately pursue necessary official and
other functions for the City, including but not limited to the
Annual Conference of the Municipal Law Officers, City Attorney's
Association and such other national, regional, state or local
goverrunental groups and committees thereof which the City Attorney
serves as a member.
The City Council also agrees to budget into pay for the
travel and subsistence expenses of the City Attorney for short
courses, institutes and seminars that are necessary for his
professional development and for the good of the City of Denton.
The City Council agrees to budget and pay the professional
dues and subscriptions of the City Attorney necessary for his
continuation and full participation, including the holding of
responsible offices in national, regional, state and local
associations and organizations necessary and desirable for his
continued professional participation, growth and advancement, and
for the good of the City of Denton,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Eighteen
SECTION V.
Before voluntarily resigning his position, C. J. Taylor,
Jr., agrees to give the City Council at least thirty (30) days
notice in writing of his intentions to resign, stating the reasons
therefor.
In the event of his involuntary separation as City
Attorney, he shall be entitled to receive a lump sum payment equal
to sixty (60) days aggregate salary: provided, however, that in the
event of his termination because of his conviction for any offense
involving moral turpitude or any illegal act involving personal gain
to him, then, in that event, the City shall have no obligation to
pay the aggregate severance sum designated herein.
Involuntary separation as used in this paragraph means his
discharge or dismissal by the City Council or his resignation
following a reduction in salary or other financial benefits of the
City Attorney in a greater percentage than an applicable
across-the-board reduction for all City employees or in the event
the City refuses following a written notice to comply with any other
provisions benefiting the City Attorney herein or the City Attorney
resigns, following a suggestion, whether formal or informal, by the
City Council that he resign, then, in that event, the City Attorney
may at his option be deemed to be "terminated" at the date of such
reduction or such refusal to comply within the meaning and context
of the herein severance pay provision.
SECTION VI..
All provisions of the City Charter, City Code, and Rules
and Regulations of the City adopted by the City Council relating to
vacation and sick leave, retirement and pension system
contributions, holidays and other fringe benefits and working
conditions as they now exist or hereafter may be amended, shall
apply to the City Attorney as it would to other employees of the
City, in addition to said benefits enumerated specifically for the
benefit of the City Attorney, except as herein provided. The City
Attorney shall be entitled to receive the same vacation and sick
leave benefits as are accorded other department heads, including
provisions governing accrual and payment therefor on termination of
employment.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 21st day of February, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
~city of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 21, 1984
Page Nineteen
Barton motion. Chew second that the resolution be approved. On roll
call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye"
Motion carried unanimously.
With no further items of business the meeting was adjourned.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
0187~
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7
March 13, 1984
The Council convened into a work session in the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger: Council
Members: Alford, Barton, Chew, Hopkins, and Stephens
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a report on the Arts Council building,
Mr. Clovis Morrissono representing the Greater Denton Arts Council,
introduced Gary Juren who was the architect for the renovation
project.
Mr. Juren presented blueprints of the plans which delineated parking
lots and an open green space area. A briefing followed on the
progress of the renovations and projected completion date. The Arts
Council would be coming to the City Council at a later date to
request Council approval of the project.
2. The Council considered the emergency addendum item to
approve a proposal from Fulton Supply Company.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilties, reported that the City had
attempted to find a salvage company to remove the pipes, pumps, and
miscellaneous items from the old warehouse area. There had not been
any takers. The City had two aternatives:
1. Have employees take down the equipment and Fulton
Supply Company would pay the City $700 for the material, or
2. Fulton Company would do a turn-key job for $5,300.
Nelson stated the Council should consider salaries and time the
crews would be tied up on this project.
Council Member Hopkins stated that this item had been discussed for
several years and the funds had been budgeted.
Hopkins motion, Barton second to approve the contract with Fulton
Supply Company. Motion carried unanimously.
3. The Council received a report on the 1983-84 Denton
Development Guide Update.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated
an annual review of the Denton Development Guide was required. The
staff had tried to incorporate suggestions for improvement which
they had during the last year. Staff was asking the Council to
review these suggestions over the next two weeks and offer feedback
to the staff. The preliminary draft would go to the Planning and
Zoning Commission at the end of March.
Council Member Stephens asked about the time tables for enactment of
the update,
Meyer responded the draft would be reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission in late April or early Mdy.
Mayor Stewart stated that he would like for the staff to have the
various maps available and up for review when the Council considered
zoning petitions and annexations. Mayor Stewart also asked about
the portion of the Denton Development Guide stating that there
should be no more than 300 mobile homes per quadrant which would
mean 120,000 over a 10 year period.
Meyer responded this was written to be 300 mobile homes total, not
each year.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if the City could control junk
cars. boats, and campers parked on residential lawns.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Chew stated that a definition of junk cars would be
required.
City Attorney C. J. Taylor replied that, according to City
ordinances, "junk" vehicles must be inoperable with no valid
inspection sticker or license plates.
Meyer reported that the City now had two Code Enforcement Officers
instead of one and an aggressive compaign against violations would
be underway.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that he would like to see the
City cleaned up.
Council Member Hopkins stated a real problem existed with citizens
dumping trash in the streets since the City did not currently have a
landfill.
The consensus of the Council was to hold a work session on March 20,
1984 to review the Denton Development Guide Update.
4. The Council received a report on the status of delinquent
property taxes.
City Manager Hartung reported that the information on this item was
in the back-up material of the agenda and he would be glad to
respond to any questions.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would like the City to explore
various ways of collecting taxes. The City Attorney had written a
memo suggesting that another attorney be added for 'tax collection
and could also be used for other legal projects.
City Attorney C. J. Taylor stated that if another City Attorney was
hired, this attorney would be committed to the collection of taxes
and other lawsuits.
Council Member Hopkins asked if in the renovation project there
would there be space available for another attorney.
Taylor responded yes, that space would be available.
Council Member Barton stated it would still be the same City, the
same Mayor, and the same Council Members. The psychological
"meanness" of an outside attorney must be considered.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated perhaps the City should consider
consolidating with the School District and the County on the
collection of delinquent taxes.
City Manager Hartung reported that the advantage of contracting with
an agency or attorney for the collection was that the fee would be
based on a contingency basis: when the tax was paid, the collector
would be paid.
Taylor stated that the attorney with the School District collected
thirty percent of the delinquent tax as a fee no matter who
collected it.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla distributed reports on the
traffic signal at the mall and on inspections of mobile home parks.
Svehla reported that the new Code Enforcement Officer was on board
and would be inspecting weeds and junk cars and mobile homes. The
request and inspections completed had doubled this year. The
Building Inspector's office was averaging approximately 25
inspections per day. An additional person could be crosstrained to
also do plumbing and electrical inspections.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Three
The consensus of the Council was to have Assistant City Manager
Svehla place on the Council agenda for March 20 a request to add an
additional person in the Inspector's Office.
Svehla reported regarding the signal light at Loop 288 and Colorado
Boulevard, the businesses on the south side of Loop 288 were in
favor. Svehla had spoken to a new representative of the mall and
they had requested more information. Svehla concluded by stating
that the lead time for ordering any kind of traffic equipment was 90
days.
5. The Council convened into executive session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting in the Council
Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger: Council
Members: Alford, Barton, Chew, Hopkins, and Stephens
ABSENT: None
1. The Council presented a retirement~ plaque and resolution in
appreciation of Lucille Eggleston for 15 years with the City of
Denton Finance Department.
The Mayor read the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME:
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is losing one of its most valued
employees, Lucille Eggleston, who was employed in the
Finance Department of the City of Denton from January 2,
1969 until her retirement February 29, 1984: and
WHEREAS, Lucille Eggleston has always served the City of Denton and
its citizens above and beyond the mere efficient discharge
of her duties and has earned the full respect and
admiration of her subordinates: and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been extremely fortunate in having
enjoyed the dedicated and outstanding services of Lucille
Eggleston:
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
that the sincere and warm appreciation for Lucille
Eggleston felt by the members of the City Council~
employees of the City of Denton, and citizens of the
community be formally conveyed to her in a permanent manner
by causing this Resolution to be transcribed into the
official minutes of the City of Denton, Texas, and
forwarding to her a true copy hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 13th day of March, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Four
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens
"aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor
Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the
regular meeting of December 6, 1983.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to approve the minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Consent Agenda
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the consent agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids:
1. B~d 9 9210 - Tree trimming, Electric Distribution
2. Bid ~ 9242 - Streetlight poles and wires
3. Bid 9 9243 - Valve repair and additions
4. Bid ~ 9244 - Sale/transplant of trees
5. Bid ~ 9245 - Lease of farm land at the City of
Denton Airport
6. Bid 9 9246 - Cut-outs and cables
7. Bid ~ 9247 - General purpose tractor
8, Bid ~ 9248 - Air compressor
9. Bid ~ 9249 - Panhandle Street utility improvement
10. Bid ~ 9250 - Paisley Street water line
B. Plats:
1. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Mulberry
Creek Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
C. Contracts and Agreements:
1o Consider approval of an agreement with
Pierce-Catterton Executive Search Firm.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Five
2. Consider approval of an contract with Practical
Management Associates, Inc. for training
workshops/seminars.
3. Consider approval of an agreement with the Denton
Cultural Confederation and the Denton Chamber of
Commerce Convention/Visitor's Bureau for the
allocation of the hotel/motel occupancy tax
revenues,
4. Consider authorizing the City Manager to enter
into an agreement with Dr. James Glass to conduct
the 1984 City of Denton Citizen Survey.
5. Consider approval of participation in an oversize
water line (12") on Ridgeway Drive to service
Southridge Village Shopping Center. (The Public
Utility Board recommends approval.)
4. The Council considered approval of the resolution closing
Fry Street between Oak and Hickory for the Fifth Annual Fry Street
Fair/Spring Renaissance.
Mr. Te~nison, Sigma Alpha Mu representative, appeared requesting the
closing of Fry Street and stated that the proceeds of the Fair would
be donated to the United Way.
Council Member Alford asked the date of the street fair,
Tennison replied that the Fair would be held on April 15,
Council Member Alford stated that he had received complaints from
citizens last year about the noise which was associated with the
Fair.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the fraternity could notify the
neighbors of the date of the Fair.
Tennison responded that the fraternity would notify the neighbors,
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on Sunday, April 15, 1984, the Sigma Alpha Mu
Fraternity is sponsoring a Spring Renaissance to be held on Fry
Street between the intersection of Oak and Hickory: and
WHEREAS, the Spring Renaissance is open to the general
public of the City and County of Denton; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide adequate space for the said
Renaissance and in order to protect the safety of citizens who
attend, the City Council of the City of Denton deems it is necessary
to temporarily close a portion of Fry Street between Oak Street and
Hickory Street from the hours of~9:00 A.M. until 8:00 P.M. on April
15, 1984: NOW, THEREFORE,
BE. IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That Fry Street between Oak Street and Hickory Street shall
be temporarily closed as a street or public thoroughfare of any kind
or character whatever on April 15, 1984 from 9:00 A.M. until 8:00
P.M. for the purpose of holding the Sigma Alpha Mu Spring
Renaissance.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
?age Six
SECTION II.
That the portion of the above described streets shall
revert back to the City for normal traffic activity immediately from
and after 8:00 P.M. on April 15, 1984.
SECTION III.
That this resolution shall take effect and be in full force
and effect from and after the date of its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 13th day of March, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR,, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved.
On roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "nay", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye". Motion carried 6-1 with Council Member Alford casting the
"nay" vote.
4. Public Hearings
C. The Council considered the petition of M. B. Rike
requesting a variance of City of Denton Land Development Codes
requiring the extension and improvement of one half of Houston Place
and the extension of public water and sewer mains across the full
length of the tract approximately 94.8 feet by 146.7 feet in size.
The tract begins adjacent and west of 2322 Houston Place and
approximately 400 feet west of Thomas Street. The property is zoned
single family (SF-7) and single family detached development is
proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommende~
denial. V-1
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bob Crouch, representing Mr. Rike, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that the owner was trying to build a single family
occupied home on the lot. Mr. Rike was requesting to extend the
water and sewer from the end of his house to the lot and was seeking
to extend the driveway from his house to the new lot.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if the lot was on Houston Place
and if there were no plans to develop any further.
Mr. Crouch responded that was correct. His client was seeking this
variance to avoid having to build on a street which did not go
anywhere.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Seven
Mr. Rike, petitioner, stated that he was seeking a variance to the
Planning and Zoning denial. He had purchased the lot last July and
had intended to build right away. There was a 15 feet street in
front of the lot at the present time. Several neighbors had signed
a petition stating that they did not want a street. Mr. Rike stated
that it would be an unnecessary expense to build a street which did
not go anywhere. He was requesting to build a turnaround or cul-de-
sac.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the right-of-way had been dedicated.
Mr. Rike responded yes.
Mr. Martin Morgan spoke in favor of the petition stating that he
lived south of the property and was under the impression that the
property which went to the center easement was dedicated to the
City. He felt the turnaround would be better than half a street in
front of Mr. Rike's property.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the utilities would come from
Houston Place.
Mr. Rike responded no the utilities would be run from Oak Street.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that this
petition represented two requests in one. One portion of the
request was for a water and sewer variance, and the other portion
dealt with the street issue. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
recommended denial. This was not a request for paving improvements
as there was an existing street. Planning and Zoning Commission
felt that this would set a precedent and though they understood the
unique characteristics of the property and technically it was true
that Houston Place had no where to go there still needed to be
appropriate access for fire and emergency equipment. The Planning
and Zoning Commission felt that not requiring the petitioner to
extend the public street would be setting a dangerous precedent.
Council Member Hopkins stated he felt that this situation was unique
in character since the water line was in one-third of the way across
the property and the sewer line was in place across one-half of the
property. Hopkins further stated that sometimes the strict rules
did not apply.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to grant both the variances.
After a discussion on the legalities of the extension of the
utilities and the street situation, Council Member Hopkins called
the question.
Motion on granting both of the variances passed unanimously.
A, The Council considered the petition of Billy R. Jones,
representing the Medical Building Company, requesting a change in
zoning from multi-family (MF-1), office (O), and planned development
(PD) for office use, to the planned development (PD) classification
on a 6.033 acre tract located adjacent and west of Bonnie Brae
Street between West Oak and Scripture. If approved, the planned
development (PD) would permit the construction of a retirement
center comprised of a seven (7) story multi-family housing complex
(104,230 square feet of building area) and a 60 unit personal care
facility (25,500 square feet of building area). Z-1635
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Eight
Bill Jones, petitioner, spoke in favor of the petition and presented
a rendering of the proposed facility. Mr. Jones reported that there
would be no upfront money and these would be rental units. The cost
of the units: would include two meals per day for the occupants as
well as utilities being furnished.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked how much Mr. Jones thought the
rent would be.
Mr. Jones responded that the units would be managed by an outside
firm but felt the cost would be below Dallas market price.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 20 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 2 returned in
opposition. The existing zoning to the north was multi-family,
office and commercial. The staff felt the low intensity called out
in the Denton Development Guide for this area was unrealistic.
Ellison reported that in 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission
had determined that the area west of Bonnie Brae should be developed
as medical and was concerned about approving petitions on a lot by
lot basis. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that this
petition was needed and timely. The site plan for the development
was adequate. The staff had encouraged the petitioners to consider
a rear parking lot or to provide a 25 feet setback to maintain the
residential character of the area. The proposed development also
included two curb cuts on Bonnie Brae and the staff recommended that
the Planning and Zoning Commission consider these curb cuts at a
later date. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended
approval of 'the petition with three conditions.
Council Member Hopkins asked what the required ratio was for parking
places.
Ellison replied currently the requirements were 1.25 spaces for a
one bedroom unit, 1.50 spaces for a two bedroom unit, and 1.75
spaces for a three bedroom unit.
Council Member Hopkins asked if any study had been done which showed
that traffic for this type of use was less than apartments or office
zoning.
Ellison responded yes.
1. The Council considered the adoption of an ordinance
providing a change in zoning from multi-family (MF-!), office (O)
and planned development (PD for office use) to the planned
development (PD) classification on a 6.033 acre tract located
adjacent and west of Bonnie Brae Street between West Oak and
Scripture.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-27
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 6.033 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE EUGENE PUCHALSKI SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
996, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Nine
Hopkins motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Ridlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". The motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered the petition of Larry Satell
representing Medical Practice Management, Inc., requesting a change
in zoning from single family (SF-7) to the planned development (PD)
classification for light industrial (LI) use on a 53.985 acre tract
beginning adjacent and east of Loop 288 approximately 300 feet south
of Spencer Road. Z-1642
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Reynolds, Senior Vice-President of Henry S. Miller, spoke
in favor of the petition stating he was representing Mr. Satell.
This petition would bring the zoning into compliance with the Denton
Development Guide. The people who owned the property had no
immediate plans to develop now.
No one spoke in opposition,
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 5 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. The current zoning was mostly agricultural. The Denton
Development Guide policies were out of step with the current
situation as this area had seen several high intensity uses. The
Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of a
petition with 32 conditions. With the planned development (PD)
zoning classification, the City would have more control over the
development,
Council Member Hopkins stated with the extension of Loop 288 toward
Mayhill, the property owner would lose some of his property in
right-of-way dedication. The staff should try to see that the Loop
288 alignment did not interfere with development.
Ellison responded that Mr. Reynolds knew of the Loop 288 extension
in this area.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from single family (SF-7) to the
planned development (PD) classification for light industrial (LI)
use on a 53.985 acre tract beginning adjacent and east of Loop 288
approximately 300 feet south of Spencer Road.
The following ordinance was presented.
NO. 84-28
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 53.985 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE J. W. CHEEK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 324,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" The
motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing concerning the
proposed annexation of approximately 25.99 acres of land located
east of the existing city limit along Highway 377, south of Brush
Creek Road. Z-1641
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Ten
The Mayor opened the public hearing,
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that 2 reply forms had been mailed with only 1 returned
stating no preference. A proposed 53 acre estate subdivision was
located in this parcel with the petition 25.99 acres being located
outside of the city limits. Water from Argyle would be provided to
City of Denton standards and sewage would be handled through
individual septic systems. The staff was recommending the
annexation of this parcel.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to continue with the annexation
proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing concerning the
proposed annexation of approximately 75.21 acres of land located
west of 1-35W and north of Corbin Road. Z-1645
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the petition
stating this area was in the Mason Tract and was a voluntary
annexation.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing,
Stephens motion, Chew second to continue with the annexation
proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the request of Walter H. DeRonde for a change in zoning
from agricultural (A) to the planned development (PD) classification
on a 78.112 acre tract out of the Benjamin Lewis Survey. The
property is located adjacent and west of the Denton State School and
adjacent and east of the Denton West Mobile Home Park with
approximately 975 feet of frontage along FM 2181 (Teasley Lane).
Z-1634
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this petition had
been approved by the Council at the February 21, 1984 meeting.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-29
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO,
69-[[, AND AS SAiD MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 78.112 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE BENJAMIN LEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 769,
AND THE JEREMIAH FISHER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 421. DENTON
COUNTY, TEXAS: AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye~'.
The motion carried unanimously.
city of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Eleven
B. The Council considered an ordinance approving additions
or revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance including filing of plats,
primary references, street costs and participation, and driveway
culvert specifications.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that this was an effort
to clarify the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. This ordinance
would provide that the City would file subdivision plats with the
County. This would allow the developer whoever he wanted for street
construction and the City would pay the amount decided by bid
price. The bid price would establish the participation price that
the City would pay.
Council Member Hopkins asked if there would be any additional cost
to the people who were required to follow this ordinance.
Svehla responded he did not see that.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-30
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, KNOW~N AND CITED AS THE DENTON
DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING ARTICLE II, CHAPTER II,
ARTICLE 2.03 RELATING TO COMPLETION OF FILING PROCESS FOR
FINAL PLATS; AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER III, ARTICLE
3.06, PARAGRAPH B, SUBPARAGRAPH (2)(c) RELATING TO
REFERENCES ON LOT OF RECORD MAP: AMENDING ARTICLE III,
CHAPTER IV, ARTICLE 4.03, PARAGRAPH (C) RELATING TO METHOD
OF OBTAINING MARKET PRICES FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN STREET
COSTS; AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER IV, ARTICLE 4.15,
PARAGRAPH (B), SUBPARAGRAPHS (3) AND (4) RELATING TO
PERMISSIBLE WATER SPREAD LIMITS AND STREET CROSS FLOW FOR
RESIDENTIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS; AMENDING ARTICLE III,
PARAGRAPH IV, ARTICLE 4.15 BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH (G)
THERETO RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR END SECTIONS TO DRIVEWAY
CULVERTS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye"
The motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing new water and sewer tapping fees for water and sewer
service.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this ordinance was
the result of an annual review of fees.
Council Member Stephens asked if the ordinance had to list the cost
or could it be worded such as to cover the cost as opposed to
specifically calling them out. He also asked when the ordinance
would be effective.
Nelson replied that the ordinance would go into effect on April 1.
Council Member Hopkins asked if those who were required to tap in to
the Hickory Creek sewer line, such as Ranch Estates, should be
included in a grandfather clause.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked how that could be worded in the
ordinance as the Ranch Estates residents were not being forced to
tap in to the Hickory Creek line.
City Of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Twelve
Barton motion, Riddlesperger second to table the ordinance to allow
the City Attorney to formulate a grandfather clause. Motion carried
6-1 to table with Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" vote.
7. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution in
support of ~he Police Department Crime Prevention Grant from the
North Central Texas Council of Governments,
City Manager Hartung reported this was a routine item and the annual
renewal of this grant. The Crime Prevention Program had been a very
good program for the City.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Council of the City of
Denton to a~thorize the submission of an application to the Texas
Criminal Justice Division requesting funding for the City's Crime
Prevention Program: and
WHEREAS, Article 4413 (32a), V.T.C.S. was amended to enable
the Criminal Justice Division of the State of Texas to allocate
grants and administer criminal justice programs on a statewide
level: and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is eligible to receive such
funds and desires to protect the safety and well-being of its
citizens through the reduction of crime: NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
certifies that the City is eligible to receive a funding allocation
from the Texas Criminal Justice Division for the City's Crime
Prevention Program and hereby authorizes the staff to submit an
application for such funds,
SECTION II.
That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
City Manager, or his designee, to represent and act on behalf of the
City of Denton in working with the Criminal Justice Division in
regard to such grant application.
SECTION III.
That a copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the
Texas Criminal Justice Division and the North Texas Central Council
of Governments,
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 13th day of March, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
BY:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984 /O /
Page Thirteen
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved.
On roll call vote Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution in
support of a Police Department Juvenile Enforcement Program Grant
from the North Central Texas Council of Governments.
- City Manager Hartung reported this was a continuation grant which
was in its second year. The funds for this program had been
budgeted,
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Council of the City of
Denton to authorize the submission of an application to the Texas
Criminal Justice Division requesting funding for a Juvenile Police
Officer to augment the City's Juvenile Law Enforcement Program: and
WHEREAS, Article 4413 (32a), V.T.C.S. was amended to enable
the Criminal Justice Division of the State of Texas to allocate
grants and administer criminal justice programs on a statewide
level: and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is eligible to receive such
funds and desires to promote the public safety and well-being of its
citizens through increasing the effectiveness of the Denton Police
Department in its law enforcement relating to juveniles: NOW
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
certifies that the City is eligible to receive a funding allocation
from the Texas Criminal Justice Division for a Juvenile Police
Officer to augment the City's Juvenile Law Enforcement Program and
hereby authorizes the staff to submit an application for such funds,
SECTION II.
That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
City Manager, or his designee, to represent and act on behalf of the
City of Denton in working with the Criminal Justice Division in
regard to such grant application.
SECTION III,
That a copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the
Texas Criminal Justice Division and the North Texas Central Council
of Governments.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 13th day of March, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Fourteen
Riddlesperger motion, Barton second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote Barton "aye", HopKins, "aye", Stephens
"aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor
Stewart "aye" Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered approval of a recommendation to
offer North MedCare Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) to all
City employees and retirees as an alternate health care program.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, repo~ed tha~ this program was
in response to a City Council request to investigate HMO. Her
recommendation was to offer this to retirees and employees as an
alternate health care or insurance program.
Council Member Hopkins asked how many retirees were there currently
with the City of Denton and what were the qualifications of a
retiree.
Usrey responded that there were currently 17 retirees with the City
of Denton but the exact qualifications of a retiree had not been
established.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to table the approval until a
definition of retiree could be established. Motion carried
unanimously.
9. The Council considered approval of an engineering services
contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc. for an expanded Hobson Street
lift station.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilties, reported that there had been
substantial development in the southeastern portion of the City.
There were now conditions which would require rerouting at the lift
station and the proposed contract was for engineering services.
Council Member Hopkins asked if there were not staff members who
could perform these engineering services.
Nelson responded yes but that staff was totally tied up working with
other developments in the City.
Hopkins motion, Barton second to approve the contract with Freese
and Nichols. Motion carried unanimously.
10. The Council considered approval of a contract for
professional services with Black and Veatch for an operation and
efficiency study for units 4 and 5 of the Electric Power Plant.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the staff had been
looking at methods to improve efficiency for some time. The
consultants would look at the equipment, consider the high cost of
fuel and recommend ways to increase efficiency. It might be
possible to reduce the amount of gas used. The amount of the
contract cost would not exceed $25,000 for the economic feasibility,
no~ the engineering phase.
Mayor Stewart asked if the study would provide methods to increase
efficiency of the unit whether we used it or not.
Nelson responded yes.
Council Member Hopkins stated he would like to see other cities
perform the same efficiency improvement study in an effort to make
all systems as efficient as possible.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to approve the contract with
Black and Veatch. Motion carried unanimously.
/
City of Denton City Council Minutes ' --~
Meeting of March 13, 1984
Page Fifteen
11. The Council considered approval of an emergency
authorization agreement for restoration of services.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that during the winter
ice storms, Dallas Power and Light had sent crews to one area to
restore the service but the customers still needed to have an
electrician to restore the service lines. This emergency
authorization agreement was a procedural agreement to allow the City
to dispatch electricians to an area during a similar emergency
situation.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the emergency authorization
agreement. Motion carried unanimously.
12. The Council considered approval of an agreement with Arthur
Andersen to perform an examination of the City of Denton's financial
statements for fiscal year 1984.
City Manager Hartung reported that this was the second year that
Arthur Andersen would be authorized to perform the audit. The
agreement provided for $5,000 worth of contributed services which
could be utilized during the spring.
Council Member Stephens asked if this agreement had been brought to
the City Council Audit Committee.
Hartung replied no; the contract for the audit usually was extended
for a 4 to 5 year period.
Hopkins motion, Barton second to approve the agreement with Arthur
Andersen. Motion carried 6-1 with Stephens casting the "nay" vote.
13. The Council considered approval of payment to North Texas
State University for drainage improvements to Welch Street.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that in 1980-81 North
Texas State University had undertaken the drainage improvements on
Welch Street. This was the payment from the City for those
improvements.
Barton motion, Chew second to approve the payment. Motion carried
unanimously.
14. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
15. The following items of new business were suggested:
1. Council Member Chew requested a resolution appointing
Dr. Vela to the TMPA Board of Directors for the March 20 meeting.
2. Council Member Stephens requested a status report on
the construction of the new North Loop
3. Council Member Stephens requested a report on the fire
inspection fee for small businesses.
4. Council Member Hopkins requested a report on City
inspections of modular homes.
adjourned.
With no further business, the meeting ~as ~
OF DENTON,
CHARSOTTE' ~L~E~N~C I~CR~TARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
0709g
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 20, 1984
The Council convened into the work session in the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger; Council
Members Alfordo Barton, Chew, and Hopkins
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Stephens
1. The Council considered the emergency addendum item and held
a discussion of the TP&L rate increase request.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that TP&L had filed for a rate
increase with. the Public Utility Commission in Austin. There were
presently approximately 600 customers of TP&L within the Denton city
limits. The City Council did have the authority to suspend this
rate request for 90 days to study it. Staff would not recommend
this suspension but rather to wait on the Public Utlity Commission
and the implementation of the rates. Due to the time table involved
with the rate request, the staff was recommending that the City
Council do nothing.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked what would be the difference in
Denton's rates and the new TP&L rates.
Hartung responded he did not know. TP&L was requesting a percentage
rate.
The consensus of the City Council was to do nothing.
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting.
2. The Council held a discussion on Hickory Creek Park.
Charlie Watkins. Senior Planner, reported that Hickory Creek Park
was a development on FM 2181 about 2 miles south of the most
southern point receiving City services. A 62 acre preliminary plat
had been s~bmitted but no final plat. Construction on the
development had already begun. A representative from Holigan
Development had agreed to use CLty services.
Council Member Barton asked if there was a problem,
Watkins responded not at this time: the plats should be furnished
before the construction began.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla stated that the development was
not within the city limits but in the county.
Mr. Holigan replied that he was willing to take the risk of the
County not approving his development so that he could continue work
at the site.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the residents of this development
would use FM 2181 into Denton and the City would need assurance that
the development could be serviced by water, sewer, fire and police
services if it was annexed.
Council Member Hopkins stated the reason the annexation was delayed
by the City Council when it was previously presented was a problem
with providing services to this area. If the parcel was annexed, it
should be made to conform to City of Denton ordinances and standards.
Watkins reported that an ordinance would be brought to the Council
at another meeting. This was a mobile home park and only one
subdivision. The interior could be developed to County and not City
specifications. Watkins then presented specifications of the
proposed development and stated that it would exceed the present
mobile home ordinance and would come very close to conforming to the
new proposed mobile home ordinance.
IUD
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Hopkins stated that staff should view this
development as if it were already in the city limits and should
perform a cost/revenue study during the annexation process.
3. The Council held a discussion on the annexation of Solar
Way, Phase III.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that there were drainage
problems in this phase of the Solar Way development.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that there existed a
channel ~n the development that was 30 feet wide at the bottom and 6
feet deep. Some of the lots would definitely be in the flood plain,
and some lots would likely be in the flood way. No engineering had
been done as this particular portion of the development was still in
the County. Some of the interior roads had a 12 degree slope and
City standards were 7 degree slopes.
Council Member Stephens asked if there were any problems of this
same nature in any other phase of the Solar Way development.
Svehla responded the City did not review because the development was
not in the city limits at the time of development. He further
stated he did not think there were any problems of this nature.
4. The Council held a discussion of a resolution to increase
the charges for leases at Williams Trade Square and authorize the
City Manager to have meters placed on any unleased spaces after May
1, 1984.
William McDonald, Administrative Assistant, reported that this
resolution would be presented in the regular session and the
recommendation was for an increase in the fees charged for the
leases and to place meters on any unleased spaces. The reason for
this was the need to recover the cost of the paving of the lot. The
current lease expired in April, 1984 and the fees had not been
increased since 1978. The meters would alleviate the problems of
businesses using the parking spaces without using them.
Council Member Hopkins asked if all of the proceeds from the lease
fees would go to pay the debt.
McDonald responded yes, and to pay for the cost of the meters.
City Manager Hartung stated that First State Bank had been contacted
and did not have a problem with the increase in the fee.
5. The Council received a status report on the North Loop 288
construction.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the Highway
Department had instructed the City to move utilities in this area.
The bid for the construction would be let in November with an
anticipated completion date in the Summer or Fall of 1984 for the
first section. This section would be Loop 288 at Highway 380 to
Sherman. The second section of the North Loop was in the design
phases with a final completion date expected in the middle of 1989.
Svehla also stated that engineering drawings were available for
further ~nformation if the Council so wished.
6. The Council received a report on the statute governing City
inspections of modular homes.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the City could
contract for these inspections. The staff appeared to be able to
handle the inspections at this time. The problem had existed last
year but had been taken care of.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20, 1984
Page Three
7. The Council did not receive a report on fire inspection
fees for sma:L1 businesses due to lack of time.
8, The Council convened into Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting in the Council
Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger; Council
Members Alford, Barton, Chew, Hopkins and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the
special called meeting of December 13, 1983.
Stephens motion, Chew second that the minutes be approved as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
Hopkins motion, Ridd!esperger second that the consent agenda be
approved as ]presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid % 9251 - Water treatment chemicals
2. Purchase Order ~ 61931 to Justice Welding in the
amount of $3,300.00
3. Purchase Order % 62429 to Cummins Supply in the
amount of $5,486.88
B. Plats and Replats:
!. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of Lots
A and B of the Denton Square Addition (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
2. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Nazarene Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of the final replat of lots 21
and 22, block A, Section I, of the Bellai~e
Heights Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Consider approval of the preliminary replat of
lots 1 and 3A of the Owsley Park Addition, (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
C. Agreements:
1. Consider participation in oversize waterline
(12") to se=vice Allan Estates Mobile Home Park
on South Mayhill Road near IH-35E. (The Public
Utility Board recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20. 1984
Page Four
D. Tax Refund:
1. Consider approval of a tax refund to Property Tax
Service Company in the amount of $804.22.
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing concerning the
proposed annexation of approximately 25.99 acres of land located
east of the existing city limit along Highway 377, south of Brush
Creek Road. Z-1641
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that 2 reply forms had been mailed with 1 returned stating
no preference. This was the second public hearing and!the plan of
services was available for anyone who wanted to see them.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
B. The Council held a public hearing concerning the
proposed annexation of approximately 75.21 acres of land located
west of 1-35W and north of Corbin Road. Z-1645
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that 1 reply form had been mailed with 0 returned. The
owner of the property was requesting annexation.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
4. Ordinances
A. The Council considered approval of an ordinance
amending the grass and weed ordinance.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla stated that the David M. Griffith
study had indicated that with the notification and inspection
process, a $53 to $55 cost was incurred. The administrative fee was
recommended to be increased to $70.
The following ordinance was preseuted:
NO. 84-31
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON RELATING TO GRASS AND
WEEDS, BY INCREASING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR CITY
CUTTING; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS OF THE AMOUNT LEVIED FOR
CUTTING: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted.
On roll call vote,' Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye". Motion carried unanimously,
B. The Council considered approval of an ordinance
amending the water and sewer tapping fees.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20, 1984
Page Five
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this ordinance had
been discussed at the March 13 Council meeting. The staff had
looked at the Ranch Estates pro-rata charges. Two more residents of
Ranch Estates had been in to City Hall and had paid the pro-rata
charges during this week. The sewer lines were all installed,
completed, and covered up. An amendment had been added to the
ordinance to cover those people who had already paid the pro-rata
charges.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-32
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-7 OF ARTICLE I, OF CHAPTER
25 (DF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
TO PROVIDE FOR NEW WATER AND SEWER TAPPING FEES, METER
RELOCATION FEES; SEWER MANHOLE BREAKOUT FEES: CHARGES FOR
WORK NOT SPECIFIED: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH: PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Barton motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the ordinance with
the amendment.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye" Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of an ordinance
amending the wrecking yard ordinance.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this item had been brought
to the Council agenda as a request of Council Member Barton.
Attention had been brought to a flaw in the fencing ordinance which
required that wrecking yards be fenced on the front to the street
but not at the rear to residences.'
City Attorney C. J. Taylor reported that this amendment would clear
up the language of the ordinance calling for fences to be along the
street.
Barton motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted.
Hopkins motion, Barton second, to amend the ordinance to read
"screening" and not "fences~'. This would allow for shrubs or a
living fence instead of a solid fence.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second, to amend the effective date of the
ordinance to read September i, 1984 to allow citizens an opportunity
to comply if they wished to use a living fence,
Motion on effective date of September I, 1984 passed unanimously.
Motion on the amendment for a solid or living fence passed
unanimously.
Vote on the main motion to pass the ordinance was taken.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
5. Resolutions
A. The Council considered adoption of a resolution
approving the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority
/0¥
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20. 1984
Page Six
Industrial Revenue bond issue, FWD Development Co. Ltd. Project,
Series 1984, $1,500,000,
City Manager Chris Hartung requested that this item be removed from
the agenda.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to table the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of a resolution
clarifying provisions of the franchise ordinance concerning payment
of costs incidental to rate request increases by General Telephone.
City Manager Hartung reported that this amendment had been discussed
with GTE and was ready for consideration by the City Council.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton passed on
final reading Ordinance No. 83-111 on the 4th day of October. 1983
granting to General Telephone Company a franchise to operate in the
City of Denton, Texas; and
WHEREAS, General Telephone Company has requested the City
Council to delete the provisions of Section XVIII pertaining to the
reimbursement of the City of its expenses in analyzing and
evaluating future proposed rate requests by General Telephone: and
WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the
requested section deletion should not be made, but instead clarified
by the passage of a separate resolution regarding Section XVIII;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
The. City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby
affirms that the provisions of Section XVIII of Ordinance No. 83-111
pertaining to the reimbursement to the City of Denton of reasonable
fees and expenses of an independent study and evaluation of future
proposed rate requests by General Telephone Company would become
effective only in the instance where the Public Utility Commission
is abolished and the rate making authority is redelegated to the
City Council of the City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION II.
It was the intent of the City Council that rate increases
and reimbursement to the City of Denton for expenses would be
controlled solely by State Law and the Public Utility Commission of
the State of Texas so long as such Commission remains in existence.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of March, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20, 1984
P~ge Seven
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Riddiesperger motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye" Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of a resolution to
increase the monthly per space lease charges at Williams Trade
Square and to authorize the City Manager to have meters placed on
any unleased spaces after May 1, 1984.
Council Member Chew stated that this item had been previously
discussed.
'The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has improved and maintained the
area known as the "Williams Trade Square;" and
WHE~EA$o such improvements include paved parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to increase the current
leasing rates charged for the parking spaces in order to recover the
cost of the maintenance and improvements: and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is desirous of placing meters
on any unleased spaces after May i, 1984.
NOW,~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Manager is hereby authorized to publicly
advertise and lease up to one hundred (100) parking spaces at the
"Williams Trade Square" at the price of One Hdndred Sixty-Eight
Dollars ($168.00) per year per space and to place meters on any
unleased spaces after May 1, 1984, such meters to charge a rate of
ten cents (109) per hour per space.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of March, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
III '
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20, 1984
Page Eight
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, Barton second that the resolution be approved.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye" Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of a resolution
postponing the regular City Council meeting of April 3 to April 10.
City Manager Hartung reported that since the election would be held
on April 7, a meeting would have to be held on April 10. Staff
recommendation was to postpone the meeting of April 3 to April 10.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WI~EREAS, a majority of the Council will be out of the City
of Denton on April 3, 1984, and it is necessary that the Council
meeting for such date be postponed until April 10, 1984: NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the regular Council meeting to be held on April 3,
1984 be postponed until April 10, 1984.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 20th day of March, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20, 1984
Page Nine
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR~, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Hopkins motion, Stephens second that the resolution be approved.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye". Riddlesperger "aye". Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
6. The Council considered authorizing the Arts Council to
proceed with the Arts Complex project.
City Manager Hartung reported at the March 13 Council meeting a
presentation had been made by the Arts Council. The Arts Council
was requesting authorization to proceed with the project so that
bids could be let.
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second to authorize the Arts Council
to proceed.
Motion carried unanimously,
7. The Council considered removing zoning case Z-!626 from the
table,
Alford motion, Chew second to remove Z-1626 from the table. Motion
carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered approval of the petition of Joe
Belew requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the
planned development (PD) classification on a 127.25 acre tract.
Mayor Stewart stated that the public hearing on this petition had
been held but he understood there were two groups who wanted to be
heard. The Council would allow one representative from each group
to speak.
Tom Jester, representing Joe Belew, spoke in favor of the petition
and stated that he was present to answer any' questions that the
Council may have. Mr. Jester distributed a list of the proposed
uses for the neighborhood services portion of the petition. Mr.
Jester also distributed photographs of the traffic at the corner of
Locust and Windsor. The drainage issue had been addressed and the
petitioners felt that Bell Avenue would loop into Locust Street at
the most feasible location,
Council Member Barton asked why this petition had been tabled.
Jester responded the problem had been with the floodway open space
and retention ponds.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that discussions
had been held on recreational facilities.
Mary Hamilton spoke in opposition stating that everyone had been
satisfied with the plan but she believed that the plan had flaws.
Ms. Hamilton asked how long it would be for the citizens would be
asked to put in a Coronado, Stuart, Bell Street drainage project or
to widen Bell Avenue. She also believed that the schools would be
overcrowded and that this project would be a high density one in a
medium density area. Ms. Hamilton concluded by stating that she was
not against progress but was against progress for profit. She
wanted to maintain a quality of life in Denton and to keep dollars
and cents out of zoning changes.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20, 1984
Page Ten
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that the
petition as originally presented had 44 reply forms mailed with 4
returned in favor and 5 in opposition. The staff had recommended
additional conditions to the petition to restrict neighborhood
services to the areas which had been proposed by Mr. Jester. Mr.
Belew was not proposing soccer and football fields and tennis courts
in the recreational areas. The Bell Avenue issue had been taken
back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the P&Z felt that
Bell should tie in to Locust Street but not further north of
Hercules. The final drainage plan would be reviewed during the
preliminary and final plat process. A minimum front yard setback of
25 feet would be required throughout the development. There would
be no on-street parking or portable signs.
Council Member Alford asked about the extension of Bell Avenue.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported the staff had looked at
the proposed extension of Bell as well as other suggestions. A
slide was shown of the proposed loop and Svehla pointed out the Town
North Addition which was already built. This still left the
question of where Bell Avenue should tie in. The Denton Development
Guide showed that Bell in the future should tie in to Locust at
Hercules. This would create a five prong intersection which were
very difficult to control. The staff was suggesting that Bell
intersect south of Hercules.
Council Member Alford asked where Bell would be tying in.
Svehla responded the tie in would be further north to service more
single family areas. In response to the question of traffic, the
traffic past the school was very heavy with lots of pedestrian
problems. In addressing the drainage issue, the retention pond
would retain or impound the water on the site so it would not go
into the channel. This development would cover the soil with
concrete or asphalt: however, the retention plan would allow for
drainage over a several day period after a rain. The channel in the
Aspen area was built to the 100 year level and would not change.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked what the difference would be if
only single family residences were in the petition and no
multi-family.
Svehla responded that Mr. Belew had stated the retention pools would
handle the rain water which would be the same for single or
multi-family.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if the school was directly across
Windsor,
Svehla responded yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if there were any problems with
the multi-family residences being close to the school.
Ellison responded that the staff had talked to the principal at
Strickland Junior High at length and had been told that not many
students reside in multi-family dwellings.
Council Member Alford asked if the proposed uses of the neighborhood
services were a recommendation from the staff or the developer.
Ellison responded the suggestions were those of Mr. Belew, the
developer.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to table approval of the
petition until Council Member Barton could review it. The petition
would be brought back to the Council at the April 10 meeting.
Motion to table carried 6 to 1 with Council Member Chew casting the
"nay" vote.
lift
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 20, 1984
Page Eleven
9. The Council considered authorization of the addition of an
inspector position to the Building Inspector budget.
City Manager Hartung reported that this item had been discussed
previously b~ the Council. A budget amendment would be brought to
the Council later in the year.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to authorize the additional position.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. The following official action on executive session items
was taken:
D. Board Appointments
Stephens motion, Chew second, that John Thompkins be appointed to
the Board of Adjustments. Motion carried unanimously.
11. New Business
The following items of new business were suggested by Council
Members:
Council Member Hopkins requested a report on how street repairs were
progressing, the amount of expenditures, and how much repair work
had been completed.
t~ omrnedmeeting
With no further items of business, was ad~
CHA~KLO~TE - Kr2ZfN i '-d I TV -~E~RETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
0712g
I1 .
City Council Minutes
March 27, 1984
The Council convened into the special called meeting at 5:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger;
Council Members Alford, Barton, Chew, Hopkins,
and Stephens
City Manager, Assistant City Attorney and City
Secretary
ME~BERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered adoption of a condemnation resolu-
tion.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that this was an
18 acre plat zoned for planned development (PD) for single family
detached homes with 6400 square feet minimum lot size. A problem
had arisen in obtaining an easement for off-site drainage. The
developer had attempted to negotiate with property owners but was
being asked to pay what he considered an exorbitant amount for the
easements required. The developer was requesting condemnation
proceedings on the property.
Council ~lember Hopkins asked if .the drainage was the outflow of the
18 acres.
Spivey replied yes. Ms. Spivey referred to a letter from the
developer to City Attorney Taylor which summarized the situation and
requested the condemnation proceedings. (A copy of this letter is
attached to and made a part of these Minutes.)
Mr. Brian Burke, engineer on the project, appeared representing ~r.
Joe Jeter stating that he was available to answer any'questions from
the Council.
Council Member Hopkins asked what Mr. Jeter considered a reasonable
payment for the easements.
Burke responded that in January, property out of the flood plain in
this area had been value4 at $2500 per acre. City Attorney Taylor
and Mr. Jeter had discussed that $4000 per acre would be a
reasonable price.
Council Member Hopkins stated that it appeared this would be a
necessary step to obtain the proper drainage.
Council Member Barton stated that since the condemnation would be
handled by the City, a contract for the reimbursement would be
necessary.
Mayor Stewart stated that the reimbursement for the property would
be paid by the developer.
Council ~lemoer Barton stated that a contract should state that if
for some reason the developer did not pay the property owners, there
was then no contract and no condemnation.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Morris stated that Mr. Jeter had been
working with City Attorney Taylor. An agreement between the City
and Mr. Jeter would be drawn stating that Mr. Jeter was responsible
for the reimbursement to the property owners for the easement
property.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
i{HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton has hereto-
fore determined the necessity for and ordered the acquisition by the
City of Denton of the hereinafter described right, title and
interest in the land hereinafter described; and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 27, 1984
Page Two
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been unable to agree and
cannot agree with the owner upon the value of the hereinafter
described right, title and interest in the hereinafter described
land situated in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLV£D BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
The City Council hereby finds and determines that it is
necessary to acquire the hereinafter described rights, title and
interest in the hereinafter described land, and that it is necessary
that it authorize proceeding in Eminent Domain to acquire the right,
title and interest in the hereinafter described property.
SECTION II.
The City Attorney of the City of Denton, Texas, is hereby
authorized and directed to bring condemnation proceeding to obtain a
drainage easement to the following tract of land situated in Denton
County, Texas:
All that certain 20 foot strip or tract of land situated in the R.
B. Longbo~tom ~Survey, Abstract 775, City and County of Denton,
Texas; the said tract being a part of the tract described in the
deed from W. N. Faltis, et al to Turner Gassaway, et ux recorded in
Volume 504, Page ZZ9 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas;
the said tract being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING for the northwest corner of the tract Oeing described
~erein, at the northwest corner of the said Gassaway tract;
THENCE south 87047' east with the north line of the said tract and
along a fence a distance of 20.0 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE south 0i°55' west 20 feet east of and parallel to the west
line of the said Gassaway tract, a distance of 181.5 feet to a point
for corner;
THENCE south 46036'37'' west a distance of Z8.43 feet to a point for
corner in the west line of the said Gassaway tract;
THENCE north 01°55' east with the said west line a distance of 22.75
feet to a~L iron rod at a fence corner for the northeast corner of
the tract described in the deed from Joyce Meadows to Richard Lee
Smith recorded in Volume 1019, Page 585 of the said deed records;
TH£NCE north 01°55' east continuing with the west line of the said
Gassaway tract and along a fence a distance of 179.1 feet, more or
less, to ~zhe place of beginning and enclosing 0.09 of an acre of
land.
In addition to the above described permanent easement, a 16
foot wide temporary construction easement adjacent and parallel to
the south and east line of said permanent easement, all as shown on
the attached drawing incorporated herein by reference.
Said drainage easement covering the above-described land is
sought for a public purpose; the title thereto to be vested in the
City of Denton.
T~e aforesaid authorization recognizes the obligation,
imposed by ordinance, of the developer of the adjacent property (Oak
Ridge Estates) to pay for the expense of providing off-site drainage
improvements to serve the development of property and that said
condemnation is conditioned upon said developer and the City
entering into an agreement that the City will be reimbursed for
acquisition costs incurred in said condemnation proceedings.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 27, 1984
Page Three
SECTION III.
This Resolution shall become effective from and after its
date of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the Z?th day of March, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CiTY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Barton motion, Chew second that the resolution be passed subject to
the proper contract agreement between the City and the developer on
the reimbursement of costs. On roll call vote, Barton "aye",
Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye",
Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
With no further discussion or business, the meet~ing was adjournej.
CH~LOTTE ALLEN~T~ SECRETARY
1447C
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
ResidentiaJ · Remodels . Commercial
march 12,1984
City Of Denton
2!5 E. McKinney
Denton, Texas 76201
ATTENTION: MR. C. J. TAYLOR
REFERENCE: ()ak Ridge Estates Drainage Easement
Dear Mr. Taytor:
During the past two months, I have contacted the two land owners
adjacent to the north east corner of the proposed Oak Ridge
Estates. An effort has been made to negotiate a surface drainage
easement with both parties.
As of this date no agreement has been reached due to the
exorbitant prices demanded by the owners. Mr. Ralph Nations, the
owner to the north of the subdivision, will not sell the 16' wide
200' long portion of land required for the referenced easement.
However, he will sell the approximate 1/2 acre bounded by the
north side of the subdivision and the south side of the small
creek dividing his land for two finished lots in the subdivision.
This is a minimum of $21,000 for the 1/2 acre or $42,000 on a per
acre basis. It should be noted that only 1/2 of the land (1/4
acre) he has offered to sell is outside of the current flood
plain.
Mr. T. F. Gassaway is the owner of the land to the east of the
proposed subdivision. He has offered to sell approximately .37
acre of land to accommodate the referenced easement for $10,000
or an equivalent of $27,027 per acre. Again approximately 1/2 of
the .37 acre is outside the flood plain.
2414Jacque!Jne Denton, Texas 76201 (81'7) 382-21
//?
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
Residential · Remodels · Commercial
The land in that general area has sold for $4,500.00 to $6,500.00
per acre (all out of the flood plain). The closer to Loop 288,
the more expensive the land becomes (up to $12,500 per acre).
However, the land in question for the referenced easement is
worth only a small fraction of what the owners are requesting.
Based on the above information, I am requesting that the City
of Denton intervene in the establishment of the referenced
drainage easement through formal condemnation procedures.
Sincerely,
Joe Jeter
2414 Jacqucline Denton, Texas ?6201 (817) 382-2 ! 65
City Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
The Council convened into the special called meeting at 5:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Barton,
Chew, and Hopkins
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger was in Washington,
D.C. testifying for the Trinity Improvement
Authority
Council Member Stephens
1. The Council considered adoption of a resolution regarding
funding for Flow Memorial Hospital.
Mayor Stewart read a letter from County Judge Buddy Cole regarding
the County's position on the joint funding for Flow Hospital. This
letter is attached to and made a part of these minutes.
Council Member Chew stated a resolution had been previously agreed
upon by the County and the City and he could not see that the letter
explained the changes which had Oeen made to the resolution by the
County. Referring to Judge Cole's statement in the letter that a
joint meeting be called to review the hospital's five year plan,
Chew stated that all parties were aware of the problems and did not
see that such a meeting would accomplish anything. Chew concluded
by stating that he could not vote for the resolution presented by
the County but would vote on the original resolution as presented.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he was in agreement that enough
talk had taken place and felt the Council should vote on the
original resolution.
Council ~lember Stephens joined the meeting.
Mayor Stewart stated that the County had already budgeted $125,000
for Flow and ne felt that the City had met their obligation. He
concurred that the Council should vote on the original resolution
instead of the amended resolution.
Council' Member Barton stated that the County had never had a five
year plan. The immediate need which Flow Hospital had was for funds
for operating capital. Barton also agreed that the Council should
vote on the original resolution.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton and the
Commssioners Court of the County of Denton have determined to
maintain Flow Memorial Hospital as a public institution of the
highest class possible to serve the health needs of the people of
this area; and
WHEREAS, we believe that broad public support is required
to assure its development and maintenance as a viable and
resourceful[ hospital to serve all the people; and
WHEREAS, we desire to build on the foundation which has
been provided by the sacrifices of those who have contributed toward
our goal; and
WHEREAS, a public hospital is necessary to attract the
necessary young medical professionals required to meet the needs of
the community;
I ,1 '
City of Denton City Council kiinutes
Meeting of April 3, 1984
Page Two
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we encourage the help
of citizens and institutions in assisting us in providing the
resources needed to support our public hospital;
BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that we, the City Council of the
City of Denton and the Commissioners Court of Denton County agree
during the coming five year period to support Flow Memorial Hospital
financially as follows:
The City of Denton pledges to the Board of Directors of
Flow Memorial Hospital the sum of $125,000 for the support and
operation of Flow Memorial Hospital during each of the next five
years.
The County of Denton pledges, in addition to necessary
funds for indigent care, to furnish the Board of Directors of Flow
Memorial Hospital the sum of $125,000 for the support and operation
of Flow Memorial Hospital during each of the next five years.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of
Denton, Texas, this the 5rd day of April, 1984.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Commissioners Court of Denton
County, this the 3rd day of April, 1984.
COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BUDDY COLE, COUNTY JUDGE RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
WALLACE BATEY, COMMISSIONER J. W. RIDDLESPERGER
PRECINCT 1 MAYOR PRO-TEM
SANDY JACOBS, COMMISSIONER JOE G. ALFORD, COUNCILMAN
PRECINCT 2
LEE WALKER, COIv~IlSSIONER JACK Q. BARTON, COUNCILMAN
PRECINCT 3
B. E. SWITZBR, COMMISSIONER MARK R. CHEW, COUNCILMAN
PRECINCT 4
- CHARLES HOPKINS, COUNCILMAN
RAY S'I'gFHgNS, COUNCILMAN
ATTEST: ATTEST:
MARY JO HILL, COUNTY CLERK CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 3, 1984
Page Three
Hopkins motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved.
Council Member Stephens stated that the public investment in this
vital institution needed to be protected and he felt the passage of
the resolution would give a signal to the community that the City
Council was interested in resolving the financial problems at Flow
Hospital. Stephens further stated that he would encourage the Board
of Oirectors at Flow to complete the five year plan and to take the
necessary steps to protect this public investment.
Oil roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimousl?.
Council Member Chew asked to speak for Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger
who was in Washington. Chew stated that Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger
had worked very diligently on the original resolution and had only
the best interests of the hospital and the City of Denton in mind.
In negotiations with the County Commissioners the $125,000 figures
had been agreed upon from each entity with the County still
responsible for the indigent care. This contribution would be
included in the five year plan.
Council Member Stephens asked when this contribution would begin.
Council Member Chew respoaded this budget year.
Mayor Stewart stated that a committee had not been formed by either
the City Council or the County Commissioners Court to try to resolve
the reoccuring problems with funding for Flow Hospital. Individuals
had been meeting in an effort to solve the problems. It was the
consensus of the Council that a committee of Council Member Chew,
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger, and Council Member Hopkins be formed to
negotiate with the County and the Board of Directors.
Mayor Stewart also stated that he would have difficulty in approving
any plan waicn woald require the citizens of the City. of Denton to
pay more toward Flow that other county residents. In order to meet
the hospital's immediate financial need, he could overlook the fact
that the citizens of Denton would be paying approximately 2~ per
capita for the next 5 years but he did not want to set a precedent
that the City of Denton would pay one-half and the County would pay
one-half when a portion of the contribution paid by the County was
raised by taxes collected from the City residents.
Mayor Stewart further stated that he did not believe the County was
meeting its indigent care responsibility, due partially to the fact
that an exact definition of "indigent" had not been found.
Council ~4ember Stephens stated that, in conjunction with various
problems, some of the indigent care costs were created by other
counties using Flow Hospital. This became a problem when the county
government would not pay and the cost had to be paid out of
operating expenses. Stephens concluded by stating that he would
like to see a report from the Flow Hospital Board of Oirectors and
the hospital administrator on these costs and would also encourage
the board to complete the master plan.
With no further discussion or business, the meeting was adjourned.
1448C
z:FC kC- ' ~ ,, ~ ~~J,~:,:.:'-'",¢ PqECINCT 3
_ ~?7 ]6~,~-24C~ ,817' 484-7410
: D TON COURT
SANDY J~COBS K~/'~/'~" ~;¢'
~ ~L~:~,~ B.E. SW]TZER
~c~C~ ,C- 2 PRECINCT 4
2'~ 4~6-~72' ,~]7; 482-34i3
BUDDY COLE, JUDGE
April 3, 1984
Honorable Richard O. Stewart, Mayor
and Honorable City Council
City of Denton
215 East McKinney Street
Denton, Texas 76201
Dear Mayor and Council:
As you know the resolution passed by the Commissioners
Court regarding Flow Memorial Hospital is substantially
different from the original suggestion.
First, we inserted the word "minimum" because either
of us may elect to expend an amount larger than $125,000.
Second, we specifically designated "capital improvements"
because the hospital has obvious immediate needs in that area.
Third, we certainly understand the medicare repayment
needs to be addressed; however, at this point we have no
assurance that any extended payback to medicare would be
acceptable to them.
Fourth, we are in total agreement that there must be
a five-year plan for Flow. But, Flow's data on that is not
quite ready for the Council and Court to consider. If we
say now that we allocate S125,000 per year on a five-year
plan, it is really based on no facts.
We suggest that we go ahead with the $125,000 to Flow
as stated in our resolution in order to give Flow much needed
help and show that we as partners are side by side in the
effort.
Honorable Richard O. Stewart
and Honorable City Council
City of Denton -2- April 3, 1984
Then, we should take the Flow five-year figures and
data and call a joint meeting to begin going over the plan
for the future. Our decisions will then be based on fact
and have substantially more credibility.
Yo~ very truly,
County Judge
BC:jg
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 10, 1984
The Council convened into a work session at 5:30 pm in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger; Council
Members Alford, Barton, Chew, Hopkins, and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a report on fire inspections for small
businesses.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that information on this pro-
gram, including a letter from the Fire Marshal, had been forwarded
to the City Council in the agenda backup material. The fee system
was a result of last year's fee study and was in response to the
need to tie the cost of the service to the recipient.
Council Member Hopkins asked if there was a definite schedule of
items to look for in the inspection.
City Manager Hartung responded yes; Fire Marshal Hagemann trained
the inspectors and provided a checklist of items.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he had received seven calls from
businessmen who did not think the program was worthwhile. The
comment had been made that the inspector walked in, looked for a
fire extinguisher, and charged $15.00.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated he believed a thorough inspection
done by a competent inspector would be worth $15.00. The infor-
mation in the backup material would indicate that complete in-
spections were being done.
Councilmember Alford and Mayor Stewart both stated that they had
received one complaint regarding the program.
Councilmember Hopkins asked if these inspections' had been done
before.
City Manager Hartung replied that courtesy inspections had beea pro-
vided on a more-or-less request basis with no charge. The fee now
being assessed was a result of the cost of service study.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Fire Department should keep a
log of businesses inspected to see if the inspections did result in
less fires.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger then asked if there was a city ordinance
dealing with the inspection of burglar bars on windows as a
potential fire escape problem.
City Attorney C.J. Taylor responded that there was no state statute
setting standards for burglar bars or installation.
Mr. Ernie Larson, Larson Electronics, stated that his business had
been inspected and that he believed that Fire Marshal Hagemann had
- done a good job. However, since the inspection and the fee were-
mandatory, he felt this was double taxation. He summarized by say-
ing that the inspections should be continued but the fee should be
eliminated.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger responded that the city was providing a
special service to Mr. Larson as a businessman and that everyone
paid taxes.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Two
Mr. Larson replied that only businesses had to pay while homeowners
received the inspection service for free. The personnel conducting
the inspections were on the city payroll. If they had time to
perform the inspections now, why weren't they done before.
Fire Marshal Hagemann responded that additional people in the Fire
Department had been trained to perform the inspections but they also
had other duties.
Mr. Larson stated that he believed the inspection was a good ser-
vice, but that he did not believe that businessmen should have to
pay.
Mayor Stewart stated that everyone paid taxes on their houses to
support the Fire Department. If a business was being inspected, the
owner should pay.
Council Member Stephens asked how many homes requested the
inspection.
City Manager Hartung responded he did not know. Some adoptive a-
gencies required homes to be inspected.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he did not believe the program
was being handled properly and that the Staff and Council might be
doing more harm than good. He also stated that he felt it was
something that should be done, but tabs should be kept to see if the
program did reduce fires in businesses.
2. The Council received a report on the collection of current
and delinquent property taxes by the City of Denton and the Denton
Independent School District (DISD).
City Manager Hartung reported that further review had been com-
pleted. He had spoken with Gilbert Bernstein of the DISD regarding
the collection and billing of property taxes. Mr. Bernstein felt it
would be two or three years before the Tax Appraisal District would
be in a position to bill and collect taxes.
Council Member Hopkins asked why this would take so long.
City Manager Hartung responded that the Tax Appraisal District was
still setting up and getting policies and procedures in place and
felt that they should not take on any new tasks at this time.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger stated that it should not take so long
as all of the information was at the Tax Appraisal District.
Council Member Hopkins asked why the district could not collect
these taxes.
City Manage]: Hartung responded that the tax appraisal district did
not have the proper staffing at this time. The DISD used the firm
of McCary, Huey, & Felker to collect taxes. This firm assessed a
15% fee on all collections.
City Attorney Taylor and the City Manager recommended the use of
Terry Lewis for the collection of delinquent property taxes and
utility bills. Mr. Lewis would notify of his intention to collect
with one letter.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he believed that the Council
should talk with the Tax Appraisal District about this collection
program.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Three
3. The Council received a report on retiree insurance (HMO).
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that in February the
Council had asked her to look into an HMO for retirees and to bring
back a report on the rate. This information was included in the
backup material with the agenda,
Council Member Hopkins asked what was re-insurance.
Usrey responded that this was the point at which the City was no
longer liable. In terms of claims, the City's exposure would be
much higher if retirees were added. The City would use the TMRS and
Fire Fighters Pension Fund definition of the word "retiree." There
were presently 24 retirees and 14 had been contacted regarding this
insurance plan. Five of those contacted had indicated an interest.
The cost to the City to fund the retirees insurance was based on
adding five retirees each year and losing one each year. In 30
years the City would be looking at a cost of over $2,000,000 to
cover the rates. The additional cost of re-insurance would be
$400,000 on top of employee re-insurance. There had been 24
retirees in the last 5 years with 5 additional employees retiring
this year and 14 employees eligible to retire. The cost of funding
the retirees insurance would affect the City's financial statement.
If the Council chose to fund the retirees insurance, the Staff
recommendation was that thorough actuarial study be done. If the
Council chose not to fund the retirees insurance, the Staff
recommendation was to offer the HMO to retirees at their own expense.
City Manager Hartung reported that he had consulted with Arthur
Andersen & Co. about the funding of this retiree insurance. If
adopted, the City would have to approve payment for contingent
liabilty.
Council Member Barton asked if a fixed amount could be determined
and set aside each month.
Council Member Chew responded that there would then need to be two
programs: one for current employees, and one for retirees.
Mayor Stewart stated that he would like to see the City contribute
something to the retirees. Perhaps a certain amount could be
alloted to each retiree until they reach the age of 65.
4. The Council received a report on street repair expenditures.
Assistant City Manager, Rick Svehla stated that Council Member
Hopkins had requested a report on street repairs, maintenance, and
budget considerations. The City had just gone through the worst 5
months of the year, especially the winter months. Dealing with the
city streets was a cooperative effort between three divisions.
There was $26,000 in the budget for drainage improvements with
$5,000 already expended primarily on concrete and pipe. $250,000
had been budgeted on supplies and materials for street patching.
$35,000 of this budgeted amount had been used and $60,000 would be
used for the rest of the year. The staff was recommending the
purchase of a self-contained unit which could put down an additional
10,000 feet of asphalt per year. This expenditure would then leave
$120,000 for overlay and seal coat. Crews had not been successful
with crack sealing and would be using a new material. $190,000 had
been budgeted for street construction. $164,000 was left in this
budget with $125,000 of this money committed to oversize
participation. Svehla then discussed projects which were underway
at Bell, Nottingham, and Welch streets.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10o 1984
Page Four
The Council convened into the executive session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel and board appointments. No official
action was taken.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 pm in the
Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger: Council
Members Alford, Barton, Chew, Hopkins, and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. Consent Agenda
Hopkins motion, Barton second, that the consent agenda be approved
as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid % 9252 - Refurbish water tank
2. Bid ~ 9253 - Truckbed and bodies
3. Bid ~ 9255 - Lightning mast
4. Bid ~ 9256 - Meter boxes and fittings
5. Bid % 9257 - Capacitors and sectionalizers
6. Bid ~ 9258 - Rental of pneumatic roller
7. Bid % 9259 - Road materials
8. Bid ~ 9260 - Carpeting - Phase I remodel
9. Bid ~ 9261 - Light fixtures
10. Bid ~ 9262 - Lease purchase of equipment
11. Bid ~ 9264 - Exercise equipment
B, Purchase Orders:
1. Purchase Order 9 62688 to Joe Cobler Service
Company
2. Purchase Order ~ 62747 to the Texas Safety
Association
C. Plats and ReplaCs:
1. Approval of the preliminary plat of Audra
Estates. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
2. Approval of the preliminary plat of the McJones
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Five
3. Approval of the preliminary and final replats of
lot 4 and the east part of lot 5, John A. Hann's
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
4. Approval of the preliminary and final replats of
lot 3A, block 3, Heritage Oaks Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
5. Approval of the preliminary and final replats of
lot 3 and 4, block 8, Northwood Addition, Eighth
Installment. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
2. The Council moved to the emergency agenda item regarding
the situation on North Locust and Robert Sage appeared.
Mr. Sage stated that he had appeared before the Council two o6 three
times previously, and the purpose of this appearance was to update
the Council on the situation. Mr. Sage distributed a handout of
background material on the drainage problems at North Locust. (A
copy of this information is attached to and made a part of these
minutes.) Mr. Sage showed a video tape of the damages at his
building. Mr. Sage then stated that the city would not issue
mandates to protect citizens, and it was the responsibility of the
city to respond.
City Attorney C.J. Taylor reported that he had spoken to the
attorneys involved and this case would be set for trial. The city
had reviewed the situation with the Building Inspector's office, and
had advised Mr. Sage that this was a party wall agreement dispute.
If the east and west walls were removed, there would still be a
problem as the drainage was under the north wall.
Council Member Stephens asked about the wall stating he thought that
particular wall was blocked off.
Mr. Sage stated that the wall was tilting at a 20 degree angle.
Council Member Stephens stated that the City Engineer should take a
look at this wall.
Mr. Sage concluded by stating that he had placed before the Council
a list of eight violations to the city's codes and ordinances and
requested that they take action.
3. The Mayor presented the Texas Safety Association awards of
achievement to various City departments.
A. Award of Achievement:
1. City of Denton - Sanitation Department
2. City of Denton - Water and Sewer Distribution
B. Award of Merit:
1. City of Denton - Administration
2. City of Denton - Electric Production
3. City of Denton - Parks and Recreation
4. City of Denton - Police Department
5. City of Denton - Public Works/Street Department
6. City of Denton - Water Production
C. Award of Honor:
1. Entire City of Denton
TO: DENTOn% Ci ~:Y COgNCiL
FROM: Robert E Sage
SUBJECT.: BgILDING .LODE VIOLATIONS AT 221 & 223
N. LOCUST~ DENTON, TEXAS - O~ER, Y.K. WONG
CODE VIOLATION DETAIL:
Section 5-66 - Relating to health hazards
Section 5-72 - Depreciation of immediate nezghborhood
properites
Section 5-76 - Weather and water tightness
Section 5-80 - Exterior treatment
Section 5-83 - Supporting structural integrity
Section 5-86 - Floors, walls and ceiling structural
integrity
Section 5-88 - Interiors
Section 5-135(b) - Safety to others
(Source: Jackie W Doyle (Building Official Citv of
Denton) letter to Y K Wong, owner, 221-223 North Locust
buildings, dated February 17, 1982.) Copy of J.W. Doyle
letter of 2-17-82 and J.D. Morris letter of 5-6-82
attached.
DATE OF FIRE: OCTOBER 28, 1981
CURRENT STATUS: CODE VIOLATIONS AKE STILL iN EFFECT AS OF
APRIL 10, 1984 (30 MONTHS)
PROBLEM: Continued flooding of Robert Sage Building at 225
No. Locust at each rainfall . Flooding occurrences
exceeding 22 times with standing ,water up to 3/4 inch deep
requiri.qg commercial extraction.
Documentation today by showing film taken at 225 N. Locust
on March 12, 1984.
ACTION REQUESTED: Oirect the City employees in charge of
Code Violations to enforce the Codes as mandated by the
Citizens of Denton.
'Professional Recru~terstoBu$~nessand IndustrySmce 1969"
225 N LOCUST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 817-382-1568
.......... '
ClTYof DENTON, TEXAS ~UNICIP,~,L BUILD/NC , DENTON, TEXA5 76201 TELEPHONE (8t7) 566.8200
O{h'cc of C~[}' ~t[orr~e}'
Hay 6, 1982
Mr. K~th Wong
220 Ma_~ietta Street
Denton,~Texas 7o201
Dear Mr. Wong:
This is to c ...... m the ~nde~o~a ...... ~ we reached on May 6 at the
meeting in Mr. Doyle's office concerning your property at 223
North Locust.
All loose rubble, garbage and material will be removed from the
premises by May 12, 1982.
The building itself, including the walls, roof and any above-
ground structures that were part of ~~uz~ ,~ ~
and removed from the premises by May 27, 1982.
Please correct these problems by the dates indicated.
Sincerely yours,
O. Morris
~sistant City Attorney
JDH :er
cc :~. Robert E. Sage
- '~ ~ Locust Street
22~ ~o~ ~n
Dennon, Texas 76201
ITY of DENTON~ TE.,~.4S ,',~UNICIPAL BUILDING , OENTON, TEXAS ?~201 / TELEPHONE (S17) $66-8200
February 17, 1982 ~) ) '~''0~ ~
M~. Y. K. Wong
220 Marietta Street
Denton, TX 75201 ~
Dear M~. WonS:
This tecce~ is your official notice ~ha~ tou~ building located
221-223 No~h Locus~ SCa'eeC in Denton has been determined by ~he
City Building Official ~o be a substandard buitdins in accordance
wi~h ~he City's m~nimum housing and building s~anda~ds. You~
building is in violation of :he followin~ sec:~ons of the minimum
housin~ and building s~anda:ds o~dinance:
1. Section 5-66 Sc~ing "Ali hand areas shal~ be kept free from
organic and inorganic material ~h~ might become a heal,h,
accid'en~, o~ fire hazard as defined herein. All land areas,
improved and unimproved, shall be kep~ clean a~ all rimes.
He:al containers wi~h covers shall be p~ovided for ~he
Cempo~acy storage of garbage and rubbish. D~sposa~ of
~ubbish and ocher ~efuse by means of incineration shali be
done in accordance wi~h all regula~ions of the City of
Denton. Ha~e:ials of in [ia~mable nature shall be safely
scored as provided in the fi~e code o~ be removed [~om the
pue~[ses ."
2. / Section 5-?2 Scaring "Alt land areas shall be so maintained
as no~ co cause a subscan:iat depreciation in p~ope~cy values
in ~he i~media~e neighborhood. Exterior p~ope~cy areas sha[l
be kept free from objects, materials, and conditions which
witl have an adverse e[fec: on adjacent a~e=ises by :educing
the desirab[ii~y of living condicions in the ]mmediace
neighborhood and causing e subs~ancia! dep:eci;tc~on ~n
[ p~ope~:y values."
~ec~on 5 76 ScaLing "Ever7 structure shall i ~
cha~ ic will be weather and waCec-~ighc. Exce/[o:
roofs, and all openings around doors, windows, chimneys, and
al! ocaec paces of the structure shall be so maincaine~ so as
co keeo '..~a c e ~ from entering ~he structure and co ~c o','en c
uu~,d e nea: Zoss. Damaged maCeri~[s mus[ be repa [: ,~,-i
replaced. A~Z parrs of :he scruccure cha[ show evidence
dry :,~ o/ detecLo~ation shall be ~eolaced and ~efin~shed to
~ be ~ conformity with the test of the
DEPART/qEN T OF PUBLIC W'OI~KS
be so maintained as co be vermin and rodent free as required
b7 the health code."
Section ~-83 SL~Cin8 "Supporting structural members of every
structure shall be structurally sound and capable of bearin~
the load safely. Supporting structural members sha~ be
' considered co be structurally sound if such members are
capable of bearin~ imposed loads safely and if there is no
evidence of deterioration."
6. Section 5-$6 Scaring "Floors, walls, and ceilings of every
structure shall be structurally sound and maintained im a
clean and sanitary condition. Sam~ shall be free from
cracks, breaks, loose plaster, and similar conditions.
Floors shall be considered to be structurally sound where
capable of safely bearing imposed loads and shall be
maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Walls and
ceilings shall be considered to be structurally sound and in
good repair when clean, free from cracks, breaks, loose
plaster, and similar conditions."
7. Section 5-88 Stating "The interior of every structure shall
be maintained free from rubbish and garbage and other refuse
that might become a health, accident, or fire hazard. Metal
containers with tight-fitting covers shall be provided for
the temporary storage of rubbish, garbage, and ocher refuse.
Disposal of garbage by garbage disposal units shall be in
accordance with ali applicable regulations of the City of
Denton. Materials of an inflammable nature shall be stored
so as to comply with the fire code or be removed from the
premises."
$. Section 5-!35 Stating "An'/ structure having any of the
defects described below are deemed unfit for human habitation
or use and shall be so placarded:
(a) The structure Lacks illumination, ventilation,
sanitation, heat, or other facilities adequate to
protect the health and safety of the occupants or
the public.
(b) The sc~ucCuse is damaged, decayed, d~Lapidaced
insanitary, unsafe, or vermin-infested in such ~
manner as to create a serious hazard to the hen]tn
and safety of the occupants or the public.
(c The sEruccure, because o[ the location, general
conditions, state of the p~emises, or number
occupants, is so insanitary, unsafe, overcro~{ded.,
or otherwise detrimental to health and safety thac
it creates a serious hazard to the occuoants or the
public."
If these violations have not been corrected by 4:00 p.m. March
10, 1982 we will request the City Attorney to file charges
against you in accordance with Section 5-140 of the City Code of
Ordinances.
Sincerely,
Building Official
JWD:st
C. J. Taylor, City Attorney
Jack 'Barton
Dick Foster
Bob Hageman
Robert E. Sage
Robbie Baughman
URBAN DESIGN ASSOCIATES "
306 W Mare SI
Lew~swlle. TX 75067
(2~4) 436-8238
8 March 1984 "
Mr. Robert Sage
Robert Sage & Associates
225 N. Locust
Denton, Texas 76201
Dear Mr. Sage,
On Thursday February 23, 1984, I conducted a study in and around
your premises for the purpose of determining the cause and/or source of
water seepage into your building. ~'ne following is a report of my
findings and a recommendation on how to alleviate the problem.
The floor of your building is constructed approximatly 16 inches
below the concrete slab on the ajoining property, due to the natural
slope of the land. The properties are separated by a double faced brick
party wall which is resting on the concrete foundation at the lower of
the two levels. The party wall is acting as a retaining wall with soil
bearing against it on the adjoining property. %~is soil is apparently
saturated with moisture. The concrete slab covering the soil is
preventing evaporation and causing the soil to remain constantly wet.
The exterior surface of the party wall has deteriorated, mostly due to
damage from a previous fire. Some bricks are loose, mortar has fallen
out in places, and there are holes where rafters used to penetrate the
wall. Water can certainly enter through these penetrations and travel
down the interior crevices of the wall, exiting at the bottom into your
building. The concrete slab covering the adjacent property is cracked
and broken, allowing rainwater to penetrate through the slab, increasing
the saturation of the soil to the point that it will hold no more
moisture. This, in effect, is causing water to stand against the brick
party wall. The water is finding its way through th~ mortar joints in
the brick wall and into your building at the lower level. This most
likely happens each time it rains. This condition was not a problem
when the adjoining building had a roof. Water was not allowed to reach
the soil beneath the slab. That is the reason why the plastic sheets
which you have laid out has helped somewhat, although the plastic is not
sealed and still allows water to"leak through to the soil below.
The best way to prevent water from running into your building is to
not allow water to stand against the party wall. In cases such as this
URBAN DFSIGN ASSOCIATES
306 W Ma,n St
Lew~swlte TX 75067
(214) 436-8238
where soil is back filled against an exterior wall and that soil is
allowed to absorb rain water, it is co~on ~ractice to waterproof the
sub-surface wall and to install a French drain. A French drain is a
perforated pipe buried in gravel at the lowest level of the wall. Any
water that infiltrates the gravel will seep into the pipe and will be
carried away to a storm sewer. Not only is the wall waterproofed, but
water is not allowed to stand against the wall.
Because the adjoining property is not being used, the most
economical solution to your problem would be to s~ply remove the soil
from against the party wall. A portion of the concrete slab on the
adjoining property could be removed and a ditch of sorts dug so as to
expose the entire surface of the party wall. Water collected in the
ditch must be allowed to run off to a nearby storm drain. It may also
be prudent to waterproof the lower portion of the wall.
Verification of the conditions outlined above should be made by
digging a test hole on the adjoining property approximately 2-3 feet in
diameter through the concrete slab and do~ to the foundation of the
lower level at a location at the ~dspan of the wall and against the
wall. ~e purpose of this test hole is to verify construction of the
wall and to observe the moisture content of the soil. If the digging of
a test hole can be arranged, I would like to be there to observe the
conditions at the t~e that it is being dug. Please notify me of any
arrangements that are made, or of further occurances of the problem.
Your~truely~
John Peveto II
Registered Architect
CC:
George Preston
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Six
Mayor Stewart stated that he appreciated the efforts of City
employees during the past year to win recognition from the Texas
Safety Association.
City Manager Chris Hartung recognized the efforts by John Maxwell,
of the Emergency Management office.
4. The Council heard Ms. Margaret Hubbard requesting sewer
fees for mobile home park.
Mr. James Watson, owner of Silver Dome Mobile Home Park, appeared
for Ms. Hubbard and represented the mobile home park owners of
Denton County. Mr. Watson stated that over 1,000 residents were
protesting the sewer, not the water, rate. Mr. Watson distributed
information on the various mobile home parks and the average sewer
bill from last month, and the current month. (This information is
attached to and made a part of these minutes.) This increase
represented a 50 percent increase over the city residents rate
structure, and was inconsistent in billing. It has been explained
that rates had been raised and mobile home parks, having been
overlooked, were being brought into line. Mr. Watson stated that
this increase did not take into account long-term leases. The
mobile home park owners were being asked to hook-up the sewer at the
owners expense, and the lines were being reverted to the city. Mr.
Watson suggested that an average be taken of the mobile home parks
inside the city limits, and this should be considered when setting
the rate. He was protesting the sudden increase in the rate, and
that the rates in the county were 50 percent higher than those in
the city. He felt that was unfair. Mr. Watson stated he wished to
have the Council reconsider the ordinance and to spread the
adjustment over a 3 or 4 year period. He did not believe that
mobile home park residents should be made to correct an error made
by the City.
Mayor Stewart stated that there were concerns over the disparity in
billing which needed to be investigated to assure that everyone was
paying their fair share. Due to the oversight of the mobile home
parks outside the city limits in the last two rate increases, they
had gotten off "scot free." Those people being served outside the
city limits paid 150% because of the increased cost of service.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that when the staff
reviewed the sewer rates, all were increased by 56% with some
differences. The mobile home parks outside the city limits had been
charged $2.50 per unit and were not changed in the last two rate
increases. The staff had looked at average usage in residential
homes, the number of people, the amount of flow per person, and the
number of people in mobile homes in the county. The Public Utility
Board and the City Council had agreed to charge those persons using
City of Denton sewer service outside the city limits at the rate of
150%.
Mr. Watson stated that he had visited with the people in the mobile
home parks, and they felt they were not using 65,000 gallons of
water. Mr. Watson asked if a meter could be put on the wells.
Nelson responded that this was being worked on now for those areas
outside of the city limits. Some industries take water ~n and use
it in process. The difficulty was to determine what goes back into
the sewer system. A sewer flow meter could be added.
Council Member Chew asked how the charges could vary so much.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the increases were astronomical,
and it appeared to be unfair to have implement them all at one time.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council could not subsidize one part
of the City to the detriment of others.
107 '
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Seven
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked if a plan could be devised to
allow these mobile home residents to have the rate increased in
increments.
Councilmember Stephens stated that the Council should give Bob
Nelson an opportunity to study the report and rates as presented by
Mr. Watson and to report at the next council meeting.
Nelson responded that he believed there should be a uniform increase.
5. Public Hearings.
A. The Council considered the petition of Doylen Conine,
representing Checkmate Development Corp., requesting a change in
zoning from the single family 10 (SF-IO) to the single family 7
(SF-7) classification on an approximately 34 acre tract beginning
approximately 800 feet north of Old North Road, adjacent and south
of the Kingston Trace Addition, and east of Northwood Addition.
Z-1646
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Doylen Conine, President of Checkmate Development Corp.. spoke
in favor of the petition stating that he felt the proposed zoning
was comparable with adjoining properties. The engineer on the
project would be available to answer any questions the Council might
have.
Mr. Lawrence Kelly, 2608 Emerson, spoke in opposition stating that
residents of this area had appeared before the Council regarding
this tract 15 years ago. The developer wanted to change from SF-iO
to SF-7 with single family housing and apartments. This parcel had
been zoned as SF-iO and the residents were requesting the Council to
consider their position. Access roads out of this tract to the city
were Old North Road to University or south to Windsor and then to
Sherman. The extension of the loop will not be constructed for 4 or
5 more years which meant that there was no adequate access in or out
of this tract.
Ms. Ruth Mintline, 1328 Heather Lane, spoke in opposition stating
that she was not adjacent to this tract, but that she believe that
property values would be affected. Ms. Mintline stated that she had
checked the zoning when she moved to her home on Heather Lane, and
that this was the third time in less than a year that the neighbors
had had to come before the City Council to fight a zoning change.
The neighbors did not want the zoning changed,
Ms. Heather White, 2757 Mill Pond Road, spoke in opposition stating
that there were drainage problems in the area and asked the Council
to not make a bad situation worse.
Ms. Sarah Jane Carter spoke in opposition stating that this tract
was the only SF-10 zoning in Denton. Ms. Carter further stated that
she has spend 9 years saving money to build a home ~n a SF-IO area
to move out of SF-7.
Mr. Eugene Akin, 116 Mill Pond Road. spoke in opposition stating
that when SF-IO zoning was in effect there should have to be some
overriding justification to reduce to SF-7. The developer would
make more money, but the residents should get some consideration.
Mr. Conine was allowed to speak in rebuttal.
Mr. Conine stated that Mr. Kelly had missed the latest information
on Loop 288. Contracts would be let on that portion of the loop in
November 1984. Windsor Street was an 80 foot thoroughfare and could
handle the traffic. Developers heard the tome "we like it like it
is." Mr. Conine further stated that people do not like change.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Eight
Seeing the success of the Kingston Trace Addition to the north, the
developers were asking for 20 acres to remain zoned SF-iO, and were
asking for the re-zoning of an area that was adjacent to SF-7 zoning
in Kingston Trace. The smaller lots were preferred by buyers in the
marketplace.
Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked how many more homes could be
placed in the development if the area were zoned SF-7.
Mr. Conine responded there would be 25% more lots.
Council Member Hopkins asked what would be the price difference
between lots zoned SF-iO and lots SF-7.
Mr. Conine responded that the difference would be between $2,500 and
$3,000 per lot.
Council Member Hopkins asked about deed restrictions.
Mr. Conine responded that deed restrictions were not currently in
place.
Council Member Stephens asked whether Mr. Conine was a developer or
a speculator.
Mr. Conine responded that he owned the corporation.
Council Member Stephens asked if Mr. Conine would contract to custom
build the houses or build them to be sold at a later date.
Mr. Conine responded that the corporation would build a few houses
for immediate sale, but would build the majority of the homes as the
land developed.
Council Member Stephens asked Mr. Conine whether he was aware that
the property was zoned SF-10 when he purchased it.
Mr Conine responded "yes."
Council Member Alford asked about the Old North Road access, and if
there were plans to connect it with Windsor Drive.
Mr. Conine responded that yes, the two would connect.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the cost of a lot was a nominal
charge when you are trying to maintain the integrity of a
neighborhood.
Mr. Conine responded that the trend was clear that the ultimate
consumer preferred smaller lots.
Council Member Stephens stated that there was a lot of property in
Denton which was not zoned, and asked why Checkmate Development
would attempt to down-zone this property.
Mr. Conine responded that he did not believe the down-zoning would
affect the property values.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Julia Moore, Planning and Community Development staff, reported that
19 reply forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 1 in
opposition. Adjacent property zoning was as follows: to the north
was zoned SF-7; to the west was zoned SF-10; to the south was zoned
SF-iO: and the property adjacent to the east was in the
extraterritorial jurisdiction. This development would be of low
intensity. Drainage improvements would have to be made, but could
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Nine
be addressed during the platting process. The City Engineer had
stated that subdivision rules and regulations would take care of the
drainage problems. Adequate utilities were in place. Old North
Road could be extended, as it was a collector street, and access
could be made through Windsor Drive which was an arterial street.
All other streets would be standard residential. There existed a 20
acre buffer zone between the $F-7 and SF-10. Several large areas of
SF-iO zoned property existed in town that had never been developed.
Council Member Alford stated that several of the people who had
spoken in opposition had chosen to build or buy in this area because
of the SF-iO zoning.
Council Member Hopkins asked whether the developer wished for a
motion to pass the ordinance, or to table the ordinance to give him
an opportunity to work with the neighbors.
Mr. Conine responded that he would enjoy the opportunity to work
with the neighbors.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
1. The Council considered the adoption of an
ordinance approving a change in zoning from the single family 10
(SF-iO) classification to the single family 7 (SF-7) classification
on an approximately 34 acre tract beginning approximately 800 feet
north of Old North Road.
Chew motion, Barton second to deny the petition. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. Council heard the position of Tom D. Jester, Jr.,
requesting a change in zoning from single family 7 (SF-7) to the
planned development (PD) classification for mini-warehouse use. The
property is located at 316 Frame Street which is the east side of
Frame Street, approximately 250 feet north of East McKinny Street.
Z-1647
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tom Jester, Jr. stating that the Council was familiar with this
tract, as it had been before the Council in November for light in-
dustrial zoning. He was now asking for planned development for
mini-warehouses. There were no traffic or utility problems.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Julia Moore, Planning and Community Development Staff, stated that
13 reply forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0
returned in opposition. The adjacent zoning was as follows: to the
north is single family; to the south is single family; to the west
was light industrial on mostly vacant areas: and to the east was
single family. Utilities were available. This area was a
designated older area and protected by the Denton Development Guide
so it consisted of mostly rental housing. Community Development
Block Grant funds had been spent in the past in this area, and more
could be spent in the future.
1. The Council considered the adoption of an
ordinance approving a change in zoning from single family 7 (SF-7)
to the planned development (PD) classification for mini-warehouse
use at 316 Frame Street.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Ten
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-34
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 316
FRAME STREET, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: AND MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second that the ordinance be adopted.
On roll call vote: Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens
"aye", Aiford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "nay", and Mayor
Stewart "nay." The ordinance passed 5 to 2 with Chew and
Stewart casting the "nay" votes.
6. Ordinances
A. The Council considered the a~proval of an
ordinance instituting annexation proceedings on a tract of land
consisting of 25.99 acres located east of the existing city
limits along Highway 377, south of Brush Creek Road. Z-1641
Stephen motion, Chew second to proceed with the institution of
annexation proceedings~ On roll call vote, Barton "aye",
Hopkins "aye"° Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion carried
unanimously.
B. Council considered approval of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract of land
consisting of approximately 75.21 acres located west of
Interstate 35-W, and north of Corbin Road. Z-1645
Stephens motion, Chew second to proceed with the institution
the annexation proceedings. On roll call vote, Barton "aye",
Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion carried
unanimously,
C. Council considered apDroval of an ordinance
ammending Chapter 14 of the Code of Ordinances by adding a new
article VI entitled Library, and providing that the failure to
return library books and materials is a misdemeanor.
Assistant City Manager Betty McKean reported that this or-
dinance would allow the library to deal with the problem of
overdue books and would also allow the City to take action.
Council Member Stephens reported that he was reluctant to move
to this extreme a measure, but the failure to return library
materials did constitute the theft of City property.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-35
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES BY ADDING THERETO A NEW ARTICLE VI ENTITLED
LIBRARY; PROVIDING THAT THE FAILURE TO RETURN LIBRARY
BOOKS AND MATERIALS IS A MISDEMEANOR: PROVIDING FOR A
FINE OF NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS: AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Eleven
Riddlesperger motion, Barton second that the ordinance be
adopted. On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye",
Stephens "aye", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew ~'aye",
and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered approval of an ordinance
ammendment to require developers/owners of new subdivisions or
planned development to install underground electrical conduit
systems in lieu of paying differential estimates between
overhead and underground.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that when a
developer desired to have underground utilities, they should
pay the difference. The staff had been approached by
developers regarding their people putting in the underground
conduit in lieu of paying the differential. The city crews
would pull the wires.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-36
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 25-106 OF CHAPTER 25 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON: ENACTING
A NEW SECTION 25-106 TO PROVIDE FOR PROCEDURES TO BE
FOLLOWED FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second that the ordinance be adopted,
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor
Stewart "aye~' Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered approval of an ordinance
abandoning utility easements in Montecito del Sur addition.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that after this
development was completed, the staff discovered that they had
installed the electrical utilities on the front lot line.
These ordinances would abandon these utility easements.
The following ordinances were presented:
NO. 84-37
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A
UTILITY EASEMENT 'WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED
CONVEYING ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN
SAID EASEMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND
CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
NO. 84-38
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A
UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED
CONVEYING ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN
SAID EASEMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND
CON%EYED BY SAID EASEMENT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April t0, 1984
Page Twelve
NO. 84-39
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A
UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED
CONVEYING ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN
SAID EASEMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND
CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
NO. 84-40
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A
UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED
CONVEYING ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN
SAID EASEMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND
CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
NO. 84-41
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A
UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED
CONVEYING ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN
SAID EASEMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND
CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
NO. 84-42
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A
UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED
CONVEYING ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN
SAID EASEMENT TO THE CWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND
CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second that the ordinances be adopted.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor
Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
F. Council considered approval ammending Article
4.15-B, Subparagraphs 3 and 4 regarding water spread limit and
street crossing flow.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that a month and a
half previously the staff had brought a similar ordinance
before the Council. In discussions with the developers and the
Planning and Zoning Commission, a compromise had been reached,
This ordinance ammendment dealt with the water flow and the
depth of the water in the street and had been discussed by the
Development Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Council Member Hopkins asked why the decision had been altered
on commercial development,
Svehla responded it was felt that there was a large increase in
the cost per lot and these limits would be appropriate.
The following ordinance was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Thirteen
NO. 84-43
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A, DENTON DEVELOPMENT
CODE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON
BY CHANGING THE PERMIS- SIBLE WATER SPREAD DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN TYPE STREETS: REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES IN CONFICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second that the ordinance be
adopted. On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "nay",
Stephens "nay", Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "nay",
and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried 4 to 3 with Hopkins,
Stephens, and Chew casting the "nay" votes,
G. The Council considered the adoption of an
ordinance canvassing the results of the April 7, 1984 City
Officer elections and ordering a run-off election if required.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-44
AN ORDINANCE CANVASSING THE RETURNS AND DECLARING THE
RESULTS OF THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE
CITY OF DENTON ON APRIL 7, 1984.
Barton motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", C~ew "aye", and Mayor
Stewart "aye" Motion carried unanimously.
7. Resolutions
A. The Council considered the adoption of a
resolution providing payment of the budgeted amount of
$40,209.82 from the General Project Fund ~810 to the Greater
Denton Arts Council for the refurbishing and construction of
the old diesel plant and warehouse.
City Manager Hartung reported thet some council members would
recall that the City had committed to contribute $36,000 of the
Community Development Block Grant funds to an account for the
Greater Denton Arts Council. The amount above reflected that
$36,000 plus interest.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
That the City Manager is hereby authorized to provide
from the General Project Fund No. 810 the sum of Forty Thousand
Two Hundred Nine Dollars and Eighty-Two Cents ($40,209.82) to
be used by the Greater Denton Arts Council to refurbish and
construct the Old Diesel Plant and Warehouse.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 10th day of April, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10o 1984
Page Fourteen
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be passed.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and' Mayor
Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of a resolution
approving the issuance of bonds by the City of Denton
Industrial Development Authority to finance a project for FWD
Development Co., Ltd.
City Manager Hartung reported that this project had been pre-
previously discussed. Mr. Nolan Brown and his attorney were
available to answer any questions the Council might have. The
Denton Industrial Development Authority had met and approved
this resolution.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, by resolution the City Council (the "Governing
Body") of the City of Denton, Industrial
Development Authority (the "Corporation") as a
nonprofit industrial development corporation
under the provisions of the Development
Corporation Act of 1979, Article 5190.6, Vernon's
Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, as amended (the
"Act's): and
WHEREAS° by resolution adopted on April 10, 1984, the
Corporation agreed to issue bonds to finance the
cost of a commercial development facility for FWD
Development Co., Ltd. to accomplish the specific
public purpose for which the Corporation was
created: and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms of the resolution to
issue bonds, the Corporation now desires to
provide for the issuance and sale of its
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1984
(FWD Development Co., Ltd. Project) (the "Bonds"),
in the maximum aggregate principal amount of
$1,500,000, by adopting a resolution substantially
in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" ("The
Resolution"); and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Fifteen
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code"), the Corporation
has conducted a public hearing following reasonable
public notice with respect to the Bonds and the
Project and has submitted to the Unit certified minute
entries containing the proceedings from such hearing
which proceedings are attached hereto as Exhibit "B":
WHEREAS, in order to satisfy the requirements of section 103(k)
of the Code, it is necessary for the unit to approve
the Bonds after the public hearing is conducted:
WHEREAS, the Act provides that the Governing Body must, by
resolution adopted no more than sixty (60) days prior
to the date of delivery of the Bonds, specifically
approve the resolution of the Corporation providing
for the issuance of the Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, THAT:
The Resolution of the Corporation providing for the
sale and isuance of the Bonds, substantially in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby
approved.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 10th day of April, 1984.
City Manager
Hopkins motion, Alford second that the resolution be passed.
On roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor
Stewart "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered approval of a contract with :he
law firm of Lloyd, Gosselink & Ryan to represent the City of
Denton with respect to the pending application for a Texas
Department of Health land fill permit.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that in previous
discussions it had been suggested to hire a firm to represent
the City in the landfill permit application process.
Council Member Hopkins asked why the City needed to hire this
firm.
Svehla responded that this firm had handled many landfill
permit applications with the State Health Department and would
expedite the process.
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second to approve the contract
- with Lloyd, Gosselink & Ryano Motion carried unanimously.
9. New Business
1. Council Member Stephens asked for a report on the
thoroughfare plan.
2. Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger asked for a report on
burglar bars on window and the licensing of installers,
3. Council Member Hopkins asked for a report on utility
demand charges on various user sizes.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 10, 1984
Page Sixteen
4. Council Member Hopkins asked for a report on the
street and what the staff proposed to do.
5. Council Member Chew requested a report from the Flow
Hospital Board of Directors.
10. The oath of office was administered to newly elected City
officers. City Secretary Charlotte Allen administered the oath of
office to Mayor Stewart, Council Member Hopkins, and Council Member
McAdams.
11. The Council then reconvened into the executive session to
discuss legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board
appointments. No official actions was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned,
C~Rf~TTEWALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Otl j
/
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 17, 1984
The Council convened into a work session at 5:30 pm in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins,
McAdams, and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
A8SENT: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger
1. The Council received a report on the west wing renovation
project.
Ann 8ingman, Program Administrator, presented the completed plan
which designated the locations of the various departments in the
renovated area. Bingman stated that the Phase I renovations were
near completion and personnel would be relocating into the area
during the first two weeks of May. The Cashiering Division would
have sufficient room for growth and it was felt that a good job had
been done in meeting the .various needs of the City Attorney's
office. There did appear to be a crowding problem in the Customer
Services portion of the wing. As there did not appear to be room
for growth, the space availaOle would have to be functionally
utilized. Bingman reported that the staff would review the space
needs of the Customer Service Division once the transition to the
west wing was made. The financial status of the project was very
favorable and all renovations could be completed with available
funds. The Phase II renovation project would begin immediately
after the completion of Phase 1.
2. The Council received a status report on the 1983/84
Development Guide Update.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that the staff had put together several issue sheets. The Community
Development 8lock Grant area did not need to be covered in the
Denton Development Guide.
Steve Fanning, Planning and Community Development staff, reported
that more maps had been prepared and the most important use of the
Development Guide was to reflect the City Council's wishes regarding
the growth of Denton.
Council Member Hopkins stated this was only a guide and should not
be set so formally that you could not deviate.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council should not deviate too much so
as to ruin the continuity of the Guide.
Council Member Chew stated that the Oenton Development Guide could
not be made so dogmatic that it was not be flexible. It was only a
guide and the Council had the final authority.
Council Member Hopkins stated there were some issues which were very
tough and did not want the Council to appear as "ungrowth" minded.
In some cases this could be very detrimental.
Fanning stated the staff needed clarification on issues and there
was no short way to go through these issues.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Council needed to go through
the issues at one time or could they piecemeal them.
Council Member Hopkins stated he would like the staff to comment on
each issue.
City Manager Hartung stated that the Denton Development Guide was
different from documents in other cities as it was flexible. The
Council needed to consider the balance of what made economic sense
now and what would make economic sense 20 years from now. There was
no desire on the part of the City to prevent growth but rather to
direct it.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page FWd
Mayor Stewart stated that an example of the need for this direction
was the apartments on Teasley Lane which now had sewage problems.
The Council needed to learn from this mistake. At the present time,
the majority of mobile homes were being located in the southeast
portion of town and the Council might want to consider a percentage
type zoning for separate areas. There was also a need to protect
the traffic moving streets in Denton.
Steve Fanning, Planning and Community Development staff, stated that
the procedure for the update to the Oenton Development Guide would
be that it would go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
several sessions. The Council could call a joint work session with
the P & Z if that was their desire. Intensity maps could be used
for sewer planning, park planning, etc. and not just zoning.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the City had been caught short in
a couple of areas and that he would like for Fanning to comment on
each of the issues.
Fanning then began the discussion on the issues individually.
Issue #1 dealt with the clarification of what types of projects fell
under the Denton Development Guide category called "Apartment
Policies". Fanning stated that there were site specific policies
for low and medium density areas but how did the Council wish to
define apartments. Currently, the Guide defined apartments as
anything above 12 units per acre. It was the consensus of the Land
Use Planning Committee that this was an accurate definition. The
Council consensus was to concur with the Land Use Planning Committee.
Issue #2 dealt with access required for high density housing.
Fanning reported that the Guide currently suggested that apartments
or high density housing have their accesss in moderate intensity
areas via major thoroughfares, and in low intensity areas access
should be by collector streets or larger. The Oouncil then
discussed the need for high density housing to have access to or
through collector streets. No consensus was reached.
Issue #3 dealt with the clarification of the intent of the policy to
have strict site design reviews for all projects within one block of
existing single family dwellings. The intent of this policy was to
protect the character of the neighborhood. Fanning reported he did
not believe it was the City Council's job, or the staff's job, or
the Planning and Zoning Commission's job to design a development.
It was the responsibility of the architect and did not feel the
Guide could require specifics but rather could recommend.
Council Member NcAdams asked if developers could be encouraged to
protect the character of adjoining neighborhoods by specific wording
in this provision. In some instances, it would be appropriate to
have a front yard in a business or office area and in some
instances, it was not appropriate.
Council Member Hopkins stated he agreed with Council Member NcAdams
and would encourage this provisional wording in' the Denton
Development Guide.
Issue #4 dealt with the clarification of the policy on apartment
concentrations in low and moderate intensity neighborhoods. Steve
Fannning reported that the Guide's intent was that the vast majority
of concentration in low intensity areas would be less than 200 units
with 500 units concentration only for unique sites. The same intent
applied for the moderate guideline for 500 to 1,000 units. The
recommendation was that the concentration be specifically defined as
50% of the length of the neighborhood or one-half miles whichever
was less.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Three
Issue #5 dealt with the policies for mobile home parks. Fanning
reported that the Guide specifically addressed mobile home parks
only in regard to housing diversity. Mobile homes are considered
one form of diversified housing. The Guide suggested that diversity
be encouraged all over town and not concentrated in any one area.
The recommendation was to add a policy statement that 300 new mobile
home units would be permitted between 1983 and 1986 in each of the
four quadrants of the City. It was also suggested that the current
apartment policies be utilized for mobile home park utilization
policies.
Issue #6 dealt with the Guide's priority policies. Fanning reported
that this portion of the Guide dealt with the preservation of
existing house styles in low and moderate income areas. The
recommendation was to continue to the current policy which was a
very strict and narrow interpretation of the housing criteria
including a planned development site plan requirement to include a
design compatible in architectural scale and site plan.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would not be in favor of a
particular area of town remaining all residential if the roof and
walls were falling in on the homes and the land could be used for
commercial or other uses.
Item #7 dealt with the clarification of the intent of the policy on
diversified housing which stated it should be available in all
sectors of the City and also suggested that one housing type should
not be concentrated in any one sector of the City. Fanning
recommended that the intent of this policy was that all areas of
town would have some apartments, some housing, some mobile homes,
etc. The practice was generally that this type of housing was not
allowed in some parts of town such as the northeast part of Oenton.
On the other hand, areas such as east Oenton were being allowed to
develop much as the market dictated. The recommendation was that
the current policy should be strictly enforced and equally applied
to all low intensity planning areas. It was also recommended to
allow limited amounts in all neighborhoods but to prohibit
concentration in any one neighborhood.
Item #8 dealt with the commercial/office development on Carroll
8oulevard. The current policy stated that Carroll Boulevard was
intended to be a major north/south thoroughway and maintaining the
throughway traffic flow was of a high priority; therefore,
commercial zoning of Carroll 8oulevard would be strongly
discouraged. The recommendation was to reconfirm and enforce the
current Guide policies.
Issue #9 dealt with the new southern alignment of Loop 288 and the
corresponding medium intensity areas. Fanning reported that the
platting of the Lakewood Estates Mobile Home Park had raised the
question of the alignment of Loop 288. The northern boundary of
this subdivision was on the proposed alignment. The conclusion of
the platting/planning process was not to require Loop 288
right-of-way and to move the alignment further south. The
recommendation was that the alignment be changed to Hickory Creek
Road and the two current medium intensity areas on Ryan Road were
- recommended to be moved to Teasley Creek and to Ft. Worth Drive and
8rush Creek Road.
Issue #10 dealt with the Bell Avenue right-of-way and functional
designation from McKinney Street north. Fanning reported that any
road which was a continuous link across the City was in most cases
functionally serving as a major arterial. The recommendation was to
set a definite right-of-way policy as decisions must be made on
platting. The elimination of Bell as a major arterial north of
McKinney would have some negative City-wide land use impact due to
the limited options available for north/south major arterials.
City of Oenton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Four
Issue #11 dealt with the Mingo Road right-of-way. Fanning
reported that Mingo Road was designated a major thoroughfare in
the 1~74 plan. The l~B1 Denton Development Guide called for
Mingo as a secondary arterial and recommended right-of-way of
60 feet to 80 feet. The 1~82 Rlan Update changed Mingo to a
major arterial. The Engineering Department has stated that
Mingo Road did not carry enough traffic to classify it as a
major arterial and felt that the classification should be
downgraded. The recommendation was to revert back to ~he l~81
plan designation of Mingo Road as a secondary arterial.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he disagreed that Mingo Road
should be downgraded.
Due to lack of time, the Council did not convene into
the Executive Session.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Chew,
Hopkins, McAdams, and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
A8SENT: Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger
1. The Council presented a retirement plaque and
resolution in appreciation to Alberto Silva.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION
AL8ERTO SILVA
WHEREAS, Alberto Silva is retiring after 20 years of dedicated
service to the City of Denton since his employment on
March 25, 1964; and
WHEREAS, during his career with the City, Alberto Silva has
consistently maintained an attitude of cooperation and
dedication with the stated goals of the Denton
Municipal Utility Department of the City of Denton; and
WHEREAS, Alberto Silva has responded to his duties in a loyal,
trustworthy, and extremely faithful manner, in a
spirit of cooperation with his fellow employees, and
in the best interests of the citizens of the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS:
That the sincere and warm appreciation of the City
Council be formally conveyed to Mr. Alberto Silva in a
permanent manner by spreading this Resolution upon the
official Minutes of the City Council and forwarding to
him a true copy hereof.
PASSED ANO APPROVED this the 17th day of April, i984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Five
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be passed. On
roll call vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion
carried unanimously.
2. The Council presented a retirement plaque and
resolution of appreciation of Lewis G. Gentle.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION
LEWIS G. GENTLE
WHEREAS, Lewis G. Gentle is retiring after 14 years of
dedicated service to the City of Oenton since his
employment on February 10, 1970; and
WHEREAS, during his career with the City, Lewis G. Gentle has
consistently maintained an attitude of cooperation and
dedication with the stated goals of the Denton
Municipal Utility Oepartment of the City of Denton; and
WHEREAS, Lewis G. Gentle has responded to his duties in a
loyal, trustworthy, anO extremely faithful manner, in
a spirit of cooperation with his fellow employees, and
in the best interests of the citizens of the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF OENTON, TEXAS:
That the sincere and warm appreciation of the City
Council be formally conveyed to Mr. Lewis G. Gentle in
a permanent manner by spreading this Resolution upon
the official Minutes of the City Council and
forwarding to him a true copy hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVEO this the 17th day of April, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Cent:on City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Six
Stephens mol:ion, Hopkins second that the resolution be passed.
On roll call vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye",
Alford "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
Presentation of a plaque and resolution of appreciation
to Jack Q. Barton.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION
"JACK q. BARTON"
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL CONE:
NHEREAS, the Council of the City of Denton is losing one of its
most valued members, JACK Q. BARTON, who was elected
thereto in April, 1982; and
NHEREAS, JACK Q. BARTON has exhibited outstanding expertise,
along with hard work and an exceptional ability to
solve problems, and has gained the respect and
admiration of the citizens and staff of the City of
Denton; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been extremely fortunate in
having enjoyed the dedicated and outstanding services
of JACK ~. BARTON, and seek his future services and
continued support which we know will be forthcoming;
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON:
that the City of Denton does hereby officially and
sincerely extend its best wishes to JACK Q. BARTON for
a long and successful career as a member of our
community, and as a civic leader;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,
that the City Council of the City of Denton, acting on
behalf of the citizens and staff, wishes to
acknowledge with grateful appreciation the services of
JACK q. BARTON and the devotion he has given to the
City Council of the City of Denton, and order that
this Resolution be made a part of the official minutes
of this Council to be a permanent record of the City,
that a copy be forwarded to him, the said JACK
8ARTON, as a token of our appreciation.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 17th day of April, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Seven
Stephens motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be passed. On
roll call vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
The Mayor presented a proclamation to Silvia Fletcher declaring the
week of April 22-28 as Organ Donor Awareness Week. Ms. Fletcher was
repres'enting the Auxiliary of the Denton County Medical Society.
The Mayor presented a proclamation honoring National Fitness Testing
Week.
The Mayor presented a proclamation honoring Volunteer Week.
4. Consent Agenda
Stephens motion, Chew second that the consent agenda be approved as
presented. Motion carried unanimouosly.
Consent Agenda:
A. 8ids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid #9263 - Electric Meters & Sockets
2. Purchase Order # 62925 to Kustom Electronics in
the amount of $8,475.00
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of the final replat of lots 2 and
Owsley Park Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
C. Tax Refunds:
1. Approval of a tax refund in the amount of $546.89
to Olney Savings Association.
2. Approval of a tax refund in the amount of $891.41
to the Coca Cola 8ottling Company.
3. Approval of a tax refund in the amount of $541.79
to Mr. Thomas Jameson.
5. The Council receieved a report on TMPA activities by the
City of Denton TMPA Board of Directors representatives.
Roland Vela, TMPA Board of Directors, distributed to the Council an
activities and conditions report. Vela read excerpts of a report
prepared by Gibbons Creek Plant management stating that the
management of TMPA had identified several problems. The concern was
that all of the coal at the Gibbons Creek Plant was not being
harvested. It was now time to renew the permit and the coal had a
lower BTU than expected. Vela further reported that the TMPA had
designated which areas of coal would not be disturbed. There was
sufficient coal for a second unit in the future. The proposed plan
for the next five years was to mine in the same area with additional
coal being harvested. The mine planning had been reoriented as
there was sufficient coal for unit one for an entire lifetime.
Dr. Vela further reported that the generator had been down for 30
days for a turbine overhaul but would operate for the next 18 months
before the next overhaul outage.
Council Member Stephens stated that the last two times Dr. Vela had
reported the Council he had raised questions on the mining
operation. Stephens asked if Vela was now satisfied with the mining
operation.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Eight
Vela responded he felt better about it now.
Mayor Stewart reported that one alternative to mine more coal would
be go lower but this was not cost feasible at this time. Extensive
wear was found during the turbine overhaul on the ceramic and
porcelain parts. This was caused by the coal not being completely
pulverized, but crews had been instructed to check on this during
the next out:age. Some damage had been sustained to the outside of
the plant during the cold weather as it was not built to withstand
those low temperatures. Stewart further stated that he did not see
the same problem as Dr. Vela did with the unharvested coal and that
new technology in the future might make this feasible.
Council Member Stephens expressed his appreciation to the
representative for the time and effort they had given to TMPA and in
bringing the report to the Council.
Dr. Vela concluded his report by stating that the Commanche Peak
Nuclear Plant was behind schedule and slightly over budget.
6. The Council considered the emergency agenda addendum of the
presentation of the annual report of the Chamber of Commerce
Convention and Visitors 8ureau.
Tommy Caruthers, President of the Convention and Visitors Bureau,
reported this was the finest year that they had had. Highlights
included that 3% of the hotel/motel occupancy tax was going to the
8ureau and that 350 additional rooms had been added and three new
hotels. The 8ureau was working on a tour bus program and with the
Fairgrounds Association to upgrade the facilities or for having to
relocate the fairground facility. A convention center was in the
works. Caruthers concluded by stating that tourism was a $40
million industry in Denton County.
Council Member Alford stated that these were the payoffs of a good
working relations between the City and the Chamber of Commerce.
7. Public Hearings
A. The Council considered the petition of Clovis C.
Morrisson, Jr., representing the Greater Denton Arts Council,
requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the planned
development (PO) classification on an approximately 34.8 acre tract
beginning adjacent and west of Loop 288 and adjacent and east of
Mockingbird Lane, approximately 1,400 feet south of Audra Lane. If
approved, the planned development (PD) would permit the following
land uses:
(1) Light industrial (LI) land use on approximately
11.? acres beginning along the Loop 288 frontage.
(2) Moderate density residential land uses at a
maximum density of eight (8) units per acre on the balance of the
tract. Z-16~50
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Clovis Morrison, representing the Greater Denton Arts Council and on
behalf of Channel 2 and the TWU Foundation, spoke in favor of the
petition stating the intent was to get the land in shape to sell
it. The Planning and Community Development staff has suggested a
planned development overlay on the light industrial zoning with a
greenbelt between the residential and the light industrial area of
40 feet. This was agreeable to the parties concerned as well as the
density of eight units per acre on the balance of the tract.
Dr. Mary Evelyn Huey, President of Texas Woman's University, spoke
in favor of the petition stating she endorsed Mr. Morrisson's
statement and wanted to be put on record in support of the petition.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Nine
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Planning Technician, reported that 11 reply forms had
been mailed with 3 returned in favor and 0 returned in opposition.
Staff had suggested a planned development zoning as eleven acres of
the tract would be used as light industrial zoning with 23.1 acres
used residentially. The land was now vacant. The Denton
Development Guide designated this as a low intensity area. Traffic
access was available to Loop 288 and Mockingbird. Adequate public
utilities were in place and available. Drainage was not available
on the tract at the present time but would be handled through the
platting process. Mockingbird Lane was a low density residential
neighborhood but it was unlikely that the Loop 288 portion would
develop as residential. There were no immediate plans to develop.
The petitioners had agreed to the planned development for the entire
tract. There had only been one opposition voiced at the public
hearing before the Planning Commission.
1. The Council considered adoption approving a change in
zoning from the agricultural (A) to the planned development (PD)
classification on an approximately 34.8 acre tract beginning
adjacent and west of Loop 288 and adjacent and east of Mockingbird
Lane, approximately 1,400 feet south of Audra Lane.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-45
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF OENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENOIX TO THE COOE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 34.8097
ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NO. 927, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance with the
conditions as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. On
roll call vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
8. The Council considered the petition of John Linn Smith
requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to single family
(SF-iO) on an approximately 52.64 acre tract beginning adjacent and
east of Westgate Drive and adjacent and west of 8onnie Brae Street,
approximately 1,065 feet north of Payne Drive. Z-1651
This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the
petitioner.
8. Ordinances
A. The Council considered approval of an ordinance
repealing and reenacting Article III, Chapter 23 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, relating to mobile homes,
mobile home parks, and travel trailers; providing a penalty of a
fine not to exceed $200; presiding a severability clause; repealing
all ordinances in conflict herewith; and declaring an effective date.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this was a lengthy
document. The Planning and Zoning Commission had considered this
ordinance at a previous meeting and felt that the changes were
consistent with the recommendation from the joint Planning and
Zoning Commission/City Council meeting.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Ten
Council Member Hopkins stated that he still had too many questions
to be answered and would like to meet again with the Planning and
Zoning Commission. There were several changes which ne wanted to
discuss with the City Attorney.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to table the ordinance and to hold a
work session with the City Council and the staff before
reconsidering the ordinance. Motion to table passed unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Article 1.03 of Article II, Chapter I of Ordinance #83-70
pertaining to subdivisions and development in the City of Denton's
extraterritorial jurisdiction to provide that all development shall
meet City standards and declaring an effective date.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that Denton was
experiencing in and outside of the City limits. The staff had
looked at various tools to control growth such as annexations and
the extension of utility services. The state Attorney General had
issued an opinion which would provide a new method of control for
the City other than future annexations.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-46
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 1.03 OF ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 1
OF OROINANCE NO. 83-70 PERTAINING TO SUBDIVISIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF DENTON'S EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION TO PROVIDE THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT SHALL MEET
CITY STANDARDS AND OECLARiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time, and place for public hearings on the proposed
annexation of approximately 81.44 acres of land beginning at
Swisher/Shiloah Road. A-1
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, presented a map of the area which
is located at Mayhill Road and IH-35. Watkins reported there were
two manufactured housing subdivisions in this area. Staff was
proposing the first public hearing be held on May 1 and the second
public hearing be held on May 22.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-47
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Steohens motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time, and place for public hearings on the proposed
annexation of approximately 20 acres of land located along Swisher
Road. A-2
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, stated the staff was recommending
the first public hearing be held on May 1 and the second public
hearing be held on May 22.
City of Oenton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Eleven
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-48
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Stephens motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time, and place for public hearings on the proposed
annexation of approximately 522.?6 acres of land beginning 350 feet
south of and perpendicular to the centerline of U.S. Hwy.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, stated the staff was recommending
the first public hearing be held on gay 1 and the second public
hearing be held on Way 22.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-4.9
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Chew motion, McAdams second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, Barton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
Resolutions
A. The Council considered adoption of a resolution
supporting increased state highway funding, passage of the Pothole
8ill and increased highway user charges.
City Manager Hartung stated that the Texas Municipal League had
informed the staff that there would be a special session of the
legislature during the summer. Approximately $680,000 over a two
year period would be available to the City of Denton to be used in
street repairs. The resolution would indicate Oenton's support of
the Pothole 8i11.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, authoritative surveys reveal that:
1. Texas leads the nation in the number of deficient
bridges (172,000) and deteriorated state roadways
(7,740 miles).
2. The state's five cents per-gallon motor fuel tax is
the lowest in the nation, and has not been increased
in 27 years. Moreover, in 1965, 27% of the state
budget went for transportation, while in 1982 only
about 10% of the state budget was spent for
transportation-related purposes.
Each Texas motorist pays a "bad roads" tax averaging
$291 per year for wasted gasoline, tire wear, car
repairs, insurance and medical bills.
City of Denton C±ty Council Ninutes
Heeting of April 17, 1984
Page Twelve
4o Additional transportation spending of $5l billion will
be needed over the next 20 years to overcome the
current backlog of needs-including $6.2 million for
road and bridge rehabilitation, $30.3 billion for
reconstruction, $6.7 billion for new roads and $7.7
billion for maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the state's transportation funding problems are reflected
at the local level, as follows:
1. The current backlog of city street repair needs
exceeds $1 billion. Texas cities are spending an
estimated $193 million per year on street repairs-more
than ever before. But they are still falling further
behind each year, because the street repair backlog is
growing at rates that exceed local spending
increases. The cities must have state financial
assistance in order to bring their streets and bridges
up to standard.
2. Upwards of 20% of all municipal streets, more than
13,000 miles, are currently in need of major reapir.
The deterioration of city streets and bridges will
accelerate in the future. The 10 million motor
vehicles already in the state are wearing out local
roads and bridges faster than they can be repaired;
twenty years from now, the cities will have 16 million
vehicles to contend with, more than half again today's
volume.
WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League supports the state funding and
tax increases necessary to bring our state-local roads and bridges
up to par;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the Texas Legislature is urged to enact a state-local
road and brldge financing package composed of the following:
1. An increase of $1 billion per year in funding for the
State Department of Highways and Public Transportation.
2. $100 million per year for the City Street Improvement
Fund (the "Pothole Bill") proposed, but not approved,
during the 1983 Legislative session.
Ooubling the rate of the state motor fuel tax to 106
per gallon and increasing motor vehicle license fees
as necessary to generate adequate funding.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of
Denton, Texas, this the 17th day of April, 1984.
RICHARO O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City OounciZ Minutes
Meeting of ApriZ 17, 1984
Page Thirteen
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
8Y:
Stephens motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be passed. On
roll call vote, 8arton "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
-- "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
8. The Council considered adoption of the resolution
approving a contract with Terry Lewis for collection of delinquent
taxes.
City Manager Hartung reported that this was the result of
discussions that had been held over the last few weeks. Mr. Lewis
handled the delinquent taxes for the Denton Independent School
District and would receive a percentage of actual collections made.
The length of the contract would be for two years.
Council Member Hopkins stated he hoped this would be a short term
contract and that the Tax Appraisal District would soon be
collecting taxes for the city, the school, and the county.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
That the Mayor be, and he is hereby authorized to execute
on behalf of the City of Denton a contract for the collection
delinquent taxes between the City of Oenton and Terry W. Lewis.
PASSED AND APPROVEO this the 17th day of April, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, t4AYOR
CITY OF OENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
8Y:
Chew motion, Alford second that the resolution be passed. On roll
" A!ford
" Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,
_ call vote, McAdams "aye,
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of a resolution
approving a contract with Terry Lewis for collection of delinquent
utility bills.
The following resolution was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Fourteen
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
That the Mayor be, and he is hereby authorized to execute
on behalf of the City of Denton a contract for the collection of
delinquent utility bills between the City of Denton and Terry W.
Lewis.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 17th day of April, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, Alford second that the resolution be passed. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of a resolution
aoproving a contract with Financial Collection Agencies for the
collection of delinquent utility bills.
City Manager Hartung reported that the staff had been impressed with
this firm. The intent was to offer a contract to Terry Lewis and to
Financial Collection Agencies to see which firm was most effective.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
8E iT RESOLVED 8Y THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
That the Mayor be, and he is hereby authorized to execute
on behalf of the City of Denton a contract for the collection of
delinquent utility bills between the City of Denton and Financial
Collection Agencies.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 17th day of April, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Fifteen
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, OR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Hopkins motion, McAdams second that the resolution be passed. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
10. The Council considered removing zoning case Z-1626 from the
table.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to remove the zoning case from the
table. Motion carried unanimously.
Oenise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reviewed the zoning
request petition history for Z-1626. The public hearings had been
held on this petition and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval with 12 conditions.
Council Member McAdams asked the location and the responsibility for
maintenance for the retention pond.
Spivey responded the pond would be on the east side of the
development.
Council Member McAdams asked if the retention pond would be similar
to the one at North Lakes.
Spivey replied it would be similar but smaller.
Council Member McAdams asked again who would be responsible for the
maintenance.
Spivey replied the Homeowners Association would assume the
responsibility for the maintenance and the landscaping.
Council Member McAdams asked about the sale of beer and wine in the
neighborhood services portion of the petition.
Spivey responded that due to a provision of the zoning ordinance,
this would not be a problems as beer and wine could not be sold here.
Council Member McAdams asked if the capacity of the sewer system
would be adequate in this development and in the adjoining area.
Spivey responded this particular development would take 50% of the
sewage capacity in this area.
Council Member McAdams asked if the pond would lilt over.
Spivey responded she did not know.
Council Member Alford stated that Mayor Pro Tem Riddlesperger, who
was absent from the meeting, has voiced concern over the
neighborhood services portion of the petition being located adjacent
to the school. Riddlesperger had questioned if the school could
support the population in the development.
Council Member Hopkins stated he had some concern about drainage and
the re-routing of 8ell Avenue; however, he was now satisfied that
the retention pond would not create drainage problems.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Sixteen
Council Member Chew stated he wished to see the highest and best use
of the land adjacent to the school and felt that this could be
better served if the single family portion of the development were
located here. He also felt that the retention pond would mean more
drainage problems.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the drainage on Huisache Street
as part of this development would be an asset.
Mayor Stewart stated that he felt this was a good plan for the
area. He had some concerns regarding the neighborhood services but
felt that that issue had not been addressed.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the staff had reported if 4 of 5
separate developments were allowed on this same parcel it would be
very difficulLt to control.
11. The Council considered approval of the petition of Joe
Belew requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the
planned development (PO) classification on a 127.25 acre tract.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-50
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF OENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, 8Y ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 127.484
ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE 8.8.B & C.R.R. COMPANY SURVEY,
ABSTRACT NO. 186, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford
"aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye." The motion carried 4 to
2 with Council Members Stephens and Chew casting the "nay" votes.
12. The Council considered allowing Andrew W. Aasletten, Rt. 1,
8ox 4308, Denton, Texas to connect to the sanitary sewer service for
service outside Denton's city limits to serve residents adjacent to
Ranch Estates.
Bob Nelson, Oirector of Utilities, reported that this property was
on the north side of Ranch Estates just outside of the city limits.
Mr. Aasletten had requested to tie on to the sewer line.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to approve the request. Motion
carried unanimously.
13. The Council considered approval of a contract with Black
eno Veatch to reassess construction timing for optimum economic
feasibility for Lewisville and Ray Roberts hydroelectric projects.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported the staff had received
good news on the hydroelectric licensing on Lake Lewisville and Lake
Ray Roberts. This was an update of a previous study.
Council Member Stephens asked if the report was now finished.
Nelson responded it would be completed in approximately 45 days.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the contract with Black and
Veatch. Motion carried unanimously.
14. The Council considered election of a voting representative
from the City of Denton to the North Central Texas Council of
Governments General Assembly.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April lY, 1984
Page Seventeen
Hopkins motion, Alford second to nominate Oim Riddlesperger as the
voting representative. Motion carried unanimously.
15. The Council considered the emergency agenda addendum to
adopt an ordinance establishing a temporary no parking zone on North
Carroll Boulevard from 250 feet north of Fain Street to Sherman
Drive during the Spring Fling on Way 5-6, 1984.
City Manager Hartung reported that this was a similar action to the
one taken last year to allow for the better control of traffic
during the Spring Fling.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-51
AN OROINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON BOTH
SIDES OF CARROLL 80ULEVARD TWO HUNDREO AND FIFTY FEET
(250') NORTH OF FAIN STREET TO SHERMAN DRIVE DURING THE
ANNUAL SPRING FLING TO BE HELD MAY 5 AND 6, 1984; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdams second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
" Hopkins "aye, " Alford
call vote, McAdams "aye, " Stephens "aye,
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
16. The Council considered the emergency agenda addendum item
to discuss funding for Flow Hospital.
City Manager Hartung reported this item had been placed on the
agenda at the request of the City Council and the new information
had only been received today. The staff had no recommendation to
give.
Council Member Chew stated the Council needed to study the Medicare
paybacks.
Council Member Hopkins stated all possibilities and alternatives
should be explored.
The Council should also consider the City's capability to fund Flow
Hospital.
Stephens motion, Chew second to direct the administrative heads of
the City and the County and the Hospital to review alternatives and
new ideas and report to the County Commissioners and the City
Council. Motion carried unanimously.
17. The Council held an election for the Mayor Pro Tem.
Council Member Stephens stated in light of the Council's policy of
rotating the office of Mayor Pro Tem, he nominated Council Member
Mark Chew. Council Member Hopkins second the nomination of Chew.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
" Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Alford "aye, Motion carried
unanimously.
18. There was no official action on executive session item of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
19. New Business
1. Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked that the resolution of
reappointment to the TMPA 8card of Oirectors be on the Council
agenda for May 1.
2. Council Member Stephens asked for an update on the
thoroughfare plan study.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 17, 1984
Page Eighteen
3. Council Member Hopkins asked for a report on the
economic dew~lopment program and an update of those persons who
had been contacted, how they had been contacted, and results.
4. Council Member Stephens asked for a report on the
number and names of various consultants being used by the
City. Stephens stated this could be done through the City
Manager's status report or an agenda item.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLI~TTE' ALLEN, C~ITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
0735g
City Council Minutes
May 1, 1984
The Council convened into a work session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council
Members Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and
Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ME MBE RS
ABSENT: Council Member Hopkins was absent due to illness
1. The Council considered the emergency agenda addendum
discussion of the commercial fire inspection fee program.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he had requested that this item be
placed on the agenda as he had a problem with the letter from the
Fire Marshal delineating fees for commercial fire inspections. The
letter stated that this was an annual charge based on the square
footage in the building. Chew stated that an individual office in a
complex was not a building.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded that this was an annual fee
which was based on occupancy of the building. The goal was to check
the usage of the premises by the occupants. Any confusion in the
intent of the inspection should be corrected. This program was
approved during the budget process and projections of revenues had
been based on these fees. If the program was altered, a reassess-
ment would need to be done of fire inspection staffing.
Fire Chief Jack Gentry reported that the consultants had recommended
a charge of ~44 based on the actual cost of the service. The Fire
Department staff had recommended that the fee be charged on the
basis of square footage in the office to keep small businessmen from
paying the same as large industries.
Mayor Stewart asked about the procedures followed during the
inspections.
Gentry responded that the inspector introduced himself and gave a
copy of the letter stating the charges to the businessman. If the
businessman refused the inspection, the Fire Department personnel
left.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what was the charge for
inspection of individual offices in office complex buildings.
Gentry replied that any square footage of 6,000 or less was charged
~15.00. The charge was per office and not per building.
Council Member Stephens asked if the inspection reports were
forwarded to the State Insurance Board.
Gentry responded that a report was sent of the total number of
inspection completed but not a list of the buildings inspected.
Council Member McAdams stated that the building was inspected at the
time of construction. After that, each business would be
responsible for the space which they occupied.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he had leased space in the same
building for two years and no inspection had been done until the fee
was imposed.
City Manager Hartung responded that until the fee was approved to
raise the revenues necessary to pay for the cost of service,
adequate staff was not available to perform the inspections.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Two
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked if the landlord (owner of the building)
would be c'harged for the inspection of the stairs or elevators and
fire hoses as well as charging the individual occupants too.
Mayor Stewart stated that individual office occupants could bring
space heaters or other such fire hazards into their office and the
landlord would not know it. --
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked if all the occupants were going to be
charged and the landlord also.
Mayor Stewart stated that he believed the letter explaining the
service and[ the charges should be reworded.
City Attorney C. J. Taylor stated that the letter should be written
so as to reflect the wording of the fire code ordinance.
The consensus of the Council was to have the legal staff review the
ordinance and the wording of the letter and bring the item back to
the Council on the May 22 agenda.
2. The Council held a discussion on the proposed mobile home
and travel trailer ordinance.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, displayed a map of the city showing
the locations of proposed mobile home parks.
Council Member Stephens asked if 41 feet collector streets within
the mobile home parks would be necessary.
Watkins responded that interior streets were to be 34 feet wide.
Council Member Stephens stated that he hated to see this issue stay ~
in limbo and felt it would be appropriate to discuss those areas of
the proposed ordinance which were problems.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that Council Member Hopkins had several
questions regarding the legality of the ordinance.
Mr. Marc Glova, Vice-President and Treasurer of Champion Homes,
stated that the basic issues as far as his company was concerned
revolved around the width of the interior streets and the lot
sizes. The manufactured housing industry had changed into an
alternate form of housing for many people. In the past 5 years,
manufactured housing had provided 35% of the housing in the United
States. Champion Homes was geared around affordability for
prospective homeowners. The proposed development by Champion would
not represent a subdivision and felt the subdivision rules and
regulations on street width would be too stringent as mobile home
parks had tess traffic than most traditional subdivisions.
Mayor Stewart asked if a 34 feet street would be wide enough to move
a mobile home in and out of the park.
Mr. Tom Kellogg, engineer for Champion Homes, stated that when
moving a home in, the moving company could run up over the curb and
onto another lot. Most mobile homes, approximately 97%, are moved
into a park, tied down and are not moved again as the cost of moving
was quite expensive. The interior streets should be designed to
handle vehicular traffic with no "outside" traffic other than
service or delivery trucks. In the proposed Champion development,
there would be no on-street parking with two car parking spaces and
guest parking provided.
Mayor Stewart asked about space to leave boats, etc.
Mr. Kellogg responded that space had been provided in the proposed
development for campers, boats, etc.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Three
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he did not see how the
traffic in a subdivision could be greater than that in a mobile home
park due to the density of housing in most parks.
Mr. Kellogg replied that typically, the greater traffic was in the
more traditional type housing subdivisions.
Council Member McAdams stated that since manufactured housing units
were getting larger, if the lot size were reduced the park would
appear to be more crowded.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that the proposed
regulation specified that the lot size should be 5,000 feet. There
were appropriate lot size specifications based on square footage of
the housing units.
Council Member McAdams stated that if the lots were made large
enough in the beginning, staff would not have to continue to check
to see if larger units had been moved onto the lots.
Mr. Kellogg replied that this problem could be controlled through
the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he could not see any cost
difference in a 4,500 and 5,000 lot.
Mr. Kellogg responded that Champion Homes felt the requirement for
5,000 lot was too much and would affect flexibility of design.
Mr. R. J. Button, owner of Lakewood Estates Mobile Home Park, stated
that 41 feet collector streets in the parks would defeat the purpose
of the streets to move and traffic as they would be turned into
parking lots by the residents and guests.
Charlie Watkins reported that collector streets collected the
traffic from residential streets and fed into arterials which moved
traffic across town. The recommendation for 41 feet wide streets
inside mobile home parks might be excessive.
Council Member Stephens how the staff had arrived at the
recommendation for 41 feet streets inside the parks.
Watkins responded that 34 feet wide streets had been discussed for
the park interior and the staff had assumed these streets would feed
into collector streets.
Council Member McAdams asked if the need for collector streets could
be taken care of during the platting process. The 31 feet wide
streets were the minimum; if a site plan required wider streets,
could they be required.
Watkins replied yes.
Mr. Curtis Hodgson, developer of the proposed Rolling Wood Estates
mobile home park, stated that he had forwarded a letter to the
Council Members listing problems that he had with the proposed
ordinance. The first problem was that mobile home parks were often
confused as being of a high density. The proposed ordinance as
written would mean that 18% of the land would have homes and the
other 82% would be green space or streets. Mr. Hodgson further
stated that he had paid two and one-half times as much for his
property than Mr. Button had paid for his land in Denton. Mr.
Hodgson anticipated a need for less than 5,000 square feet lots to
recoup his investment in the land.
Mr. Hodgson also stated that the proposed ordinance was 170% more
rigid on street width requirements that the requirements for
apartments. Interior streets in mobile home parks were not open
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Four
streets for public use. The current ordinance specified a 60 feet
radius for cul-de-sacs while the current single family ordinance
specified a 40 feet radius.
The third area of concern was the requirement for fire hydrants at
200 feet intervals in mobile home parks while the requirement for
duplexes was 600 feet intervals.
Council Member Stephens asked Mr. Hodgson why he was interested in
building a mobile home park in Denton.
Mr. Hodgson replied he liked the texture of the land.
Council Member McAdams asked why the staff had recommended a 60 feet
cul-de-sac.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, replied this was the requirement in
the subdivision rules and regulations to provide adequate room for
fire and solid waste vehicles to turn around.
Council Member Stephens asked if new mobile homes moved into
existing parks would have to meet the requirements and standards of
the proposed ordinance.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla responded that these mobile homes
were inspected to insure that the units met codes.
City Attorney C. J. Taylor stated that the standards would not
change and the units would have to meet electrical, fire, plumbing,
etc. codes.
Charlie Watkins also reported that there would be an annual license
renewal for the mobile home parks and an inspection would be
performed ~f the building inspector.
Mayor Stewart stated that he would like to stay with the 5,000 feet
lot size and the 34 feet minimum street width. The Council might
also want to consider limiting existing mobile home parks on what
they could put in in the future and also to address the problem of
location of future parks. A method should be devised to limit
mobile home parks in one area of town to insure a fair distribution
of various types of housing. Another concern was the impact of a
large influx of mobile home parks on the city's utility system.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council
Members Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and
Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member Hopkins was absent due to illness
The Mayor presented a Proclamation for National Volunteer Week which
was accepted by Mr. Gary Truitt.
The Mayor presented a Proclamation for National Fitness Testing week
for May 6 t'hrough 12, 1984.
II1
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Five
1. Consent Agenda
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9265 - 40 feet by 70 feet shed
2. Bid # 9267 - One vent turbine pump/motor
controller
3. Bid # 9270 - Loader/backhoe
4. Bid # 9271 - Door and partition
5. Bid ~ 9272 - Open top containers
6. Bid # 9274 - Capacitors and racks
7. Bid # 9275 - Zeta Meter System 30
8. Bid # 9276 - 8-channel dual trans record/
reproduction
9. Bid # 9277 - Brass pipe fittings
10. Bid ~ 9278 - Epson computer printers w/cables
11. Bid ~ 9280 - Crack sealant
B. Purchase Orders:
1. Purchase Order # 62962 to North Texas State
University in the amount of ~21, 315.24.
C. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of the preliminary plat of lot 1, block
1, of the Neblett Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Hopkins
Hills Addition, Section II. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Approval of the preliminary and final replats of
lot 7R of the Cool Crest Addition. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval)
4. Approval of the preliminary and final replats of
lots 18 and 19, block E, Kingston Trace
Subdivision, Section II. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
5. Approval of the preliminary and final replats of
lots lA and lB, block 3, of the North Horizons
Subdivision. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
6. Approval of the preliminary and final replats of
lots 25A and 25B, block 2, North Horizons
Subdivision. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
7. Approval of the preliminary replat of the Wolski
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Six
8. Approval of the preliminary and final replats of
lots 1-6, block llR, of The Village, Phase IV.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
9. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Paisley
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
D. Tax Refund:
1. Consider approval of a tax refund to Savings of
America in the amount of ~521.16.
2. The representatives of the Mayhill community requesting to
appear before the Council regarding water issues were not present.
3. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amendment requiring garagekeepers insurance coverage relating to tow
service.
This item was withdrawn from the agenda by staff.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings on the proposed
annexation of approximately 81.44 acres of land beginning at
Swisher/Shiloh Road. A-1
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that the next three items
on the agenda had been approved by the Council at the April 17
meeting. However, due to a scheduling problem with the Council
meeting of May 15, the dates of the public hearings would have to be
changed. Staff was recommending the first public hearing be held on
May 22 and the second public hearing held on June 5.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-52
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
McAdams motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings on the proposed
annexation of approximately 20 acres of land beginning at Swisher
Road. A-2
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that staff was
recommending the first public hearing be held on May 22 and the
second public hearing held on June 5.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-53
AN' ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Seven
Chew motion, Stephens second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings on the proposed
annexation of approximately 522.76 acres of land beginning 350 feet
south of and perpendicular to the centerline of U. S. Highway 380.
A-3
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that staff was
recommending the first public hearing be held on May 22 and the
second public hearing held on June 5.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-54
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
McAdams motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending the zoning ordinance, appendix B, Articles 7M and 12A of
the code of ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, by adding a new
use to the schedule of uses, permitting the mixing and sale of
concrete in various zoning districts, by adding section 12A (65)
defining and restricting the mixing and sale of concrete and
declaring an effective date.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that with the
exception of Ms. McAdams, the Council was familiar with the
location, operation and problem this ordinance would address. The
intent was to allow individuals to purchase a small amount of
concrete for small home projects. The staff had problems
determining what type of zoning should be in place for businesses
which sold these small amounts of concrete. A batch plant would
require a zoning classification of light industrial; however, a
business which sold small amounts was not a batch plant. A legal
opinion had been received from the City Attorney's office and staff
had surveyed manufacturers, other cities and the American Planning
Association on this issue. Most experts felt that this was a purely
commercial use. Staff was recommending in the ordinance several
standards for these mixer facilities. Zoning would have to be
commercial and some type of fence or screening was requested.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-55
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, APPENDIX B,
ARTICLES 7M AND 12A OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ADDING A NEW USE TO THE SCHEDULE OF
USES, PERMITTING THE MIXING AND SALE OF CONCRETE IN VARIOUS
ZONING DISTRICTS; BY ADDING SECTION; 12A(65) DEFINING AND
RESTRICTING THE MIXING AND SALE OF CONCRETE; AND DECLARING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second that the ordinance be adopted.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Eight
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
abandoning ail easement in the Denton Center - Phase II Denton Center
joint venture.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the City did not
have anything in this easement and the joint venture had dedicated
another easement.
Council Member Stephens stated that some items had been placed on
this Council agenda prior to the item being brought before the
appropriate advisory board and/or commission for a recommendation.
Stephens further stated that this would be appropriate in the case
of an emergency item but was not sure these items were of an
emergency nature.
City Manager Hartung responded that if the Council wanted to make a
hard and fast rule on this issue, the staff would strictly adhere to
holding items until the next Council meeting after the appropriate
board/commission had met to make a recommendation.
Council Member McAdams stated that she did not see a problem with
this issue as it was cut and dried.
Council Member Stephens stated that it was a point of order.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-56
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID EASEMENT TO THE
OF THE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call 'vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 25 of the City of Denton Code of Ordinances to
require owner, s to furnish single phase electric meter boxes.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that at the present
time, the City Electric Department furnished metal containers to
developers. The developers had chosen not to use this type of meter
base. It was estimated that the adoption of this ordinance would
save approximately ~30,000 per year.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-57
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, RELATING TO ELECTRIC SERVICE, TO
REQUIRE OWNERS TO FURNISH SINGLE PHASE METER BASES; AND
PR~IDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperge~ motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
abandoning a portion of an existing utility easement in Mesquite
Ridge Townhouses Addition.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Nine
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this easement had
no city utilities in place and none were planned for the future.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-58
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF
A TRACT OF LAND DEDICATED FOR UTILITY AND STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID LAND TO THE OWNER OF
THE ADJACENT TRACT OF LAND; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alford motion, McAdams second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution to
purchase right-of-way for the Bell-Eagle intersection.
City Manager Hartung reported that this was a routine property
acquisition.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the City of Denton finds it necessary to purchase
a certain tract of land located in the City of Denton, Texas, and
more fully described below; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton is of the
opinion that the best interest and welfare of the public will be
served by the purchase of the parcel of real estate described below;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Purchaser, and Ali A1-Khafaji,
Owner, of said parcel, agree that a consideration of Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000.00) is a fair and agreed value of such described
property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
The City Attorney is hereby authorized to prepare the
necessary legal documents to complete the transfer of property so
described below from the owner thereof to the City of Denton:
All that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being
situated in the City and County of Denton, State of Texas, and being
part of the William Loving Survey, Abstract No. 759, and being part
of Lot Nos. 8 and 9, Block A, and part of Lot 9, Block B, of the
Blount Addition, an addition to the City and County of Denton, and
also being part of a tract of land as conveyed from Thomas E. Noel
and wife, Fama C. Noel to Ali A1-Khafaji by correction deed dated
January 19, 1981 and recorded in Volume 1056, Page 165 of the Deed
Records of Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described as
follows:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Ten
BEGINNING at the most easterly northeast corner of Tract 5 as
described in above mentioned deed, said point lying at the
intersection of the present Bell Avenue west right-of-way line with
the present south right-of-way line of Wainwright Street;
THENCE south 29°44'42" west along said Tract 5 east boundary line
same being the west right-of-way line of Bell Avenue a distance of
40.31 feet to a point for a corner;
THENCE south. 37°46'32'' west along said lines a distance of 50.60
feet to a point for a corner;
THENCE south 44°25'58'' west along said lines a distance of 35.71
feet to a point for corner;
THENCE north 35°33'12'' east a distance of 41.66 feet to a point for
a corner;
THENCE north 29°44'42'' east a distance of 85.0 feet to a point for a
corner in the north boundary line of said Tract 5 same being the
south right-of-way line of Wainwright Street;
THENCE south 53°07'48'' east along said line a distance of 12.0 feet
to the place of beginning and containing 0.0231 acre of land, more
or less.
SECTION II.
The City of Denton is hereby authorized to pay its share of
the necessary and reasonable cost of closing as required by the
sales contract.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 1st day of May, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
postponing t'he regular City Council meeting of May 15 until May 22.
Mayor Stewart stated that City Council would be holding an annual
planning retreat on May 15 and would be out of the city.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S 0 L U T I O N
WHEREAS, a majority of the Council will be out of the City
of Denton on May 15, 1984, and it is necessary that the Council
meeting for such date be postponed until May 22, 1984; NOW,
THEREFORE,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Eleven
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the regular Council meeting to be held on May 15, 1984
be postponed until May 22, 1984.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 1st day of May, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
- 5. The Council considered approval of an engineering service
contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc., for the evaluation,
preparation and plans and specifications, review of bidding
documents and periodic on-site review for raw water pumping
improvements (CIP Project 84-WP-3).
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the Public Utility
Board had reviewed the contract and recommended approval.
McAdams motion, Alford second to approve the engineering service
contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
6. The Council considered approval of non-resident fees for
recreation programs.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported that the
staff was recommending a restructuring of the fee philosophy to add
a non-resident fee beginning with the fall sessions. The
recommendation was to charge $3.00 to those patrons using City of
Denton facilities who did not live within the city limits and pay
taxes.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked approximately how many non-
residents participated in programs.
Brinkman responded that the number varied from program to program.
In some programs as many as 20% of the participants did not live
within the city limits; in other programs, there were none. The
sports programs already required a non-resident fee.
Council Member McAdams asked if the city was already subsidizing
these programs.
Brinkman responded yes because the fees collected did not pay all of
the actual facility expenses.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Twelve
Council Memt~r Stephens asked how it would be determined if a
participant was a non-resident as some people lived outside of
Denton but received mail at the Denton post office.
Brinkman replied that staff would have to depend on the honesty of
the patrons to some extent.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the non-resident fees
for recreation program. Motion carried uanimously.
7. The Council considered approval of the Adopt-a-Park and
Park Watch programs.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported that the
staff was very excited about the support which had been given to the
City parks. The Adopt-a-Park program would give citizens an
opportunity to be rewarded for the volunteer work which they had
done in the parks and to encourage more support. The Park Watch
program was similar to the Police Department's Neighborhood Crime
Watch program and would encourage neighbors to look out for their
park areas.
Chew motion, McAdams second to approve the Adopt-a-Park and Park
Watch programs. Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered authorizing development on lot 6 of
the Golden Triangle Industrial Park Addition.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that most developments
and improvements had been completed in this addition. The developer
had attempted to obtain easements for lot 6 but had been
unsuccessful and was requesting permission to develop this one lot.
Alford motion, Riddlesperger second to authorizing the development
of lot 6 of the Golden Triangle Industrial Park Addition. Motion
carried unanimously.
9. The Council considered an appointment to the Texas
Municipal Power Agency Board of Directors.
Mayor Stewart stated that this item had not been discussed under
board appointments in the Executive Session and asked what were the
Council's wishes. There was no response.
Stephens motion, Chew second to reappoint Dr. Roland Vela to the
TMPA Board of Directors. Motion carried 5 to 1 with Mayor Stewart
abstaining because the appointment had not be discussed.
10. The Council then presented their list of budget priorities
to the City Manager.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated his first priority was streets and second
priority was more money for economic development.
Council Member Alford stated his first priority was streets and
second priority was economic development.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated his priority for budget was
funding for Flow Memorial Hospital.
Council Member McAdams stated she concurred and had no new items to
add.
Council Member Stephens stated his first priority was the use of the
6% utility transfer for street improvements. Stephens also reported
that the Library Board had asked him to call the Council's attention
to staffing problems in the Library with the purpose of having
adequate staff so as not to have to reduce the hours the Library was
open. Stephens then stated that he would like for staffing needs
City-wide to be reviewed and kept to a minimum.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 1, 1984
Page Thirteen
Mayor Stewart stated that his first priority was streets, his second
priority was to reach an agreement with the County Commissioners on
funding for Flow Memorial Hospital, and the third priority was
economic development to bring industry into the City and increase
the tax base.
Council Member Stephens then stated that he would like to have staff
look at the Police Department budget to determine the increased
demand for services in the newly annexed areas.
11. There was no official action on Executive Session items
legal matters, real estate, personnel or board appointments.
12. The following items of New Business were suggested for
future agendas:
1. Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that it was the consensus of the
Council for the City Attorney to look into correct wording for the
fire inspection letter to assure that it complied with the wording
of the ordinance. The intent was that the letter be specific
regarding who would be responsible to pay for each service. This
item should be placed on the May 22 agenda.
2. The was the consensus of the Council to have the mobile
home ordinance placed on the May 22 agenda for consideration of
passage.
3. Council Member Stephens asked for a report on the Colorado/
Woodrow intersection. The report could be given in the City
Manager's Status Report.
The Council then adjourned into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
There was no official action.
With no further items of business, the meetin~ was adjourned.
0434s
City Council Minutes
May 22, 1984
The Council convened into a work session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council
Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins, McAdams,
Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ME MBE RS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council held a discussion of eligible blighted area
designations in the City of Denton for the sale of industrial
revenue bonds.
William McDonald, Administrative Assistant, reported that the City
of Denton had been involved in the issuance of industrial revenue
bonds for several years and was now seeing the benefit. Bonds had
been issued in amounts ranging from ~100,000 to ~10,000,000. New
regulations would require the designation of eligible blighted areas
and also would require the area to contain 25% substandard housing
units and an unemployment rate of 9%. Staff's intention was to set
guidelines for future bonds over the next three years. The
Community Development Block Grant target areas were being
recommended for the eligible blighted designation. Eleven areas in
the city had been identified by staff as appropriate for the
designation. The advantages of designating all eleven areas at one
time included:
1. a three year period would be provided to developers to make
application for industrial revenue bonds
2. the cost developers had to bear to have an area designated
as an eligible blighted areas would be eliminated
3. cases for individual areas being brought to the Council
would be reduced
4. a variety of areas could be developed
Council Member Stephens stated that the area bounded by Carroll
Boulevard and Eagle Drive should include all of the area. A small
triangle where Myrtle Street, Fort Worth Drive and Carroll Boulevard
split had been left out of the designated area.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that a large amount of the designated area
was in the eastern portion of the city and some of the parcels were
residential.
William McDonald responded that the concept was to look at
commercially zoned areas. The blighted designation did not have an
adverse effect on insurance rates. Staff had tried to follow
natural boundaries.
Mayor Stewart stated that he had driven by these areas and had a
- problem that they in fact were not blighted. Portions of some
tracts might be blighted, but not the entire tract. This was one of
the reasons the law had been changed.
City Attorney C. J. Taylor stated there was a difference in
terminology. Under the Urban Renewal Act, blighted meant an area
that should be demolished. In this context, blighted meant that
there was a lack of development.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he saw this process as an
enticement to industries by way of the lower interest loans for
development.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Hopkins reported that several hours had been spent
discussing this issue at the National League of Cities conference.
The intent was to encourage development in the city rather than on
the edge of the city where utilities would have to be extended.
Council Member McAdams stated that this was a vehicle to encourage
development and nothing more. The problem seemed to stem from the
term "blighted" which had the connotation of being a program for
poor people.
Council Member Alford stated that the National League of Cities
conference discussion had viewed this as a program to develop the
unused areas in the core of cities.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated he had a problem with the label of
"blighted" as he felt it would inhibit future residential growth.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded that the terminology did not
affect zoning and was not shown on zoning maps. The primary
function of designating these eleven areas together was to expedite
the bond process.
2. The Council considered the emergency addendum item and held
a discussion on the City of Denton statement of purpose.
City Manager Hartung distributed copies of the statement of
purpose. The executive staff was proposing to circulate the
statement to city employees and to selected persons outside of the
city organization for the purpose of soliciting assistance in the
strategic planning process.
The consensus of the Council was that the draft of the statement of
purpose needed to be condensed but was otherwise acceptable.
3. The Council convened into the executive session to
discuss legal matters, real estate, personnel and board
appointments. No official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council
Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins, McAdams,
Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of December 20, 1983; the Regular Meeting of January
3, 1984; the Special Called Meeting of January 10, 1984; the Regular
Meeting of January 17, 1984; the Special Called Meeting of January
24, 1984 and the Special Called Meeting of January 31, 1984.
City Manager Chris Hartung asked that the approval of the minutes of
the Special Called Meeting of January 31, 1984 be removed from the
agenda.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to approve the minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
McAdams motion, Alford second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Three
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9169 - Street/water improvements Allen
Estates Mobile Home Park
2. Bid # 9279 - Forklift
3. Bid # 9281 - Forrestridge Paving Improvements
4. Bid # 9283 - #2 Triplex Cable
5. Bid # 9284 - Distribution Transformers
6. Purchase Order # 63465 to Marley Cooling Tower
Company in the amount of ~5,750.00.
B. Lease Agreement:
1. Consider approval of a lease for Community
Development Block Grant office at 235 West
Hickory Street.
C. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of the preliminary and final
replat of the Paul Hamilton Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
2. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Business Center 288 Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
J. B. Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Lakeview Oaks Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
5. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Northwood Addition, 9th Installment. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
6. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Super 8 Motel Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
7. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Indian Ridge Subdivision. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. The Council recognized Mr. Wayman Dever of the Denton
- Kiwanis Club requesting permission for a fireworks display at Fouts
Field on July 4th.
Mr. Ted Tripp appeared for Mr. Dever representing the Kiwanis Club.
This was an annual program of the Kiwanis and the proceeds would
benefit the Children's Clinic. The Fire Marshal had reviewed the
request and given his approval.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to grant permission to the Kiwanis Club
for the July 4th fireworks display at Fouts Field.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Four
Council Member Stephens recognized members of the 4th grade class
from Newton Razor Elementary School who were attending the Council
meeting in conjunction with their studies on municipal government.
4. Public Hearings
A. The Council considered the petition of Christopher
Bancroft requesting a change in zoning from single family (SF-7) to
the planned development (PD) classification on an approximately 8.74
acre tract beginning at the southwest corner of Highway 377 and
Collins Street. If approved, the planned development (PD) would
permit the following land uses:
1. Residential land use on 4.00 acres at 10.5 units per
acre
2. A single store 2,400 square foot retail site
3. A two story 6,000 square foot restaurant
4. Maximum of two (2) office sites (not to exceed 20,000
square feet each and not to exceed three [3] stories)
Z-1649
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Christop'her Bancroft, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating the
property at the corner of 377 and Collins and the portion fronting
on 377 had slipped into a state of disrepair. Two of the houses at
the site had burned down and the site was being used for dumping
grounds. Collins and Cleveland Streets were below standard with no
curbing or guttering. Three homes were currently located on the
property. The City had labeled a large section near this area as
blighted and this property was under petition for the same
designation. The site was currently surrounded by commercial zoning
with existing business on three sides. The improvements to the
property would consist of two phases over a three year period. A
total of 4.7 acres was involved in Phase I which would front Highway
377 and Collins Street with access from Collins. Phase I would
consist of a 150 seat two story restaurant with an attached wing
which would have an outdoor patio area for outdoor dining. To the
south of the proposed restaurant would be two multi-storied office
buildings. The structures and the site would be landscaped. Phase
I had a projected start date of October 1984 and completion date of
September 1987.
Phase II would front Cleveland and Collins Streets with sixplex and
fourplex buildings making up the 42 residential units. Parking
would be on-site and off-street. The impact of the proposed
project, especially the restaurant/office phase, would be minimal on
the lower income housing in the district. There were 220 homes in
the district with 11 (or 5%) on the site perimeter, 41 (or 19%)
within one-fourth mile, and 179 (or 81%) beyond one-fourth mile west
of Bernard Street. The residential phase would add 22 low to medium
priced housing units at the site. The project would be a direct
threat to only 3 houses which represented 1% of the total single
family housing in the district. The trade-off would favor the
district as it would allow long needed improvements and would not
diminish the value of the Denton Development Guide.
The intensity district boundaries were set before Carroll Boulevard
was improved to its present condition which had caused this site to
be improperly zoned relative to its proximity to Carroll. The
Denton Development Guide intensity regulations concerning this area
prohibited any progressive or logical development at this site. The
current decaying condition at this very visible site was a direct
result of these intensity guidelines. The site along Highway 377
was no longer suitable either economically or logically for single
family development. It was surrounded on 3 sides by commercial
zoning with businesses in place, a major thoroughfare, and
substandard housing on the street behind the site. The proposed
project would offer economic growth and revitalization in this
distressed area. It also would offer a comprehensive ~lan giviDg
consideration to existing neighborhoods by providing a buffer ~o the
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Five
commercial phase. The buffer would be the moderate density
residential phase. This would be a logical solution to a current
zoning problem and an improvement to a lower income neighborhood.
The completed project would also help to ease past flooding problems
on Cleveland Street since the City would be compelled to maintain
adequate streets in an area which had been previously ignored. It
would encourage existing businesses in the area to upgrade their
businesses fronts. The City of Denton Industrial Development
Authority had granted an inducement resolution on April 23 which
would allow the issuance of tax-free bonds, the proceeds of which
would finance Phase I. The project would provide 20 to 30 new
full-time jobs during construction and would serve as a model to
other developers.
Mr. Bancroft then asked the Council to disregard the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommendation that he improve both sides of
Collins Street as a condition to the petition as he felt this was an
excessive and unfair request.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, presented slides giving
an over-all view of the area and discussed the proposed zoning
concept plan. As pointed out in the discussion, the petitioner had
proposed a residential land use on approximately 4.0 acres with a
maximum density of 2.5 acres per acre. Staff had not yet seen any
specific development plans. It was staff's understanding that the
residential units would be in the later phase of the over-all
development. The development plan for Phase I included a one story
retail facility with a maximum of 2,400 square feet, a restaurant
with a maximum of 6,000 square feet and office spaces. Staff did
have problems from an intensity standpoint and the Planning and
Zoning Commission had recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0 with
two conditions. The first condition was that both sides of Collins
Street from Fort Worth Drive to the intersection of Collins and
Cleveland be improved by the developer. One-half of Cleveland
across the entire frontage of the subject tract would be improved
per normal City of Denton perimeter paving requirements. These
street improvements could occur in phases or as the development
occurred.
Ellison then stated that in response to Mr. Bancroft's question
regarding the procedure for perimeter paving requirements, it was
true that typically as development occurred along unimproved
perimeter streets (those streets within the city with no curbing or
guttering), the developer was only responsible for his half along
the entire property line. However, in a planned development
request, the Council had in the past and has the authority to impose
additional off-site street or other public facility improvements
that were deemed necessary. The P&Z, especially the Chairperson,
had felt very strongly about the need for the developer to improve
both sides of Collins along the entire frontage from the
intersection of Fort Worth Drive to Cleveland Street. This
condition had been specifically discussed at the P&Z meeting and Mr.
Bancroft had not raised any objections. It was Ellison's personal
- opinion that ample opportunity had been afforded to discuss this
condition with the P&Z, to explore alternatives, and request the
condition not be imposed. Perhaps Mr. Bancroft had plugged in
numbers and felt that it was not economically feasible for him to
have to make improvements to both sides of Collins. However, due to
the fact that opportunity had been afforded, it seemed a bit unfair
to request the deletion of the paving requirement now.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked if Mr. Bancroft would be reimbursed as
other property in the area was developed.
Ellison responded no; not for street improvements.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Six
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what was the width of Collins
Street.
Ellison responded he was not sure but Collins probably had the
present right-of-way width of 50 to 60 feet and a paving width of
something in the area of 30 feet.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked how far Mr. Bancroft would have
to pave to reach the entrance of his property on Collins.
Ellison replied if normal development standards were imposed, or the
subdivision required no additional off-site facilities, Mr. Bancroft
would only have to pave his half of Collins Street.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he was asking about the
entrance from the highway to Mr. Bancroft's entrance into his
business on Collins and asked why he should need to pave the full
width any further than to the entrance. It appeared that Bancroft
should pave one-half all the way and the full width to his business
entrance.
Council Member Stephens responded that people would come from both
directions all the way to Avenue A.
Ellison reported that there were several reasons the paving was
required. It was felt that with a more intensive type land use such
as this one, specifically retail, office and moderate intensity type
housing, would negatively impact streets that were designed for low
intensity or residential type land use. By requesting this type
zoning (if the development were constructed), the developer would
create additional traffic beyond that which would normally be placed
along public utilities if the parcel were developed as single family
or other lower density type land use. There was a drainage problem
in the area. The City Engineer had indicated that the drainage was
designed conceptually to be handled mostly on Fort Worth Drive.
Part of street improvements traditionally included drainage
improvements.
Ellison stated he felt that was a matter of ethics. If an
individual was awarded zoning that would allow more intense and
dense land use, and would in turn receive a certain economic
advantage, the Planning and Zoning Commission felt the developer
should be required to make additional off-site public utility
improvements beyond those normally attached.
Council Mem~r Riddlesperger stated that Collins was a very narrow
street paved back to Cleveland, Bernard and beyond. He asked if the
city could require property owners on the other side of Collins to
pay their fair share of the paving. Riddlesperger asked for an
opinion from the City Attorney.
City Attorney C. J. Taylor responded that could be accomplished by
assessment. The Courts looked at enhancement of the value of
property abutting public streets but only the enhancement of the
value of the lots.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that there was apparently a
block of land in the center of this area that Mr. Bancroft did not
own and asked who would pay for the pavement on both sides of that
particular parcel.
Ellison replied that the recommendation was that Mr. Bancroft be
required to pave that area as well.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if that property owner would not
have enhanced value.
Ellison responded that would depend on whether the Council choose to
approve a subsequent change in zoning request on that particular
parcel.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Seven
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he was asking because it
seemed that the Council was asking an unusual thing of Mr. Bancroft
to pave 35 to 45 feet which would also enhance the property on the
other side of the street. Riddlesperger further stated that, in his
judgement, most of the traffic into Mr. Bancroft's property would
come from Fort Worth Drive and did not believe that Collins Street
would have much additional traffic. He had a problem with requiring
the petitioner to pay for all of the paving improvements.
Ellison stated that he would take issue with the amount of
additional traffic. In graphic terms, a single family residence or
a multi-family dwelling typically would generate 10 vehicle trips
per day per dwelling. A retail land use traditionally generated
approximately 650 vehicle trips per day per acre. Office land use
would generate approximately one-half as many vehicle trips as
retail. This represented a tremendous increase in traffic generated
and activity at this site. To address the issue of fairness, the
P&Z felt this individual was requesting upzoning and his property
value and economic advantages would be significant. Those property
owners across the street would not realize any immediate benefit
from the zoning change unless they petitioned for a zoning upgrade
themselves.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the city could not force the
others to pay their part of the paving as they would be getting the
paving done with no assessment.
Ellison replied that he believed the City Attorney had addressed
that question previously. Mr. Bancroft's development would be the
cause of the increase in traffic.
Council Member McAdams stated that this would be adding tremendous
traffic in this area especially that generated by the office and
retail areas of the development.
Council Member Stephens stated also that this was a two phase
development which would add more traffic later and the Council
should consider the entire project as it was one planned development.
Council Member Hopkins asked if Mr. Bancroft would improve the
streets as the land was developed.
Ellison responded yes; staff was looking at this petition as a two
phase development. The recommendation had been based on the
intensity area concept in the Denton Development Guide. A high
intensity area (such as industrial uses, commercial, more intense
retail, etc.) would require planning of public facilities and
improvements based on the level of intensity generated. These areas
were centered around major thoroughfares. A moderate intensity area
typically had corners of secondary arterial, but again major type
thoroughfares such as Sherman Drive, etc. If approved this would
represent a higher intensity in a lower intensity area which staff
had already determined is already beyond the intensity standards
with the existing zoning given the amount of commercial/retail
zoning in place. The question had been raised at the P&Z meeting by
the petitioner as to why this particular area had been designated as
low intensity given the commercial/retail zoning already in place.
One thing the Council should consider was how well the existing
facilities could handle additional commercial/retail uses.
Obviously Collins and Cleveland area was not subdivided or laid out
with existing facilities for higher type land uses. Ultimately
someone, either the developer or the general public, would have to
pay to upgrade the public utilities.
Council Member Alford stated that he believed the present zoning was
the problem and could not see making the developer pay the entire
cost.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Eight
Council Member McAdams stated the petitioner was requesting
financing through industrial development bonds which gave special
credit, an ability to do something he could not otherwise do.
People who own property on one side or the other of the street and
will not benefit from this; in fact, taxes might be raised as a
result of the development. They did not ask for this development.
The paving was a way to recover the cost of actually putting in a
high intensity development which would benefit the overall area.
The Council would defeat their purpose if they did not plan well in
terms of providing adequate streets to carry the traffic. The
development could be constructed in such a way as to get a return on
the cost of paving the street. It was not fair to say to the people
who live there that the developer would like to develop a large
parcel of property which will generate a lot of traffic;
unfortunately this will require the street to be paved and you will
have to pay for it.
Ellison stated that he would like to clarify some points. No
petitions had been received of this sort at this location or near
the location since the implementation of the Development Guide.
Also, retail or office was not the only alternative for development
at this type. Moderate type housing was possibility; therefore, the
inference that the intensity policy in some ways deterred
development was not accurate.
Mayor Stewart stated that he believed this was a good planned
development with the exception of the portion on Carroll Boulevard
which was for commercial use. Arterial streets should be used to
move traffic and not attract it. At a recent U. S. Conference of
Mayor conference one of the topics was "Don't Turn Your
Thoroughfares into Restaurant Alleys" The Council should consider
maintaining arterial as traffic movers and stay with the policy of
no curb cuts on Carroll Boulevard as much as possible.
Council Member Stephens stated that he disagreed with the Mayor in
that this would be a start for improvements in the neighborhood
which would extend to more than just the one site. He believed that
the positives of the planned development would offset the negative
of the a cur'b cut on Carroll Boulevard.
Chew motion, McAdams second to approve the petition with the two
conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to amend the main motion to
include the condition that the petitioner be required to pave only
to the lot which he owned on Collins.
Council Member Stephens stated Ellison had addressed this issue and
that the development would be done in phases to allow Mr. Bancroft
adequate time to take care of the paving requirements.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he wanted to make it clear
that it would be fully permissible to say that Mr. Bancroft did not
have to pave in front of someone else's property.
Council Member Hopkins stated that another alternative was to have
Mr. Bancroft pave the full width of the street to his property and
to have him pave his half from Cleveland to Fort Worth Drive now and
pave the other half during the second phase.
Vote on amendment to the main motion was Alford, Riddlesperger and
Hopkins "aye", Stephens, Chew, McAdams, and Stewart "nay".
Amendment failed by a vote of 4 to 3.
Vote on main motion passed by a vote of 6 to 1 with Mayor Stewart
casting the nay vote.
5. The Council then considered the emergency agenda addendum
item to adopt an ordinance approving a quit claim of any interest
the City of Denton may have on a certain 20 foot gravel road located
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Nine
on a tract of land at the intersection of Collins Street and Carroll
Boulevard.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that no
right-of-way had been dedicated and no easement had ever been
established.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-59
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF ANY INTEREST
THE CITY OF DENTON MAY HAVE IN A PORTION OF A TRACT OF LAND
RESERVED FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED
CONVEYING ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID
LAND TO THE OWNER OF THE ADJACENT TRACT OF LAND; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearings
B. The Council then returned to the agenda to hold a
public hearing on the petition of Christopher Laurance requesting a
change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the planned development
(PD) classification for two-family (duplex) land use on a 5.1 acre
tract located adjacent and north of Windsor Drive and south of the
new elementary school adjacent to Evers Park. If approved, the
planned development (PD) would permit the construction of twenty-
five (25) duplexes (a total of 50 dwelling units). Z-1652
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Christopher Laurence, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating
that the property was bounded on the south by Windsor Street, on the
west by Evers Parkway, on the east by Evers Park and to the north
was Evers Elementary School. A fence would be constructed between
the development and the elementary school. The use of internal
streets would be encouraged.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 3 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0 in opposition.
The Planning and Zoning Commission felt this was an attractive land
use and development. The internal streets would be private and not
maintained by the city. The recommendation of P&Z was unanimous to
approve the petition with 5 conditions.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the planned
development (PD) classification for two-family (duplex) ].and use on
a 5.1 acre tract located adjacent and north of Windsor Drive and
south of the new elementary school adjacent to Evers Park.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-60
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 5.110 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE B.B.B. & C.R.R. CO. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
186, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DE SCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City Counci~L Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Ten
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second that the ordinance be adopted.
On roll caZL1 vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Eleanor Green requesting a change in zoning from office (O) to the
planned development (PD) classification for neighborhood service
uses at 800 North Locust Street. The property was approximately .49
acre in size and was located at the northeast corner of North Locust
and Marshall Street. Z-1653
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Ms. Eleanor Green, the property owner, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that she was seeking retail sales capabilities
under the planned development zoning. Ms. Green had been approached
about leasing the area to someone who wanted to teach art and sell
artwork and supplies at the location.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor c~Losed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Technician, reported that in June
1981 the property had been rezoned as the site was a non-conforming
use lot with a duplex. The site did have immediate access to a
major thoroughfare. The P&Z had recommended approval with 3
conditions.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from office (O) to the planned
development (PD) classification for neighborhood service uses at 800
North Locust Street.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-61
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69.-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY .49 ACRES OF
LAND OUT OF THE B.B.B. & C.R.R. CO. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
185, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 81.44 acres of land beginning at
Swisher/Shiloh Road. A-1
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the annextion
stating that 2 notices had been mailed with 0 returned. A slide was
shown of the property and a map was available for the Council to
view. A mobile home subdivision was proposed on the east section of
the tract which would extend to Shady Shores. A mobile home park
was proposed on approximately 40 acres on the western section.
Surrounding land uses were single family on Swisher Road, east of
the site was Chaparral Estates in Shady Shores, and generally the
remainder of the other surrounding land was vacant. Watkins
presented a graph depicting the cost to bring this area into the
city versus revenues which would be generated. The Council would
need to judge if the potential cost was worth the trade-off to gain
control of land use in this area.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Eleven
Council Member Hopkins stated that this comparison of cost and
revenues generated was what he had wanted to see. If the city did
not control the land use, someone else would and this area had
drainage problems.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that this annexation would
benefit Shady Shores more than it would Denton.
Mr. Curtis Hogsdon, owner of 66 acres of property in the proposed
annexation, spoke in opposition stating that he had never received
notification and that he was approximately one year away from
beginning to develop the property.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked Mr. Hogsdon if all of this
proposed annexation tract was his property.
Mr. Hogsdon responded that he and his neighbor represented
approximately one-half of the parcel.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Russell Trapp requesting a change in zoning from single family
(SF-7) to the two family (2-F) classification on an approximately
0.9116 acre tract located adjacent and west of North Elm Street and
adjacent and east of Bolivar Street approximately 400 feet south of
Headlee Street.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Russell Trapp, the property owner, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that he was requesting to divide the lot and
construct four duplexes. Two of the units would front on Bolivar
and two would front on North Elm.
Council Member Hopkins asked if these units were similar to the
duplexes Mr. Trapp was building at another location.
Mr. Trapp responded no; these units would be smaller.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 28 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 2 returned in
opposition. An incorrect aerial photograph had been mailed with the
reply forms but the error had been rectified. The P&Z recommended
approval of the petition.
1. The Council considered adotion of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from single family (SF-7) to the two
family (2-F) classification on an approximately 0.9116 acre tract
located adjacent and west of North Elm Street and adjacent and east
of Bolivar Street approximately 400 feet south of Headlee Street.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-62
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 0 .9116
ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE N. ME ISENHEIMER SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NO. 810, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Twelve
McAdams motion, Hopkins second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried 6 to 1 with Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting the nay vote.
F. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 20 acres of land located along Swisher
Road. A-2
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that a mobile home
subdivision with septic system and wells for water had been proposed
in this location. Staff had advised the developer that the proposal
did not meet County specifications and not received any word back.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Council Member Stephens stated that according to the map of the
Denton city ]_imits, this parcel was between the City of Denton and
Shady Shores. As Shady Shores was a general law city and could not
expand without Denton's permission, the Council could delay taking
any action.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to discontinue the annexation
proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 522.76 acres of land beginning 350 feet
south of and perpendicular to the centerline of U. S. Highway 380.
A-3
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that maps were available. Nine reply forms had been mailed
with zero returned. The existing city limits line was on Highway
380. Staff was proposing to come down to a 280 acre proposed
development which consisted of 50 acres for use by mobile homes and
the remainder to be use for site-build homes on 1 acre tracts. The
water would be furnished via a well system installed on Mills Road
and Grissom road. This would be in violation of the subdivision
rules and regulations. Trenches had already be dug for water
lines. Staff was recommended that a 500 feet wide strip be extended
from the existing city limits line down to include the area
designated for the modular home subdivision. This subdivision would
have approximately 550 units and staff felt this annexation would be
advisable to control growth.
Ms. Faye Mulkey spoke in opposition stating that the proposed
annexation area included 9 acres on the east side of her property.
Ms. Mulkey stated that her property was 30 acres in size and did not
want 9 acres in the city and asked if the Council would consider
removing that portion from the annexation proceedings.
Mr. Kelly Brooks spoke in opposition stating that he owned property
on 380 and asked when the Council intended to put sewer lines in
this area.
Council Member Stephens asked how the staff had set the annexation
line that took in Ms. Mulkey's 9 acres.
Watkins responded that the staff had followed a survey line but felt
they could work out a solution to Ms. Mulkey's request.
Watkins also stated that sewer lines were available in this area
upon request. The cost to tie on would be paid by the developer or
the property owner.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Thirteen
H. The Council held a public hearing on eligible blighted
area designations in the City of Denton for the sale of Industrial
Revenue bonds.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
William McDonald, Administrative Assistant, spoke in favor stating
that the eligible blighted area designations were required in order
to allow the city to offer companies tax free development bonds.
This would benefit the city and the developers. The request before
the Council was for the designation for community development block
grant target area. Existing zoning was commercial or light
industrial in the areas.
Mr. Bob Tripp spoke in opposition of the designation for area H on
the map as it was a fast growing area and not blighted.
Mr. Burch spoke in opposition stating that money had been expended
to put in the Hickory Creek sewer line and felt the city should
follow that line.
City Manager Hartung responded that these particular areas had been
chosen due to the commercial or light industrial zoning which was
already in place.
Council Member Hopkins stated that these sites were within the city
limits with utilities already in place but were not being fully
utilized.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that most of the
undeveloped land along the Hickory Creek sewer line was not in the
city limits.
6. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 25.99 acres of land located east
of the existing city limit along Highway 377, south of Brush Creek
Road. Z-1641
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this property had
been proposed as a 53 acre estates subdivision with one-half of the
property in the city limits and the other one-half out of the city.
Since the institution of annexation proceedings, the property had
changed ownership. The new owner was proposing a 172 acre
development. If the annexation were continued, the city would be
furnishing city services to part of the development.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to defer the annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 75.21 acres of land located west
of Interstate 35W and north of Corbin Road. Z-1645
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this was the final
action on this voluntary annexation.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-63
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 75.21
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE O. BREWSTER
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 56, AND D. DAUGHERTY SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NO. 357, DENTON, COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Fourteen
AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings on the proposed
annexation of approximately 9.013 acres of land beginning
approximately 700 feet east of Sherman Drive. A-4
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this voluntary
annexation was part of a 130 acre development north of the city.
Staff was recommending the first public hearing be held on June 5,
the second public hearing on June 19 and the institution of
annexation proceedings on July 10.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked how close this parcel was to
Hartlee Field.
Watkins responded it was approximately 1000 feet from the entry.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-64
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Stephens motion, McAdams second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
repealing and reenacting Article III, Chapter 23, of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, relating to mobile homes,
mobile home parks and travel trailers; providing a penalty of a fine
not to exceed two hundred dollars; providing a severability clause;
repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith; and declaring an
effective date.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this ordinance had
been discussed several times and hoped that the latest revisions
were consistent with the wishes of the City Council.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-65
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER
23 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
RELATING TO MOBILE HOMES, MOBILE HOME PARKS AND TRAVEL
TRAILERS; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO
HUNDRED DOLLARS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "nay," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Hopkins and Mayor Pro Tem
Chew casting the nay votes.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Fifteen
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amendment to the Electric Rate Schedules, Ordinance No. 83-102,
Schedule AF (Athletic Fields).
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that when the new
electric rates had been adopted in the fall, the athletic field
category had not been adequately addressed.
The following ordiance was presented:
NO. 84-66
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-21 OF ARTICLE II OF
CHAPTER 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, BY PROVIDING FOR A NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE RATE FOR
ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING SERVICES; AMENDING THE "RATE"
PROVISIONS FOR SERVICE DEPOSITS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC SERVICES; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amendment to the Electric Rate Schedules, Article II, Section 25-95,
Ordinance No. 83-102, Schedule-Service Deposits.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this item related
to customer service. On commercial accounts, a deposit of ~300 was
required. If the customer defaulted, the city lost money. This
would adjust the amount to one-sixth of the annual bill.
Council Member Stephens asked how this situation was handled in
other cities.
Nelson responded in various ways; some cities required a bond
through a bonding company.
This section was included in the following ordinance:
NO. 84-66
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-21 OF ARTICLE II OF
CHAPTER 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, BY PROVIDING FOR A NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE RATE FOR
ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING SERVICES; AMENDING THE "RATE"
PROVISIONS FOR SERVICE DEPOSITS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC SERVICES; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt this section of Ordinance
No. 84-66. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and
Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amendment to the Water/Wastewater Rate Schedules, Ordinance No.
84-09, Schedule S-8.
Charles Cryan, Administrative Assistant to the Utility Director,
reported that the Council had been addressed at the April 10 meeting
by owners of mobile home parks regarding those parks which received
only sewer service. Staff had met with the mobile home park owners
and had adjusted the rates. The 1.5 multiplier would remain.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Sixteen
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-67
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-49 OF CHAPTER 25 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO PROVIDE
FOR AN AMENDED VOLUME CHARGE FOR THE NET MONTHLY RATE FOR
RESIDENTIAL SEWER SERVICE USERS WITHOUT CITY OF DENTON
WAT]ZR SERVICE (SCHEDULE S 8); REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second that the ordinance be adopted.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amendment requiring garagekeepers insurance coverage relating to tow
service.
Clovis George, Denton Police Department, reported that there was a
liability to the City under the present ordinance on wrecker
service. The recommendation was that wrecker services on the list
have garagekeepers insurance and to have the city named in the
policy.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that this was needed.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-68
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS RELATING TO TOW SERVICE BY
REQUIRING GARAGEKEEPERS INSURANCE COVERAGE; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Ridd].esperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing an additional penalty to defray costs of collection for
delinquent taxes.
City Manager Hartung reported that under the state law, when a city
hired an outside collection agency to collect delinquent taxes, an
additional amount could be added to the collection to cover the
costs.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-69
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PROVIDE FOR A
PENALTY ON DELINQUENT TAXES TO DEFRAY THE COST OF
COLLECTION THEREOF; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew s~cond that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
declaring certain areas of the City of Denton as blighted for the
purpose of allowing the sale of Industrial Revenue bonds to improve
these areas.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Seventeen
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, by Resolution adopted March 4, 1980, by the City
Council of the City of Denton, Texas, the City of Denton authorized
the creation of the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority
to exercise the powers of such corporations organized pursuant to
the Development Corporation Act of 1979, as amended (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Act together with the Rules for Issuing
Industrial Development Bonds promulgated thereunder by the Texas
Economic Development Commission (the "Rules"), provide for the
financing of projects for commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, said Act and Rules provide certain procedures with
respect to the establishment and designation of Eligible Blighted
Areas within the City for the purposes of financing projects for
commercial uses and alleviating economically disadvantaged areas;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the areas outlined on the attached maps which are
designated A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K and whose boundaries
and are further described in Exhibits A attached hereto are
established and designated as Eligible Blighted Areas for the
purposes of the Act and the Rules, all being portions of the City.
SECTION II.
That the City finds that the areas designated herein as
Eligible Blighted Areas contain a substantial number of under
employed people and substandard or, deteriorating structures which
impair or arrest the sound growth of the City and are areas that
constitute an economic or social liability in their present
condition or use. The information attached as Exhibit B further
supports the City's decision to designate the areas referenced in
Exhibits A as Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION III.
That the City finds and represents to the Texas Economic
Development Commission that the availability of financing of
projects for commercial uses under the Act will contribute
significantly to the alleviation of the blighted conditions found to
exist in the designated Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION IV.
That the principal types of projects for commercial uses
desired and authorized by the City to enhance its redevelopment
efforts in the Eligible Blighted Areas are those projects allowed
under the Act and as may be limited by more restrictive policies
- established by the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority.
SECTION V.
That the City represents that it will review all project
descriptions for approval of specific projects for commercial uses
in order to determine whether such projects are consistent with the
City's objectives for redevelopment of the Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION VI.
That attached hereto as Exhibit C is a description of
proposed public improvements to be made in the Eligible Blighted
City Council_ Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Eighteen
Areas, the estimated commencement and approximate schedule for such
public improvements, and the source of funds the City will use for
such purposes, all of which is based on the City's best estimates as
of the date of adoption of this resolution.
SECTION VII.
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption and the City Secretary is hereby directed to transmit a
certified copy of this Resolution to the Texas Economic Development
Commission.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 22nd day of May, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTE ST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Hopkins motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution appointing
Dr. Roland Vela to the Texas Municipal Power Agendy Board of
Directors for a two year term from July, 1984 to July, 1986.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the term of office for Place 3 of the City of Denton,
Texas on the Board of Directors of the Texas Municipal Power Agency
will terminate July 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Roland Vela was heretofore appointed by the City
Council of the City of Denton, Texas to Place 3 on the Board of
Directors of the Texas Municipal Power Agency and has been serving
as such Director to the present time; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
Pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 75-22 of
the City of Denton, Texas, Roland Vela is hereby appointed to the
two year term of office to Place 3 on the Board of Directors of the
Texas Municipal Power Agency. The term of office beginning July 1,
1984 and ending June 30, 1986.
SECTION II.
This Resolution shall become effective from and after its date
of passage,~ and it is so ordered.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 22, 1984
Page Nineteen
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 22nd day of May, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
8. There was no official action on Executive Session items of legal
matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
9. New Business
The following items of new business were suggested:
1. Council Member Stephens asked for a follow up report on the
management letter.
2. Council Member Hopkins asked for a report on the signal
light at Colorado.
3. Council Member Hopkins asked for a report on the inspection
of modular homes.
4. Council Member Hopkins asked for a report on P&Z activities
(length of time it took an item to be placed on the P&Z agenda).
The Council then convened into Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
0435s
City Council Minutes
June 5, 1984
The Council convened into a work session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council
Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins, McAdams, and
Riddlesperger
City Manager, Assistant City Attorney and City
Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member Stephens
1. The Council received a report on retiree insurance.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, distributed a rate sheet which
outlined the cost of retiree insurance as a post employment
benefit. Three different rates (~10 a month, ~25 a month, and ~50 a
month) had been used. Without an actuarial study, the impact would
be greater than the contribution on the balance sheet during the
first five years. For example, during the first year a contribution
of ~14,400 would be reflected on the city's balance sheet as
~180,000 and in the fifth year a contribution of ~24,000 would be
reflected as ~384,000.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked how many current retirees did the city have.
Usrey responded 24 with 7 more to be added this year. Staff assumed
there would be approximately 4 added per year. Staff recommended to
offer an HMO to current and retiring employees with the employees
making the contribution on their own.
Mayor Stewart stated that the City of Sherman carried retired
employees on their insurance plan and had started out with an
~11,000 contribution in 1979. The expected expense to Sherman in 5
to 7 years is ~3,000,000. The HMO plan being recommended by staff
seemed to be in line.
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting.
Council Member Hopkins asked how many of the 24 current retirees
were in the age group of 65 years or over.
City Manager Hartung responded that this was not known. The city's
auditors, Arthur Andersen, had been contacted but a precise dollar
figure could not be obtained without an actuarial. Staff had tried
to get a ballpark figure for consideration and tried to find a way
to address the issue of retiree insurance without starting an open-
ended program.
Council Member Hopkins asked if under an HMO, if the city made a
contribution would it fall under the Fasbe rule.
Usrey responded yes.
Hartung stated that the city had to change their reportinq such that
accrued sick leave and vacation leave would be listed on %he balance
sheet as contingent liabilities.
Council Member Hopkins stated the Council appreciated the work that
Kathryn Usrey had done and would like to make a contribution to
retired employees insurance, but the possible liability seemed to
make that very difficult.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked what was being done for disabled employees
who were not of retirement age.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Two
Usrey responded that the Texas Municipal Retirement Service had a
disability plan plus long term disability. This plan would pay for
one year past the point the employee was removed from the city
payroll.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that disabled 50 year olds would have a
problem getting any insurance.
Hartung responded that staff shared the same concern and that was
why long term disability had been added to the insurance program two
years ago. These issue would be addressed during the budget process
as it represented an on-going commitment.
Assistant City Manager McKean stated that staff felt the HMO was the
best choice for retiree insurance at the present time. The program
could be offered now as a pay as you go plan and considered again
during the budget discussions. A contract for the HMO would be
brought back to the Council.
2. The Council held a discussion of Planning and Zoning
Commission processing times.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that the City of Denton probably had the fastest time from when a
petition was filed with staff until it was presented to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The City of Dallas required a written
application and it still would take 6 months. If a petition were
filed in the City of Arlington in June, the zoning would be
considered in December if there were not difficulties. In Denton a
zoning petition could be completed within 6 weeks if there were no
problems. Local developers felt the process was too slow but out of
town developers thought it was fine.
Council Member Hopkins stated that his question was not the length
of time to receive zoning but the length of time it took for a
petition to get to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Meyer responded that the P&Z had set a limit of 5 zoning cases per
meeting but were willing to hear more than 5 if that was the
Council's wishes.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla stated that the subdivision rules
and regulations controlled platting, curb cuts, drainage, etc. and
tended to slow the process. After the P&Z made their
recommendation, there was a public hearing with the City Council and
then the zoning was granted.
Council Member Hopkins asked if additional staff was needed in the
Planning and Community Development department or did the P&Z need to
meet more often. The P&Z needed to make a recommendation.
Meyer responded that the Planning and Zoning Commission realized
that growth was coming but also felt that citizens should be heard.
The P&Z was considering limiting the time allow for citizens to
speak during public hearings to speed up the meetings.
Mayor Stewart stated that he was pleased with the job that the
Planning and Community Development department was doing.
3. The Council held a discussion on Flow Memorial Hospital and
the Library.
City Manager Hartung reported that several meetings had been held
with the Hospital Administrator and Judge Cole in an effort to find
solutions to ease the current Medicare/Medicaid payback problem.
Several alternatives had been discussed such as the hospital issuing
bonds or a straight loan arrangement. It was suggested that a
contract arrangement be drawn between the hospital and the city and
county. Judge Cole had indicated that the Commissioner Court did
not intend to create any problems with the city on the current
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Three
Medicare/Medicaid payback but this issue did raise questions for the
future. It was felt that this was not the time to enter into a
contract with the county regarding Flow Hospital as legal questions
should first be resolved. Staff recommendation was that the City
Manager, City Attorney and Hospital Administrator negotiate a
contract for short term funding. Flow was looking into staff
reductions and increasing currently charged fees. Approval of short
term funding would show that the Council was responsive to the needs
of Flow Hospital. Two issues would need to be addressed:
1. If the County was going to have outside legal advise on the
hospital, should the City also
2. The issue of indigent care should be deferred to the City
Attorney
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he agreed that the city
should also have legal advisors. Lawyers who defend indigent
clients are paid, but then state that doctors who treat indigent
patients should not be paid.
Council Member Hopkins stated the Council should instruct the Legal
Department to proceed and research where the Council stood on the
issue of funding for indigents and paupers.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Legal Department would have to
the time to complete the research.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Morris stated that City Attorney Taylor
was in the hospital and Assistant City Attorney Hunter had been on
medical leave for 2 months. He did not know if he would have
sufficient time for this research but would discuss it with the City
Manager.
The consensus of the Council was to look for outside health related
legal assistance and to bring a contract back for consideration.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he believed the City Manager was
correct and the Council should move on these issues. The Council
should know what was happening with the personnel at Flow as it was
not the city's intention to hurt the hospital. The economics of the
hospital should be considered on a bi-weekly basis.
On the issue of Library funding, Assistant City Manager Betty McKean
reported that a letter would be forwarded to the County
Commissioners with a copy of the proposed budget for the Library.
If the County decided not to fund the requested 25%, it would be the
recommendation of staff to have a city library and sell cards.
McKean had met with Judge Cole and there did not seem to be a plan
in place for a library system.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Commissioners Court was
split on this issue.
McKean reported that some cities in the county did not fund their
libraries at all if moneys were received from the Commissioners.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and beard appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 in the
Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council
Members Alford, Chew, Hopkins, McAdams, and
Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Assistant City Attorney and City
Secretary
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Four
ME MBE RS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Special Called Meeting of January 31, 1984.
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second to approve the minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor presented an award of honor from the National Safety
Association to the Fire Department. Chief Gentry accepted the award.
2. Consent Agenda
Staff requested that item 2.A.2 - Bid ~ 9273 for circuit breaker
conversion be removed from the consent agenda.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the Consent Agenda with
item 2.A.2 removed. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9254-1 - Modular furniture
2. REMOVED
3. Bid # 9285 - Utility marking system
4. Bid # 9286 - Pothole patch machine
5. Bid ~ 9287 - Brush chipper
6. Bid ~ 9288 - 60" cut mower
7. Bid # 9289 - Concrete saw
8. Bid ~ 9295 - Office furniture
9. Purchase Order ~ 63108 to Bailey Meter Company in
the amount of ~3,514.00
10. Purchase Order ~ 63396 to Gaylord Brothers Inc.
in the amount of ~4,980.00
11. Purchase Order # 63471 to Anacomp Micrographics
in the amount of ~5,000.00
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of the preliminary replat of lots 3, 4
and 5, block A, of the Lincoln Park Addition.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
2. Approval of the preliminary replat of lots 1 and
2 of the Adkisson Addition (Denton County Jail).
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
3. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Commerce
Center Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Five
4. Approval of the preliminary plat of lots 1, 2 and
3, block 1, of the Jannie Street Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
5. Approval of the preliminary plat of Section I of
the Windsor Park Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
10. The Council considered agenda item #10 to receive a report
on pollution in Denton.
Mayor Stewart stated that representatives from the special class for
the deaf at Ginnings Elementary school were in the audience. These
students had completed a class project on pollution in Denton and
had presented the report to him. These problem areas would be
investigated. The report would be on file in the office of the City
Secretary.
3. The Council returned to the agenda order and considered
approval of the Parks and Recreation Department comprehensive master
plan.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported that the
master plan had been developed over the last year. Approval was
needed prior to implementation. Brinkman distributed letters of
support from Mr. Clovis Morrisson and Dr. McGee of the Denton
Independent School District. The plan had received approval from
the DISD and the School Board.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he was impressed by the
time and effort which had been put into the plan.
Brinkman responded that the completion of the plan would not have
been possible without the assistance of over 100 citizens who had
given of their time to this effort.
Mr. Mike Campbell, Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Board,
stated that he did not have more to add other than he felt it was an
excellent idea to have a comprehensive plan and that implementation
needed to begin.
Council Member Stephens asked if the plan was set in concrete or was
it rather more conceptual.
Brinkman responded that recommendation regarding joint use of church
and school facilities would be going into effect. The research into
new areas and facilities was conceptual.
John Travelle, Parks and Recreation Board, thanked everyone who had
been associated with the completion of the master plan for their
hard work.
Mr. Raymond Pitts stated that the Senior Center had been a very fine
facility but was now inadequate. The new plan showed the Senior
Center to be 8% of the overall priority.
Ms. Lynn Hilbeth, Special Advisory Committee for the Denton
Independent School District for handicapped and disabled persons,
stated that input from her group had been incorporated by the Parks
Department and she appreciated the commitment which had been made by
the city.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to proceed with the development
of the plan with the understanding that the plan would be changed
from time to time to reset priorities.
Brinkman reported that the plan would be reviewed on an annual
basis. Staff was requesting approval to proceed with the plan and
to continue the detail work.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Six
Council Member Hopkins called the question. Motion to proceed
carried unanimously.
City Manager Hartung reported that the Parks and Recreation
Department had recently received an award for their innovative
programs.
4. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on eligible blighted
area designations in the City of Denton for the sale of industrial
revenue bonds.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
William McDonald, Administrative Assistant, spoke in favor stating
that the city had participated in the issuance of industrial revenue
bonds. Eleven areas had been designated as eligible blighted areas
the at the May 22 Council meeting. Staff had received two more
requests for the designation from developers. The first area was
requested by Mr. Adami and was located at the Smith and Dallas
Drive. The proposed development would be office space and
warehouses. The second petitioner was Mr. Bancroft for an area
located at Fort Worth Drive and Collins Street for office building
and small shops. The zoning for this parcel had been approved by
Council on May 22. This would be an approximately ~3,000,000
project.
Council Member Hopkins asked if these areas had not been approved
for the eligible blighted area designation on May 22.
McDonald responded no, but these areas were adjacent.
Mayor Stewart asked if the zoning was commercial.
McDonald responded the zoning was either commercial or light
industrial.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to declare both locations as
eligible blighted areas. Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Melvin Haisler requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A)
to the general retail (GR) classification on an approximately 0.8
acre parcel located at the northeast corner of FM 2164 (North
Locust) and proposed Loop 288.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jonita Haisler, property owner, spoke in favor stating that the
zoning change was requested because of the extension of the loop.
Council Member Stephens asked Ms. Haisler if she lived at the
location.
Ms. Haisler responded yes.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 2 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 0 in opposition.
This was the first request for development zoning along the north
side of the proposed loop. There were no problems with intensity
based on the Denton Development Guide.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Seven
Council Member Hopkins asked where the city limits line was in
relation to this property.
Ellison responded 550 feet north.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the general
retail (GR) classification on an approximately 0.8 acre parcel
located at the northeast corner of FM 2164 (North Locust) and
proposed Loop 288.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-70
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 0.851 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE THOMAS TOBY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1288,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 81.44 acres of land beginning at
Swisher/Shiloh Road. A-1
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that 2 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned but the staff had received
mail from interested parties who were not within the legal distance
for notification. The mapping in the area was fairly limited.
Staff was proposing to annex 81.44 acres. A 40 acre mobile home
subdivision was proposed in the area bounded on the north by Page
Road and fronting on Swisher Road. Staff was unsure of the proposed
mobile home park on the other side of this parcel. The land was
vacant now with a major drainage channel through the property. If
the Council decided not to annex, the property would come under the
extra-territorial jurisdiction regulations and would be subject to
perimeter paving and drainage improvements. Staff was also
concerned about the cost of annexation as these developments do not
pay their own way. Annexation would mean that the City of Denton
would have the ability to control the ultimate growth in this area.
The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the P&Z had considered a cost
analysis weighing the cost of providing services and the return of
revenues.
Watkins replied not specifically.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that a developer could put
anything on the land as long as it met County standards if the area
was not in the city limits. If annexed, the city could control what
was developed on the land.
Mr. Morris Pearson, Chaparral Estates, spoke in favor stating that
he was concerned about what would happen to this property. A mobile
home park was inconsistent and inappropriate with adjacent property
which was already developed.
Ms. Judy Russell, Chaparral Estates, spoke in favor stating that she
lived across the street from the proposed development and felt that
Denton should take firm action in areas such as this.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Eight
Mr. John Tinnerello, 2505 Shady Shores Road, spoke in favor stating
that the parcel abutted his property on the north side and felt the
mobile home park would be a high density land use. He felt the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should gain control
of this property now before too many things were already in place.
Mr. Curtis Hogsdon, owner of a portion of the property, spoke in
opposition stating that he had never been notified of any P&Z or
Council meetings. He was in favor of organized annexation to obtain
city services as soon as possible. The problem had been that he had
"showed his hand" to the staff prior to developing. Hogsdon stated
that the Council wanted to annex in this area it should annex all of
the property and not just his. Mr. Hogsdon urged the Council to
table this petition until the second meeting in July so it could be
considered as a planned development zoning petition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to continue the annexation proceedings.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 522.76 acres of land beginning 350 feet
south of and perpendicular to the centerline of U. S. Highway 380.
A-3
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that 9 reply forms had
been mailed with 2 returned in opposition and 1 undecided. At the
May 22 meeting, the Council had directed staff to delete that
portion of the parcel containing Ms. Mulkey's property. An
alternate ordinance had been prepared with this property taken out.
An estate type subdivision was on 280 acres of the tract was
underway with wells for water. A preliminary plat had been filed.
The tract to the south was a proposed 130 acre mobile home
subdivision. This annexation would not pay its own way; however,
the impact analysis assumed the area to be fully developed.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to continue the annexation
proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 9.013 acres of land beginning
approximately 700 feet east of Sherman Drive. A-4
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that 2 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned. This was a voluntary
annexation requested by Holloway Corporation as part of an overall
zoning request for this area.
Mayor Stewart asked what Holloway Corporation was planning to do in
this area.
Watkins responded this parcel was a community development plan for
single family housing.
Mr. Calvin Cooper, Holloway Corporation, stated the development
would have 4.2 houses per acre with swimming pools and tennis
courts. The area was contiguous to the other 110 acres in the total
parcel.
No one spoke in opposition.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Nine
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to continue the annexation
proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings on the proposed
annexation of approximately 31.335 acres of land located on the east
side of North Locust Street. A-5
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported this parcel was between
North Locust Street and the Twin Lakes mobile home park. Staff was
recommending the first public hearing be held on June 19, the second
public hearing be held on July 3 and to institute annexation
proceedings on July 24.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-71
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
McAdams motion, Chew second that the ordinance be adopted. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
restricting the parking between the northern most driveway on the
west side of I.O.O.F. to the end of the pavement on I.O.O.F.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that this item had been
considered by the Citizens Traffic Safety Support Commission. This
was a very small area on I.O.O.F and there had been a problem with
the distance between the driveway and the end of the pavement.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that this was not a through
street.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-72
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON THE
WEST SIDE OF I.O.O.F. STREET BETWEEN 552 FEET NORTH OF
HIGHLAND STREET AND THE END OF PAVEMENT; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO
HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second that the ordinance be adopted.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the closing and vacating of that portion of Texas
Street beginning 125 feet east of Rose Street and ending 170 feet
west of Wood Street.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that this was that portion of
Texas Street which ran through the Service Center complex. Although
this area was locked at night, traffic did go through here during
the day. Staff was proposing to close this section of the street to
through traffic.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Ten
Mayor Stewart asked if this was a dedicated street.
Svehla responded yes; but it was the staff's understanding that
there was no formal dedication.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-73
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING AND VACATING OF THAT
PORTION OF TEXAS STREET BEGINNING 125' EAST OF ROSE STREET
AND ENDING 170' WEST OF WOOD STREET; PROVIDING FOR THE
REVERSION OF THE FEE TO SAID PROPERTY FOR MUNICIPAL
PURPOSES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alford motion, Riddlesperger second that the ordinance be adopted.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "ayes" Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending street light pro rata charges.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that an annual review of
pro rata charges had been completed. The city was now using a new
type of poles which had raised the cost. The Public Utilities Board
had review and approve the change in pro rata.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-74
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO PROVIDE FOR REVISED COST
FOR STREET LIGHTING SERVICES; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second that the ordinance be adopted. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Resolution
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution and
accompanying final statement of community development objectives and
projected use of funds.
Elizabeth Evans, Community Development Block Grant Administrator,
reported that Denton was now an entitlement city and this was the
final resolution and application to be forwarded to HUD.
Mayor Stewart asked if staff was merely taking requests or had
specifics on projects been determined.
Evans replied yes; however, some specifics had been determined on
streets in the projected use of the funds.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, is concerned with the
development of viable urban communities, including decent housing, a
suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, has a special concern for
persons of low and moderate income; and
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Eleven
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, as an entitlement City, has
prepared through a citizen participation process, a program for
utilizing its first year entitlement funds in the amount of
~614,000; and
WHEREAS a public hearing has been held in accordance with
law; and
WHEREAS, the Act requires an application and appropriate
certifications; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit to the Development of
Housing and Urban Development a grant application and appropriate
assurances for entitlement funds under the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended.
SECTION II.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
authorizes the City Manager to handle all fiscal and administrative
matters related to the application, the Housing Assistance Plan and
the assurances required therefore.
SECTION III.
The City Secretary is hereby authorized to forward a
certified copy of this resolution to the Development of Housing and
Urban Development.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 5th day of June, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
declaring certain areas of the City of Denton as blighted for the
purpose of allowing the sale of Industrial Revenue Bonds to improve
these ares.
William McDonald, Administrative Assistant, reported that this was
the formal action to be taken. The public hearing had been held
earlier in the meeting.
The following resolution was presented:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Twelve
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, by Resolution adopted March 4, 1980, by the City
Council of the City of Denton, Texas, the City of Denton authorized
the creation of the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority
to exercise the powers of such corporations organized pursuant to
the Development Corporation Act of 1979, as amended (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Act together with the Rules for Issuing
Industrial Development Bonds promulgated thereunder by the Texas
Economic Development Commission (the "Rules"), provide for the
financing of projects for commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, said Act and Rules provide certain procedures with
respect to the establishment and designation of Eligible Blighted
Areas within the City for the purposes of financing projects for
commercial uses and alleviating economically disadvantaged areas;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the areas outlined on the attached maps which are
designated boundaries and are further described in Exhibits A and B
attached hereto are established and designated as Eligible Blighted
Areas for the purposes of the Act and the Rules, all being portions
of the City.
SECTION II.
That the City finds that the areas designated herein as
Eligible Blighted Areas contain a substantial number of under
employed people and substandard or deteriorating structures which
impair or arrest the sound growth of the City and are areas that
constitute an economic or social liability in their present
condition or use. The information attached as Exhibit C further
supports the City's decision to designate the areas referenced in
Exhibits A and B as Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION III.
That the City finds and represents to the Texas Economic
Development Commission that the availability of financing of
projects for commercial uses under the Act will contribute
significantly to the alleviation of the blighted conditions found to
exist in the designated Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION IV.
That the principal types of projects for commercial uses
desired and authorized by the City to enhance its redevelopment
efforts in the Eligible Blighted Areas are those projects allowed
under the Act and as may be limited by more restrictive policies
established by the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority.
SECTION V.
That the City represents that it will review all project
descriptions for approval of specific projects for commercial uses
in order to determine whether such projects are consistent with the
City's objectives for redevelopment of the Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION VI.
That attached hereto as Exhibit D is a description of
proposed public improvements to be made in the Eligible Blighted
Areas, the estimated commencement and approximate schedule for such
public improvements, and the source of funds the City will use for
such purposes, all of which is based on the City's best estimates as
of the date of adoption of this resolution.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Thirteen
SECTION VII.
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption and the City Secretary is hereby directed to transmit a
certified copy of this Resolution to the Texas Economic Development
Commission.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 5th day of June, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Hopkins motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered approval of a request from RPDG,
Inc. for water and sewer service outside the City limits at Page
Road and Shiloh Cemetery (southeast of Denton).
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was a 66 acre
tract on the edge of the proposed annexation. This area would
require an 8 inch water line and the Corinth lift station would
provide the sewer service. The lift station was approximately 90%
full. Improvements would have to be made. The Public Utilities
Board had reviewed and recommended approval.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council could not refuse the
request as the city was obligated to serve in this area.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the request from RPDG,
Inc. for water and sewer service outside of the city limits. Motion
carried unanimously.
8. The Council received a report on electric rate demand
charges.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported on demand and revenue
expectations stating that staff had expected ~11,900,000 from
commercial customers and ~4,200,000 in fixed costs. The proposal
had included 70% base demand charge and 30% in energy charges.
Staff anticipated recovering approximately ~14,000,000 from demand
charges. The percentage on the demand charges was correct and
kilowat billings were up approximately 17%. Denton had a ~5.10
kilowat charge for all customers. Texas Power and Light had a two
level system with an expander block which was a very complicated
system.
Nelson then presented a slide of the comparison of demand rates from
the City of Denton, Texas Power and Light, Dallas Power and Light,
and the City of Garland as compiled by the City of Austin. The
chart showed the rates in various consumer classes from residential
to large industrial.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 5, 1984
Page Fourteen
Mayor Stewart stated that this referred back to the fact that the
City of Denton had decided to use the same demand charge for all
classes of customers to encourage conservation.
Nelson concluded by stating that the chart showed DP&L on their old
rate and a portion of TP&L on their old rate. TESCO would
standardize the rates.
8. The Council considered authorizing the City Manager to
negotiate with the Flow Hospital Administrator concerning an advance
of funds to the hospital.
City Manager Hartung reported that the Council had discussed earlier
the need to make moves to aid the hospital in the Medicare/Medicaid
payback. During recent discussions with the County, a legal opinion
had been released by the Commissioners Court relating to the
responsibility for indigient care. Staff was recommending that the
Council:
1. Aut'horize the C~ty Manager to negotiate with the Hospital
Administrator and City Attorney to develop a contract allowing the
city to advance funds to Flow Hospital in the form of a loan
2. The city should retain legal assistance to determine the
long range goals and needs of the city in respect to Flow Hospital
3. Direct the City Attorney to pursue a resolution to the
question of the County's responsibility for the payment of indigent
care.
Chew motion, Stephens second to approve all three recommendations.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
12. New Business:
The following items of new business were suggested by
Council Members for future agendas:
1. Council Member Stephens asked about an ordinance on pro
rata street paving of Collins Street in conjunction with the
petition of Christopher Bancroft.
2. Council Member Stephens requested a report on the cost of
street repairs and seal coating.
3. Council Member Alford requested a report on the status of
code enforcement on Rose Lawn Drive.
4. Council Member Hopkins requested a report in the near
future on the fire inspection program.
The Council adjourned into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHT~i~L~0TTEt AL'LE~, ~TY ~ECRE-TARY
0436s
City Council Minutes
June 8, 1984
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 12:00 noon
in the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council
Members Alford, Chew, McAdams, and Riddlesperger
Assistant City Manager, Assistant City Attorney
and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Members Hopkins and Stephens
1. The Council held a public hearing on eligible blighted area
designations in the City of Denton for the sale of industrial
revenue bonds.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
William McDonald, Administrative Assistant, reported that the staff
was requesting two more areas be designated as blighted for the
purpose of issuing industrial revenue bonds. The first area had
been requested to be included by Council Member Stephens and was
located at the corner of Carroll Boulevard and Eagle. The second
area was requested by Mr. R. J. Button and was located at Mayhill
Road and 1-35E. Mr. Button planned a three phase development in
this area which would include a mini-mall and would provide
approximately 80 jobs.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he had received many telephone calls
regarding the word "blighted".
Council Member McAdams stated it was her understanding that this
phraseology would be changed in the state statute.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
2. The Council considered approval of a resolution declaring
certain areas of the City of Denton as blighted for the purpose of
allowing the sale of industrial revenue bonds to improve these areas.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, by Resolution adopted March 4, 1980, by the City
Council of the City of Denton, Texas, the City of Denton authorized
the creation of the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority
to exercise the powers of such corporations organized pursuant to
the Development Corporation Act of 1979, as amended (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Act together with the Rules for Issuing
Industrial Development Bonds promulgated thereunder by the Texas
Economic Development Commission (the "Rules"), provide for the
financing of projects for commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, said Act and Rules provide certain procedures with
respect to the establishment and designation of Eligible Blighted
Areas within the City for the purposes of financing projects for
commercial uses and alleviating economically disadvantaged areas;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the areas outlined on the attached maps which are
designated boundaries and are further described in Exhibits A and B
attached hereto are established and designated as Eligible Blighted
Areas for the purposes of the Act and the Rules, all being portions
of the City.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 8, 1984
Page Two
SECTION II.
That the City finds that the areas designated herein as
Eligible Blighted Areas contain a substantial number of under
employed people and substandard or deteriorating structures which
impair or arrest the sound growth of the City and are areas that
constitute an economic or social liability in their present
condition or use. The information attached as Exhibit C further
supports the City's decision to designate the areas referenced in
Exhibits A and B as Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION III.
That the City finds and represents to the Texas Economic
Development Commission that the availability of financing of
projects for commercial uses under the Act will contribute
significantly to the alleviation of the blighted conditions found to
exist in the designated Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION IV.
That the principal types of projects for commercial uses
desired and authorized by the City to enhance its redevelopment
efforts in the Eligible Blighted Areas are those projects allowed
under the Act and as may be limited by more restrictive policies
established by the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority.
SECTION V.
That the City represents that it will review all project
descriptions for approval of specific projects for commercial uses
in order to determine whether such projects are consistent with the
City's objectives for redevelopment of the Eligible Blighted Areas.
SECTION VI.
That attached hereto as Exhibit D is a description of
proposed public improvements to be made in the Eligible Blighted
Areas, the estimated commencement and approximate schedule for such
public improvements, and the source of funds the City will use for
such purposes, all of which is based on the City's best estimates as
of the date of adoption of this resolution.
SECTION VII.
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption and the City Secretary is hereby directed to transmit a
certified copy of this Resolution to the Texas Economic Development
Commission.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 8th day of June, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 8, 1984
Page Three
Chew motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye,"
Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
~c¥-RD o. 7TEWA~C, ~YOR --~
CHAILLO~TE ALLEN~CITY ~C~TARY
0437s
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
June 19, 1984
The Council convened into study session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Riddlesperger, Stephens, McAdams, and Hopkins
City Manager, City Attorney and Deputy City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council discussed employment of Medical Consultants,
Inc. to assist the City Council in developing long range plans for
Flow Hospital.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that he felt the need for a third
party to help assist in the development of the long range plan. He
introduced Steve Clayton, representing Medical Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Clayton suggested a survey of physicians to find out if their
needs were being met by Flow Hospital and if there was proper
staffing as the physicians really control the hospital.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what would be the benefit of the
survey.
Clayton responded that it would show people of the interest in Flow
Hospital and would show First Texas Medical, Inc. that some action
was being taken.
Council Member Alford asked how long the survey would take.
Clayton said that it would take about 30 days to put a questionnaire
together and that he would work with the hospital administrator and
then 30 days beyond that to put the answers together for
presentation to Council.
Mayor Stewart asked how much this service would cost.
Clayton said that he charges ~75.00 per hour, but he felt the whole
survey and response would cost less than ~10,000.00.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the questionnaire could also
lead to ideas on improvement.
Clayton stated that the questionnaire would have both objective and
subjective questions.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council needed to know what needed to
be done to make the hospital successful.
Clayton said that he would work as an extension of the hospital.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew suggested getting another proposal so they could
make a comparison.
Council Member Stephens asked what Baylor Hospital was doing and if
the consultant could do the same sort of thing.
Mayor Stewart said that getting someone independent was the general
idea.
City Manager Hartung stated that this was strictly City business.
Council Member Hopkins stated that we own the hospital and that we
must make the major decisions.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew again suggested getting another proposal so they
could make a comparison.
Mayor Stewart said that it needs to be done relatively quickly.
Hartung said he would get some other firms to present to the Council
so that they could make a comparison.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Two
2. The Council considered an agreement with Flow Hospital for
assistance in funding of the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement.
City Manager Hartung stated that Jeff Hausler, Flow Hospital
Administrator, was at the meeting to discuss the reimbursement and
answer any questions.
Mr. Hausler stated the Council had the opportunity to finance
additional reimbursements. Additional banking sources were
available and that there was an option of reimbursement to
Medicare/Medicaid and Blue Cross/Blue Shield with only a 12 month
referral. He stated that Flow needed the flexibility of 3 years.
The City could execute the advance of funds.
City Manager Hartung stated that the County Commissioners planned on
discussing the hospital funding on June 20 and that Judge Cole had
indicated he felt the County would assume their share of
responsibility.
Hartung stated the Council might consider calling a special called
meeting to discuss this further when they had a better idea of what
the County was going to do.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the City was assuming the
responsibility for funding half of what was still to be paid.
Hartung responded that the remaining debt was approximately ~300,000
and the City was assuming about ~150,000. He stated that the City
needed some form of formal action as there was no contract at the
present time.
Mayor Stewart asked if cash flow was the problem and would the
hospital need more or less than the ~150,000.
Jeff Hausler answered probably more but hopefully it could be repaid
with the three years or less.
Mayor Stewart asked how serious the cash flow problem was.
Jeff Hausler stated that the cash flow problem had been turned
around, but was still not good. He said that this was a better
year, but still not great and that they needed to borrow the full
amount so it could be spread over 3 years.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that flexibility was the key.
Council Member Hopkins suggested that the Council authorize the City
Manager to negotiate a contract to get outside assistance. The
Council wished to continue to negotiate with the County and the
hospital. Hopkins also requested City Attorney to advise the
Council of the legalities.
3. The Council held a study session on the proposed sign
ordinance.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, stated that the Planning and Zoning
Commission ~had been working on the sign ordinance for two years.
Two public hearings had been held and many changes made. The P&Z
voted 6 - 0 to recommend approval of the ordinance. The process
began with staff members touring the city. A study was then
completed on the existing sign ordinance. The purpose was to
correct any deficiencies in the current ordinance and to have an
ordinance which could be enforced. The regulations on signs would
be divided into residential and non-residential ordinances.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Board had gotten input from the
sign people of Denton in working out the proposed ordinance.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Three
Watkins stated that Planning & Zoning had not gone outside the
committee for negotiations, but rather had made their own decisions.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Board had gotten input from the
people who would be affected by the ordinance.
Council Member McAdams stated that comments were received from sign
entities and that the feeling of the sign industry were made clear.
Gary Juren, Planning & Zoning Commission, stated that he felt
comfortable with the document and that the city needed these
regulations.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if all portable signs would be
outlawed after 5 years.
Watkins said portable signs would not be outlawed, but off premises
signs would be.
Raymond Gohle, owner of an advertising business, stated he dealt
with billboards and felt the amortization was unfair. All signs
that were built legally at the time and had permits should stay as
they were. He further stated that some of his signs would be non-
conforming in 10 years. He concluded by stating that half of his
signs (about 20 signs along the Highway) were covered under the
Beautification Act.
Larry Brockett, Starlight Signs, stated that many of his customers's
signs would become non-conforming and that he felt 10 years was not
enough time. He also stated he felt the ordinance was unfair to
people who had purchased permits and were conforming at the time.
He suggested that those signs over 40' high be protected under a
grandfather clause.
Watkins responded that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation did not include a grandfather clause. Those people
who could not conform within the 10 year period could petition for
an extension from the Board of Adjustment.
Mayor Stewart asked about historic landmarks, such as the Morrison
Milling sign.
Watkins replied that would be an issue for the Historic Landmark
Commission to decide.
Cliff Reding, owner of a sign company, stated he believed the
ordinance was confusing and asked how a sign could change from being
legal to being illegal. He stated that one set standard was not
fair and that the people who would be most affected by the ordinance
had not been given enough input or enough time to attend the
meetings.
The Council asked for those interested in giving some information to
put those recommendations in their boxes for their review.
4. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Riddlesperger, Stephens, McAdams, and Hopkins
City Manager, City Attorney and Deputy City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Four
1. Consent Agenda
Council Member Stephens requested item A-1 be removed from the
consent agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew requested item B-4 be removed from the consent
agenda.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the Consent Agenda
excepting items A-1 and B-4. Motion carried unanimously.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported on item B.4
(preliminary plat of the Morse Street Addition) stating that he was
familiar with the area, but that staff needed to investigate the
area further.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that a curve in the plat area was
difficult to navigate and asked for a report from Engineering at the
meeting on July 3, 1984. Chew also asked the staff to look at Scott
Street again and determine who would pay for the widening.
Ellison stated that he felt confident that 2 weeks was sufficient
time to get the information.
Chew motion, Stephens second to have this item brought back in two
weeks. Motion passed unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9266 - East Prairie paving improvements
2. Bid ~ 9292 - Controller terminals, replacement
keypads and terminal printers
3. Bid ~ 9293 - Transmission poles
4. Bid # 9296 - Fire Department windbreakers
5. Purchase Order # 62329 to G. R. Haley Company in
the amount of ~3,193.27
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of the preliminary replat of
the Haywood-Jester Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Patio Gardens Homes Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Mack Center Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Morse
Street Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
The Mayor read a proclamation declaring July 4, 1984 as a holiday.
2. The Council received a report from the Planning and Zoning
Commission concerning the recommendation for the Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
Robert LaForte, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
reported there were ~50,000,000 worth of programs from which to
choose. The biggest needs were for drainage improvements and work
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Five
on streets and traffic signals. He stated that the Council might
consider a bond election for improvements to roads since there was a
need for ~30,000,000 worth of road improvements.
Council Member McAdams asked if the area of town where houses always
flood was taken care of in the drainage needs.
LaForte replied yes.
Bob Nelson reported that there were Capital Improvement Projects
over the next five years which would amount to ~5,000,000. These
projects would require bond sales in the amount of ~26,000,000. The
CIP was projected on a 4% per year electrical usage growth and 3
1/2% water usage growth rate. If growth was greater, the CIP would
have to be adjusted in the next few years. He presented schedules
indicating debt service requirements necessary to fund bond sales to
support the capital improvements.
Council Member Hopkins suggested the Council have a joint work
session with the Public Utilities Board to discuss the expenditures
for FY 1984-85.
3. Ms. Carolyn Cushman appeared requesting permission to
install storage sheds on 1 acre of an 8 acre tract.
Ms. Cushman stated that her property was located at Loop 288 and
Spencer Road and that her request for a skating rink had been denied
because of the lack of water and sewer. She requested permission to
build all steel storage buildings, 30 feet from the property line.
She had spoken with the Building Official who had no problems, but
the Fire Marshal indicated there would be a problem because of the
water situation. She stated that there were families living out
there affected by the same lack of water and that the storage
buildings she was requesting would not have any impact on human
lives.
The Council referred the question of whether or not she could build
mini-warehouses to the City Attorney. The City Attorney was
directed to work with Ms. Cushman.
4. The Council considered authorizing the Confederate Air
Force to use Denton Municipal Airport for an airshow on July 14 and
15, 1984. (The Airport Advisory Board recommends approval.)
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this agreement between the City and the Confederate Air Force
was basically the same as in past years. There was a fee increase
and the City would be providing additional resources. The CAF was
also requesting to sell beer as they had in the past.
Council Member Stephens stated that after last year's show some
citizens were concerned that the planes were flying too low. He
asked to make sure that the proper altitudes were observed.
Ron Cox from the Confederate Air Force said that minimum and maximum
altitudes were set and monitored by FAA regulations.
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second to approve use of the airport
for air show. Motion passed unanimously.
5. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 9.013 acres of land beginning approxi-
mately 700 feet east of Sherman Drive (A-4).
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Bill Dyer, representative of the Robert Holloway Corporation, spoke
in favor of the annexation. He stated that the corporation was
ready to proceed with plans for the zoning change.
No one spoke in opposition.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Six
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that 2 reply forms were
mailed with 0 returned.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 31.335 acres of land located between
FM2164 (North Locust Street) and Twin Lakes Mobile Home Park (A-5).
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor of the annexation.
No one spoke in opposition of the annexation.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that this was a voluntary
annexation and there would be a subsequent request for zoning for a
mobile home park.
C. Council held a hearing on the petition of Morelle M.
Miller requesting a change in zoning from single family (SF-7) to
the light industrial (LI) classification on an approximately 2.32
acre tract located at the southwest corner of Morse and Woodrow
Streets (1814 Morse Street). Z-1659
Morelle M. Miller spoke in favor of the request stating that the
owners wanted to sell the land to pay hospital bills. She stated
that their need was great and that the Light Industrial zoning was
the best use for the land. She stated that the land was not
suitable for single family use and that she had someone interested
in buying the land for light industrial use.
Dorothy Mentor spoke in opposition to the zoning request. She said
that this was a single family neighborhood and that there was
already too much light industrial usage in the area. She asked the
Council not to be hasty in making a decision and that people who had
chosen that area for their homes should not have to deal with the
industrial development in their area. She strongly opposed the
zoning request.
Ms. Miller spoke in rebuttal stating that the land was far enough
away from the neighbors not to be a problem and that they could
build high fences to separate the area. She also said that the
owners of the land were destitute and the land was not suitable for
single family use.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial and that there are
other alternatives to Light Industrial zoning. He also stated that
the Denton Development Plan worked to preserve residential
neighborhoods.
Council Member McAdams spoke in favor of preserving the neighbor-
hood as that was the most important factor.
McAdams motion, Chew second to deny the request. Motion passed
unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Dimension Development Company, Inc. requesting a change in zoning
from planned development (PD-19) and single family (SF-10) to a
revised planned development classification on 161.7 acres beginning
at the intersection of Teasley Lane and Ridgeway Drive. Existing
PD-19 is comprised of 42.2 net acres (10.5 acres of general retail,
16.7 acres of cluster housing at 12 units per acre, and 15
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Seven
acres of multi-family at 26 units per acre). The balance of the
161.7 acre tract (119.5 acres) was presently zoned to accommodate
single family detached land use on minimum 10,000 square foot lots.
If approved, the revised or newly established planned development
(PD) would permit the following land uses: Z-1660
1. A reconfiguration of existing PD-19 to the east side
of Ridgeway Drive to respect a new alignment. The
10.5 net acres of general retail is the same as
existing PD-19. Multi-family on 16.7 net acres
(maximum of 390 units is the same number of maximum
units as existing PD-19.) Cluster housing has been
reduced from 12 units per acre in existing PD-19 to 8
units per acre in the proposed revised PD and
relocated to the south boundary of the tract.
2. Single family (SF-10) on 14.44 acres beginning
adjacent and west of Ridgeway Drive.
3. Single family (SF-10) on 30.49 acre parcel located
east of Ridgeway Drive along the northern boundary of
the site.
4. Single family (SF-7) on 35 acres beginning
approximately 1,400 feet east of Ridgeway Drive.
5. Cluster housing on 28.89 acres at 11 units per acre
(318 maximum units) beginning approximately 2,300 feet
east of Ridgeway Drive.
6. Office use on 4.68 acres located at the northwest
corner of Teasley Lane and Ridgeway Drive.
7. City service use (potential fire station site) on a
1.55 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of
Ridgeway Drive and Teasley Lane.
8. Proposed public park land use on 2.3 acres.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Bob Wachter, representing Dimension Development, spoke in favor of
the petition stating that the proposal was a culmination of 6 months
work. Opposition had been voiced at the Planning and Zoning hearing
from property owners to the south who had felt the multi-family
units abutting their property would be too dense. He had discussed
this problem with the property owners and in response to their
concerns, Dimension Development was proposing that the City Council
approve the revised plan which would move the multi-family land use
from the original location and shift it to the interior of the tract
and replace it with the cluster housing to the south. The cluster
housing was a less dense land use. It was felt that this would
address those who were in opposition. Dimension Development was
respectfully requesting that the Council approve the plan with 390
units as approved in the original planned development zoning. His
company had tried to take advantage of the best use of the land as
well as keep the area pleasant for all surrounding areas.
Mr. W.P. Phillips, representing Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Cott, spoke in
favor stating the Cotts were supportive of the proposition but that
they would prefer the 10.5 acres of general retail be used as
neighborhood services instead of general retail. This would give no
store more than 4,000 square feet.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Eight
David Ellison spoke, saying that 11 reply forms were mailed with 1
returned in favor and 0 in opposition. He stated that Planning &
Zoning were in support of the development and had recommended
approval. Ellison emphasized the importance of intensity in this
area. He further stated the Dimension Development proposal would
exceed the overall density/intensity standard as well as a specific
policy which recommends that there not be a moderate intensity
center in the Hodson Lane/Teasley Lane area. The original PD-19 was
approved prior to the adoption of these policies and standards;
therefore, the only way to comply would be for the City Council to
back-zone the property and eliminate existing retail and high
density land uses previously approved. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation was for approval, with further explanation
of the condition concerning the reduction of multi-family units from
390 to 250. Concerns had been raised by the property owner to the
south and the P&Z recommended a reduction in the number of units in
response to these concerns. As stated by Mr. Wachter, some
discussion had taken place between the concerned property owners and
the petitiomer following P&Z action. The petitioner was proposing
to relocate the cluster and multi-family portions of the petition
which would result in lower density housing being located along the
common property lines in question. Ellison summarized by reporting
that with the existing zoning in PD-19 and the request for a
marginal increase in overall density, all the available
intensity/density in this study area would be allocated to Dimension
Development, based on current standards.
Council Member Riddlesperger said that he was very pleased with the
professional approach taken by Dimension Development and said they
were a good example for all other developers.
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve request with the exception of
~3 and ~6 (Single family [SF-10] on 30.49 acre parcel located east
of Ridgeway Drive along the northern boundary of the site and office
use on 4.68 acres located at the northwest corner of Teasley Lane
and Ridgeway Drive.).
A discussion ensued concerning whether or not to leave in items #3
and ~6.
Council Member Stephens questioned whether the Council could approve
the petition as presented with 390 multi-family units as the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation had been for 250 units.
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second to amend the motion and to
accept the entire petition as recommended by the P&Z with a
reduction in the number of multi-family units. Motion failed with 3
voting aye, 4 voting no.
Vote on main motion to accept petition deleting items ~3 and ~6,
passed 6 ayes and 1 no.
E. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of James
R. Neblett requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to
the light industrial (LI) classification on a 43.06 acre tract
located adjacent and north of Highway 380E, adjacent and south of
the T&P and MKT Railroad, beginning approximately 700 feet east of
Mayhill Road. Z-1661
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
George Hopkins spoke in favor of the request stating that the area
was suitable for light industrial development.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Nine
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 8 reply
forms were mailed, with 4 returned in favor, and 0 in opposition.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to approve the zoning change
request. Motion passed unanimously.
F. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of James R.
Neblett requesting a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the
light industrial (LI) classification on a 16.909 acre tract
beginning at the northwest corner of Highway 380E and Geesling
Road. Z-1662.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
George Hopkins spoke in favor of the request stating that the area
was suitable for light industrial development.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 6 reply
forms were mailed with 1 returned in favor, and 0 in opposition. He
also stated that the water and sewer were in the planning stages to
be extended.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the zoning change request.
Motion passed unanimously.
G. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
William B. Rogers requesting a change in zoning from agricultural
(A) to the single family (SF-16) classification on lots 3, 13, 14,
-- 15, Solar Way Addition, Section I, and lot 30, Solar Way Addition,
Section II. Z-1664.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
Bill Rogers, developer of Solar Way Subdivision, distributed
completed plats. He stated that the community began before being
annexed into the city limits and now needed the zoning change to
continue selling the remaining lots.
W.P. Phillips spoke in favor of the petition stating that the lots
were larger than some in Southridge. If made to replat, paving and
drainage would be required. This is actually a non-conforming land
use.
A1 Stewart spoke in favor of the request stating that he had been
refused a building permit and was ready to start building if
everything could be approved.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that 10 reply
forms were mailed with 1 returned in favor and 1 in opposition. The
Planning and Zoning Commission did not see this as a problem.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to approve the zoning change
request. Motion passed unanimously.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to the single
family (SF-16) classification on lots 3, 13, 14, 15, Solar Way
Addition, Section I, and lot 30, Solar Way Addition, Section II.
The following ordinance was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Ten
NO. 84-75
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1,
AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO LOTS 3, 13, 14 AND 15 OF SOLAR WAY
ADDITION, SECTION I AND LOT 30 OF SOLAR WAY ADDITION, SECTION
II, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
6. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance setting a
date, time and place for public hearings regarding the petition of
Mr. R.J. Button for annexation of approximately 11 acres of land
located at the intersection of 1-35E and Mayhill Road (A-6).
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that the proposed dates
for the public hearings would be July 3, 1984 and July 17, 1984.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-76
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF
SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a
change in zoning from single family (SF-7) to the planned
development (PD) classification on an approximately 8.74 acre tract
beginning at the southwest corner of Highway 377 and Collins Street
(Z-1649) .
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-77
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1,
AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 8.74 ACRES OF LAND OUT
OF THE ALEXANDER HILL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 623, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"aye", Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance prohibiting
parking on the east side of Mesa Drive.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that this area had been
a problem for some time and that the Traffic Engineering Division
had received complaints from citizens concerning the parking on Mesa
Drive.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Eleven
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-78
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON THE EAST
SIDE OF MESA DRIVE FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH U. S. HIGHWAY 380
TO END OF PAVEMENT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING
A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered removing zoning request S-174 from the
table.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to remove S-174 from the table.
Motion passed unanimously.
8. The Council considered the petition of Champion Home
Communities, Inc. requesting approval of a specific use permit for a
mobile home park on a 104.28 acre tract located adjacent and north
of FM 426 (East McKinney) and adjacent and south of Mills Road, and
beginning approximately 3,000 feet east of Mayhill Road. S-174
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported stating that the
public hearing had been held. The request was to amend the zoning
map and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of
the request by a vote of 4-2.
-- Hopkins motion, Chew second to deny the petition. Motion carried
with 4 voting "aye" and 3 voting "nay".
9. The Council considered removing zoning request S-176 from the
table.
Chew motion, McAdams second to remove S-176 from the table. Motion
passed unanimously.
10. The Council considered the petition of W. J. Roddy requesting
approval of a specific use permit for a mobile home park (197 lots
with a typical size of 50' x 100') on a 36.96 acre tract located
approximately 3,500 feet east of the 1-35E service road and adjacent
and north of Page Road. S-176
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that an existing
mobile home park was already in the area. The proposed mobile home
park would have to conform to existing specifications and would have
to show individual lots. He stated that the public hearing had
already been held.
Mary Stewart spoke in opposition to the park. She stated that Mr.
Roddy already owned a mobile home park and that it was in a very sad
state of disrepair. There was improper plastic pipe under the road,
the ditch had become a cesspool and the park was covered with debris
and junk vehicles. She further stated that the park had been turned
into the Health Department for code violations.
Dr. Brent Romeo spoke in favor of the park. He stated that he was
actually the owner of the property and that his intent was to have a
clean, "Christian" community, striving for moral excellence. He
intended to build a chapel and the park would exceed the
requirements.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if Dr. Romeo would live on the
property.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Twelve
Dr. Romeo said no, he would not live there.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to deny the petition. Motion passed
unanimously.
11. The Council considered removing disposition request D-35 from
the table.
Chew motion, Alford second to remove D-35 from the table. Motion
passed unanimously.
12. The Council considered approval of disposition of excess
Carroll Boulevard right-of-way at the southeast corner of West
Prairie and Carroll Boulevard. D-35
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that the
Planning and Zoning Commission had approved the disposition by a
vote of 6-1. He also stated that the city has control of the
right-of-way deed on the east line of Center Street.
Tom Jester spoke saying that the real issue was an ownership
question. What did the city actually purchase? He stated that the
city still owns 10 feet of the area.
Steve Brinkman, Parks and Recreation Director, stated that the Parks
Master Plan suggested not disposing of any property on Carroll
Boulevard and suggested holding onto the land.
Chew motion,~ Hopkins second to approve disposition and retain 10
feet. Motion passed with 5 voting "aye" and 2 voting "nay".
13. The Council considered the North Texas State University 1984-85
parking and traffic proposals.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that there were three
proposals submitted by North Texas State University. The basic
request was for a bicycle path around the campus. Staff felt the
proposal was acceptable with the exception of Welch Street. The
recommendation was that representatives from North Texas meet with
staff to determine which streets should have the parking removed.
The bicycle path would be initiated only if all problems with
merchants and parking spaces could be resolved.
Dr. Fred Poole from North Texas presented a brief explanation of
what the university was trying to do in the way of making the campus
more easily accessible for the students. He said that he and Dan
Martin, NTSU Police Chief, would work with city staff in any way
possible.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the concept of the
bicycle path. Motion passed unanimously.
14. The Council considered authorizing the Airport Manager to apply
for an FAA grant for a master plan study for the airport.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, stated funds
were available through this grant and that it would be of benefit to
the municipal airport.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve request. Motion passed
unanimously.
15. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
16. The following items of new business were suggested for future
agendas:
1. A report on the bird control program
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 19, 1984
Page Thirteen
2. A joint meeting with the Public Utilities Board
3. A request was made for a map with mobile home parks marked
4. A report on B-33 on South Carroll Boulevard
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
0815g
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
June 26, 1984
The Council convened into Special Called Meeting at 5:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Riddlesperger,
and Hopkins
City Manager, Assistant City Attorney and Deputy City
Secretary
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Rem Chew
Council Members McAdams, Stephens
1. The Council considered approval of the institution of
annexation proceedings on a tract of land consisting of approxi-
mately 81.44 acres of land located on the south side of Page Road
and along the west side of Swisher Road and north of the MK&T
Railroad. A-1
Steve Fanning, Planning and Community Development staff, presented a
map of the area and reported that the primary reason for this
annexation was a proposed mobile home park in the location. If the
City of Denton wanted to gain control of the area, the staff would
recommend annexation.
Council Member Hopkins asked who was proposing to build the mobile
home park or subdivision in the area.
Mayor Stewart asked the dates of the public hearings.
Fanning responded that the public hearings for the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council had already been held.
City Attorney C. J. Taylor reported that the law required the public
hearings be held prior to the institution of annexation. This
annexation proposal had already been before the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Judy Russell, Chaparrel Estates, stated that it was her
understanding that there had only been one public hearing on this
particular annexation. The adjacent landowners were opposed to the
mobile home park and wanted the City of Denton to annex in order to
control the development in this area but would like to see the
annexation delayed.
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he did not see any real
reasons for holding off on the annexation.
City Attorney Taylor stated that it would take 4 affirmative votes
to institute annexation.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the institution of
annexation proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council considered approval of the institution of
annexation proceedings on a tract of land consisting of
approximately 470 acres of land beginning 350 feet south of and
perpendicular to the centerline of U. S. Highway 380. A-3
Steve Fanning, Planning and Community Development staff, reported
that this was the same type action as the first item and was an
involuntary annexation.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the institution of
annexation proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
{.~ity of Denton City Council Mintues
~eeting of June 26, 1984
~age Two
3. The Council considered the emergency addendum item to
~pprove an agreement with the Board of Directors of Flow Hospital
for the advance of ~100,000 to assist the hospital in reimbursing a
]~edicare/Medicaid overpayment for fiscal 1983.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that discussions had been
continued with the Hospital Administrator and the County Judge.
?ayments and other arrangements made by the hospital had still left
~ balance of ~140,000 to be repaid. One of the arrangements made
had included a bank loan at 18% interest rate. The County
Commissioners and City Council could advance ~100,000 each to the
hospital at a lower interest rate. This would alleviate some of the
cash flow problems for the hospital.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he was in favor of this
~rrangement for this particular purpose but did not want to set a
~)recedent that the City would match dollar for dollar with the
County for the hospital. The County would be taking the ~100,000
~rom the indigent care fund and he did not feel the city should pay
matching funds for indigent care which was the responsibilty of the
County.
~4ayor Pro Tem Chew joined the meeting.
~ouncil Member Hopkins stated that the Council needed to receive
more and better information more often from the hospital Board of
Directors.
~4ayor Pro Tem Chew suggested that the City appointees to the board
should meet with the Council once a month.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the Council should receive
2he hospital financial reports but the Board of Directors did run
.~he hospital. The Council could not meet with the hospital board,
5he Public Utilities Board, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
~)r they would be meeting all the time.
~ouncil Member McAdams joined the meeting.
i~ayor Pro Tem Chew stated that the Council did not want to run the
'%ospital but should show an interest and felt the Council needed to
know what was going on.
.~ayor Stewart stated that he agreed the Council should be kept
informed but should not try to influence the board of directors.
2ouncil Member Stephens stated that he had spoken informally with
~he board members and had expressed the Council's support.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to approve the agreement with the
Board of Directors for Flow Hospital for the advance of $100,000
:Nith the understanding that city would not match dollar for dollar
~ith the county on payment of indigent care. Motion carried
unanimously.
.~. The Council then convened into the Executive Session to
~iscuss legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board
~ppointments. No official action was taken.
Nith no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
0438s
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 3, 1984
The Council convened into study session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room,
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Stephens, McAdams, and Hopkins
City Manager, City Attorney and Deputy City Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Riddlesperger was on vacation
1. The Council discussed development proposed in the extra
territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of determining whether to
begin the annexation process,
Charlie Watkins, Senior Planner, reported that a a 172 acre tract on
Highway 377 south beginning at the south side of Brush Creek Road
was being proposed for development. The development would include
mostly single family residences and townhouse lots. Six acres for
would be committed to commercial uses. Three acres would be
developed for retail or multi-family use. The staff was
recommending that the Council approve annexation proceedings on the
parcel.
Council member Stephens asked about water service to the area.
Council member Hopkins said the developer could tie in at Hobson
Lane. A discussion was being held in Argyle regarding participation
in oversizing. This would be a $700,000.00 project.
Watkins discussed the development near the area. A mobile home
subdivision was proposed adjacent to Vacation Village. Also a
manufactured housing subdivision was proposed between lake property
in existing Vacation Village and another adjacent to East McKinney.
This would result in the effect of a water district. There existed
a state statute which stated that the City could not annex part of a
water district.
Council Member Hopkins read a legal opinion which stated the city
does not have to take on the assets or liabilities.
Council Members Chew and Hopkins stated that they did not want to
annex Vacation Village.
Mayor Stewart asked if the area was asking for City services.
Watkins replied yes, if they were annexed.
Mayor Stewart expressed concern over the mobile home subdivision.
Watkins said they would be traditional homes of 5,000 sq. ft. lots.
Mayor Stewart asked if the city could control mobile home sub-
divisions in extra territorial jurisdiction.
Watkins responded that the only way to control land use was to
annex. Then subdivision regulations could be applied to this area
so that the intrastructure would meet city standards.
Council Member McAdams stated that the advantage to annexing now was
that the city could deny mobile homes,
Council Member Hopkins stated that the disadvantage would be having
to service the area. It would stretch the Police and Fire
Departments.
Mayor Stewart stated that the developers could build houses on the
lots.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
~eeting of July 3, 1984
Fage Two
~atkins replied that the developers might be willing to deed
~iestrict the development.
qbe concensus of the Council was not to beginning the annexation
[trocess on that property earmarked for mobile home subdivisions.
51opkins motion, Chew second to begin annexation on the Storer
~roperty only. Motion carried 4 to 2 with Stewart and Stephens
casting the nay votes.
The City Council received a report from a Flow Hospital
~oard~ of Directors
Mary Henderson Williams, Chairperson of the Flow Hospital Board of
I~irectors, reported that a $470,664 profit this fiscal year expected
Ilo decline by September 30th. The $673,000 of Medicare overpayment
~ad been repaid. The hospital had recently hired the health care
(Ionsultants McKay/Smith to work on a Comprehensive Master Plan for
~uilding and services. The hospital would be sending board meeting
~inutes and financial reports to the City Council. Ms. Williams
]!eported that. $900,000 had been spent for indigent care this year.
(Iouncil Member Stephens and Jeff Hausler, Flow Hospital
;~dministrator, discussed differences between costs and charge.
(~ouncil Member McAdams asked where the extra money come from.
I~ausler explained that the County would not have given $125,000 if
l!he City had not commited their part.
(touncil Member McAdams asked about child welfare and protective
~ustody.
]~ausler reported that it was the County hospital's responsibility to
'~ake care of jail patients.
~ouncil Member Stephens stated that when the County hires a new
l~edical director, that should change.
]~s. Williams stated that Flow Hospital needed $750,000 from both the
County and the City this year and asked the Council to consider the
~equest.
The City Council discussed strategic planning information.
~ity Manager Hartung informed the Council that the information which
fhey had received was still a rough draft. The sections were as
~ollows:
1. Population Growth
2. Housing Projections
Multi-Family
Valuations
3. Infrastructure
4. Economic Climate
Bank Activity
Unemployment Rates
5. Criminal Justice
6. Transportation - Focus on Mass Transit
7. Citizen Perspective From Survey
IThe Development Review Section saw no slow down. There were more
lelectric meters through May than were predicted for the entire
lyear. There would be budget amendments later in the summer to take
Icare of those meters. The Mission Statement has been drafted.
{The City Council convened into Executive Session to discuss legal
imatters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
!official action was taken.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 3, 1984
Page Three
The Council then convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Stephens, McAdamso and Hopkins
City Manager, City Attorney and Deputy City Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Riddlesperger was on vacation
1. The Council considered approval of Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of February 7, 1984, and the Special Called Meeting of
February 14, 1984.
Stephens motion, Alford second to approve the minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council presented a retirement plaque and resolution of
appreciation of Walter Bradley for 20 years with the Utility
Department. The Mayor read the resolution.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
IN APPRECIATION OF
WALTER E. BRADLEY
WHEREAS, Mr. Walter E. Bradley is retiring after 20 years of
dedicated service to the City of Denton since his
employment on April 20, 1964; and
WHEREAS, During his career with the City, Walter E. Bradley has
consistently maintained an attitude of cooperation with
and dedication to the stated goals of the Denton Municipal
Utility Department of the City of Denton; and
WHEREAS, Walter E. Bradley has effectively provided the service of
wastewater treatment to the citizens of Denton, and
greatly contributed to the successful expansion of the
treatment facilities from 1.5 million gallons per day to
12 million gallons per day during his career with the
City: and
WHEREAS, Walter E. Bradley has responded to his duties in a loyal,
trustworthy and extremely faithful manner, in a spirit of
cooperation with his fellow employees, and in the best
interests of the citizens of the community:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS:
That the sincere and warm appreciation of the City Council
be formally conveyed to Mr. Walter E. Bradley in a
permanent manner by spreading this Resolution upon the
official Minutes of the City Council and forwarding to him
a true copy hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 3rd day of July, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
M~eting of July 3, 1984
P~ge Four
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
~!. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
H~opkins motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
r!)ll call vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford
"laye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye". Motion carried
ulnanimously,
3!. Consent Agenda
~ttephens requested that item 3.A.1 and 3.C.1 be removed from Consent
~igenda.
~IcAdams motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda with the
~!xception of items 3.A.1 and 3.C.1. Motion carrried unanimously.
}
(touncil Member Stephens reported he had
received
complaints
on
trash
fiags (Item 3.A.1),
9tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, responded that the complaints had been
]feported to the manufacturer. Last year the Purchasing Department
~[ad used trash bags from Crow-poly, but had returned this year to
~!ags made by Adams Industries.
~ttephens motion, Hopkins second to approve Item 3.A.1. Motion
(~arried unanimously.
(~ouncil Member Stephens requested a memo from the staff regarding
J~he North Texas Commission and its function in marketing the City of
]benton (Item 3.C.1)
(tity Manager Hartung reported that the funding came from the R.E.D.
]~oard Fund.
~hew motion, Stephens second to approve item 3.C.1. Motion carried
~nanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9296-1 - Refuse bags
2. Bid ~ 9301 - 2 1/2 ton cab/chassis
3. Purchase Order # 63154 - A.P. Green in the
amount of $7,931.69
4. Purchase Order ~ 63268 - Superior Remount in the
amount of $6,501.65
5. Purchase Order # 63599 - Southwest Electric in
the amount of $5,653.00
6. Purchase Order ~ 63917 - Rene Bates Auctioneers
in the amount of $9,090.50
7. Purchase Order 9 63917A - Rene Bates Auctioneers
in the amount of $253.50
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Denton Retirement Center Addition. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 3, 1984
Page Five
2. Consider approval of the preliminary replat of
the Haywood Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of the preliminary and final
replat of the Carroll Park Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
C. Contracts:
1. Consider authorizing the City Manager to enter
into a contract in the amount of $3,878 with the
North Texas Commission,
2. Consider approval of a contract with North Texas
MedCare Health Maintenance Organization (First
Texas Medical) and the City of Denton to provide
an HMO as a health insurance alternative for
employees and qualified retirees.
D. Naming of Public Road:
1. Consider naming a public road located adjacent to
Evers Elementary School. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)~,~~~,~
4. Ms. Mary Roberson appeared regarding the bird roost
problems in the Kerley Street area.
Ms. Roberson reported health problems from the birds. She further
stated that she had talked with Bill Angelo of the staff and the
City/County Health Department.
Mayor Stewart said that the laws regarding the birds could be
changed, but that it would take several years.
5. The Council received a report and considered further action
on the bird roost problem.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, gave a
report regarding h~s findings on the bird roost problem. He stated
that standard roost dispersal methods had been tried. The City
could be fined $200.00 per bird if they are disturbed in any way. A
shoot-to-kill program would be wasteful. The problem was that the
area was undeveloped. The recommendation was that Council take no
action at present.
Council Member Hopkins asked about the number of birds in the area.
Angelo responded that there were about 7,500 adult birds. During
the roosting months, the only action that could be taken was
shoot-to-kill.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked why the previous action of shooting to kill
could not be taken again.
Angelo responded that the City could not get a permit.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew suggested that since this problem is a
reoccurring annoyance, action should be taken as soon as possible.
Angelo stated that the land would be cleared after the nesting
season.
Mayor Stewart stated that an ordinance was needed.
Council Member Hopkins said that a developer would not pay attention
to birds.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 3, 1984
Page Six
Angelo said that the shoot-to-kill program restricted the weapons
and required a separate report on each bird killed.
The Council directed the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance
stating that the land be cleared after the roosting season.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to have the City Attorney prepare an
ordinance directing that the land be cleared after the roosting
season. McAdams requested that the ordinance also address the issue
of keeping the land cleared. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the proposed
annexation of approximately 31.335 acres of land located between FM
2164 (North Locust Street) and Twin Lakes Mobile Home Park. A-5
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke lin opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Mr. R. J. Button for annexation of approximately 11 acres o~ land
located along the north side of 1-35E at Mayhill Road (A-6).
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. R. J. Button, the petitioner, spoke in favor of the annexation
stating that he was available to answer any questions which the
Council might have.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Wanda and Ricky Cloud requesting a specific use permit for a single
mobile home to be used as a temporary dwelling unit while a
permanent structure was being constructed. The 2.1 acre tract,
zoned agricultural (A), is located on the south side of Audra Lane
approximately 2,000 feet west of Mockingbird Lane. S-179
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that one staff
member was in favor and one opposed to this petition.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a specific use permit for a single mobile home to be used
as a temporary dwelling unit while a permanent structure was being
constructed. The 2.1 acre tract, which is zoned agricultural (A),
is located on the south side of Audra Lane approximately 2,000 feet
west of Mock~.ngbird Lane.
Stephens sta'ted the specific use permit would allow a single mobile
home to be used as a temporary dwelling unit while a permanent
structure is being completed,
The following ordinance was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 3, 1984
Page Seven
NO. 84-79
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS
ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID
MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 2.1 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY
AND COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Charles Ginnings requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural
(A) classification to the planned development (PD) classification on
a 20 acre tract located on the east side of Sherman Drive
approximately 400 feet north of Hercules Street. The property also
had 330 feet of frontage on Hercules Street opposite the existing
Huntington Road. If approved, the planned development would permit
the development of 6.7 acres of duplexes along Stuart Road and 13.4
acres of single family (SF-10) - minimum lot size of 10,000 square
feet - on the interior of the tract. Z-1668.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that the
Planning and Zoning Commission voted for this petition with two
members in favor and one opposed.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) classifi-
cation to the planned development (PD) classification on a 20 acre
tract located on the east side of Sherman Drive approximately 400
feet north of Hercules Street.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-80
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES OF
LAND OUT OF THE S. McCRACKEN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 817,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
7. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 10 1/2, Article III, Section 10 1/2-5 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, providing for the
adoption of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's revision of
the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 3, 1984
Page Eight
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla spoke for the staff and
recommended that this ordinance be approved.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-81
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10-1/2, ARTICLE III, SECTION
10 1/2-5 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY'S REVISION OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE
MAP (FIRM) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance, and seconded by
McAdams. On roll call vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Article III of Chapter 21 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Denton, Texas, to provide for right of way work permits.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that the City currently
required street cut permits for any cuts.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the work permits applied in the
street and out of the street.
Svehla replied that the permit would apply anywhere in the right-
of-way.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-82
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO PROVIDE FOR
RIGHT OF WAY WORK PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM PENALTY
OF $200 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously,
8. The Council considered approval of an agreement with Denton
County relative to the holding of animals at the City Animal Control
Center,
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this agreement would allow for the City of Denton to hold
animals for Denton County residents. Either the resident or the
County would pay the costs incurred at the Animal Control Center.
The agreement was similar to the one previously approved by the
Council with the City of Little Elm. Staff could not foresee any
problems with this agreement with the County; however, an escape
clause was included in the agreement and either party could cancel
at anytime.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to approve the agreement with the
County. Motion carried unanimously.
9. The Council considered approval of an agreement with HDR
for engineering and inspectional services relative to the
development of the new landfill.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 3, 1984
Page Nine
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that development of the new landfill site was beginning. It was
necessary to retain HDR to provide construction administration and
inspectional services relating to those portions of the pro~ect
which were landfill speciality items.
Alford motion, McAdams second to approve the agreement with HDR.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. The Council considered approval of an agreement with Rone
Engineering for engineering and testing services relative to the
development of the new landfill.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this item was similar to the HDR agreement on development of
the new landfill site and was another landfill speciality item.
Council Member Stephens asked about the cost on the landfill.
Angelo reported that the total cost would come to $1,100,000.00.
The lower wall would take 30 working days to complete.
Council Member Stephens asked when the landfill would be ready.
Angleo responded that, depending upon the weather, the landfill
possibly could be ready for use November 1, 1984.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the agreement with Rone
Engineering. Motion carried unanimously.
11. The Council considered removing disposition request D-33
from the table.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to remove D-33 from the table. Motion
carried unanimously.
12. The Council considered approval of disposition of excess
Carroll Boulevard right-of-way between West Prairie and Highland
Street. D-33
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that the area
was a 20 foot strip which had been originally planned as
right-of-way for Carroll Boulevard.
Mayor Stewart said that he felt it would be a mistake to dispose of
the property.
Council Member McAdams said that the City could make the area more
attractive.
Council Member Stephens recommend disposition of the land. The
strip had been kept aside for widening of Carroll Boulevard: now
that Carroll has been widened the City should put the land back on
the tax roll.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported that the
Parks Department recommend retaining the land as a landscape setback
for the developments on Carroll. Brinkman further asked if the
Council did approve the sell of the right-of-way, that the funds be
used for City beautification efforts.
Chew motion, Stephens second to dispose of the excess Carroll
Boulevard right-of-way. Motion carried 4 to 2 with Stewart and
McAdams casting the nay votes.
13. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 3, 1984
Page Ten
14. No items of new business were suggested.
The Council then convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate~ personnel, and board appointments.
The following official action was announced on board appointments
from the June 26, 1984 Council meeting:
The following board appointments were approved:
Airport Advisory Board
David Arno reappointed for 2 years
John Carrell reappointed for 2 years
Terry Garland reappointed for 2 years
Don Smith reappointed for 2 years
Gene Wright new appointment for 2 years
Board of Adjustment
Charles Glasgow reappointed for 2 years
Jerry Stephens new appointment for 2 years
Quinby Self reappointed (alternate) for 2 years
Building Code Board
Robert Horn reappointed for 2 years
Mike Lewis reappointed for 2 years
Delbert Overstreet reappointed for 2 years
Ed Stout reappointed (alternate) for 2 years
Cable TV Advisory Board
Darlene Whitten reappointed for 3 years
Citizens Traffic Safety Support Commission
Wayne Autrey reappointed for 2 years
Gilbert Bernstein reappointed for 2 years
Ken Robison reappointed for 2 years
Dan Martin new appointment for 2 years
Community Development Block Grant Committee*
August Brown reappointed for 2 years (1984-86)
Rebecca Cantu reappointed for 2 years (1984-86)
Birdell Carstarphen reappointed for 2 years (1983-85)
Sibyl[ Evans reappointed for 2 years (1984-86)
William Kamman reappointed for 2 years (1984-86)
Jo Luker reappointed for 2 years (1984--86)
Lovie Price reappointed for 2 years (1983-85)
Chris Wagers reappointed for 2 years (1983-85)
Connie Wells reappointed for 2 years (1983-85)
Data Processing Advisory Board
Gerald Cardwell reappointed for 2 years
Dale Maddry reappointed for 2 years
Ron McDade reappointed for 2 years
Ray Pittman reappointed for 2 years
Bill Shanks reappointed for 2 years
Denton City/County Health Advisory Board
Jessie Narsutis reappointed for 3 years
Joan Dean reappointed for 3 years
Dervin Hudgens reappointed for 3 years
Jim Pavelka reappointed for 3 years
* This committee was inactive in 1983. All terms which would have
expired in 1983 were extended to 1985.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 3, 1984
Page Eleven
Denton Housing Authority **
Richard Taliaferro reappointed for 2 years - served
portion of George Hopkins term
Electrical Code Board
Marion Johnson reappointed for 2 years
Bill Perry new appointment for 2 years
Brad Carrell reappointed (alternate) for 2 years
Flow Hospital Board of Directors
Mary Williams reappointed for 2 years
Historic Landmark Commission
Randall Boyd reappointed for 2 years
Bullitt Lowry reappointed for 2 years
Tom Miller reappointed for 2 years
Human Resources Advisory Committee
Fannie Belle Gaupp reappointed for 2 years
Trudy Foster reappointed for 2 years
Betty Kreps reappointed for 2 years
Norrie Rawdon reappointed for 2 years
A1 Barstis new appointment for 2 years
Rudy Rodriquez new appointment for 2 years
Library Board
Kenneth Ferstl reappointed for 2 years
_ Albert Lookabaugh reappointed for 2 years
Parks and Recreation Board
John Travelle reappointed for 2 years
Gary Kirchoff new appointment for 2 years
Planning and Zoning Commission
Bill Claiborne reappointed for 2 years
Ruby Cole reappointed for 2 years
Gary Juren reappointed for 2 years
Plumbing and Mechanical Code Board
Jerry Jones reappointed for 2 years
Paul Williams reappointed for 2 years
Pete Work reappointed for 2 years
Alton Blankenship new appointment for 2 years
Public Utilities Board
Leonard Herring reappointed for 4 years
John T. Thompson new appointment for 4 years
With no further items of business, the meeting was a~journed.
/ IC ARD STEWA . ¥OR
LAURIE JACKSON', DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY
** This appointment is made by the Mayor.
0794a
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 10, 1984
The Council convened into special called meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: 'Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Riddlesperger, McAdams, and Hopkins
City Manager, City Attorney and Deputy City Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Stephens
1. The Council considered institution of annexation
proceedings on a tract of land consisting of approximately 9.013
acres beginning approximately 700 feet east of Sherman Drive. A-4
Sharron Jarmon, Development Review Planner, reported that this was
the first reading of the annexation ordinance. Staff recommended
the institution of annexation proceedings.
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting,
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 9.013
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF A 152.542 ACRE
TRACT CONVEYED TO MASSEY AND WILSON BY DEED OF RECORD, IN
VOLUME 772, PAGE 903, IN THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS: CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT
PROPERTY: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned°
WIL~AM Mc~I~O. , I~EPUTY C~TY/ECRETARY
1501C
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUly 17, 1984
The Council convened into the study session at 5:30 p.m. in the
Civil Defense Room.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Assistant City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered the 1984 Denton Development Guide
update.
Steve Fanning, Planning and Community Development staff, reported
that the primary goal of the work session was to understand the
density concept. The Council needed to revise the Denton
Development Guide which was used as a tool for development and
offered guidance to staff. The central points on the intensity
issue were:
1. the intensity planning concept
2. the chosen intensity standard compared to current trends in
urban development
3. that traditional district zoning could not and would not
control city-wide land use growth structure intensity
Planning was used to provide a good, sustainable economic growth for
the city. It was also used to provide citizens with the capability
to get across town to work, shop, etc. The staff was currently
using a general map of the intensity areas and the Denton
Development Guide in planning.
Fanning then presented slides of the current intensity map for
Denton. He reported that there were several intensity concepts from
which to chose in evaluating new developments. The basic elements
for growth were transportation and utilities. Improper or
unbalanced intensity could cause poor land use and transportation
problems. Area concentrations would have to be controlled to have
effective planning.
As new developments were proposed, staff considered the intensity
impact. Staff first looked at parcels in 640 acre increments and at
natural or man-made barriers. Parcels in 40 acre increments were
considered next. When an area was established, calculations were
made based on traffic generated by the current zoning (retail zoning
created the highest traffic use, somewhat less for commercial, and
even less for residential). Consideration was given to trips
generated by existing land use, trips reserved for vacant land, and
trips generated by the. proposed development to the unused traffic
capacity. The current intensity in Denton, as compared to
traditional standards, showed that low intensity was 50% above
standard. The regional economy impacted local growth and
transportation and utility policies shaped growth but could not
control it.
The Council then began a discussion of the items being revised. On
issue #1, "How important are the intensity policies", Fanning
reported that the staff first would look at the area-wide impact,
not the site impact in order to have a broad strategy for a
structured plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation
was for staff to continue to emphasize the intensity aspect.
Mayor Stewart stated that he believed this was a good plan which
kept pace with current trends. Developers were wanting to place
commercial and retail zoning on arterial streets which would ruin
the transportation flow.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Hopkins stated that the staff was saying that the
intensity allowed would be for the entire area and not the
particular development site within the area. Development in
individual areas would be on a "first come, first served" basis.
Fanning responded that this would be a method to avoid the problem
Dallas was now experlencing with cumulative zoning.
Robert LaForte, Chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
stated that there already was cumulative zoning in Denton and it
could not be controlled unless planned development zoning was used.
Andy Sidoro Planning and Zoning Commission, stated that a time limit
could be attached to all planned developments. If the planned
development was not underway in 3 years, the zoning would revert
back to the previous zoning classification.
Council Member McAdams stated that she believed the intensity
standard was very important as it would allow the Council and staff
to look for future transportation problems and avoid them.
Fanning reported that a time limit on the planned development zoning
classification was a good idea for the short term. For the long
term planning of Denton., the zoning ordinance should be amended to
eliminate cumulative zoning and to overlay the intensity as a
performance standard over the zoning districts.
Bill Claiborne, Planning and Zoning Commission, asked if there would
be any flexibility in the area lines on the intensity map that staff
had drawn,
Fanning responded that these intensity areas would be set by the
City Council. Moving the area lines would be somewhat of a
~udgement call. The ma~or thoroughfares in the city were fairly
rigid.
Council Member McAdams stated that a special ~oint meeting should be
held with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to
discuss only the update to the Denton Development Guide,
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular meeting at 7:00 in the
Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Assistant City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
Mayor Stewart asked the members of the audience to stand and observe
a moment of silence in memory of City Attorney C. J. Taylor.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew offered a prayer,
1. Consent Agenda
Council Member Hopkins asked that items 1.D.1, 1.D.2, and 1.E be
removed from the consent agenda.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to approve the Consent Agenda with
the exception of items 1.D.1, 1.D.2, and 1.E. Motion carried
unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Three
Council Member Hopkins stated that he has asked for items 1.D.1 and
1.D.2 be removed so that he could commend staff on the f%ne ~ob
which had been done on the Paisley Street water line and the Ranch
Estates sewer line.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve items 1.B.1 and 1.B.2.
Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would like for the Data
Processing Advisory Board to review and give a recommending on item
1.E, the upgrade to the Wang word processing system.
City Manager Hartung responded that in the past the Data Processing
Advisory Board had not routinely reviewed word processing issues.
Hopkins motion, Chew second that item 1.E be remanded to the DP
Advisory Board for a recommendation. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9294 - Trencher/backhoe
2. Bid # 9298 - Panhandle drainage improvements
3, Bid ~ 9302 - Circuit breaker conversion
4. Bid # 9303 - Pneumatic roller
5. Bid ~ 9304 - Pump repair parts
6. Bid ~ 9305 - Miscellaneous electrical parts
7. Purchase Order 9 63900 to Stewart and Stevenson
in the amount of $3,315.60.
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Northridge Subdivision, lots 4-13, block 2. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
2. Consider approval of the preliminary and final
replat of the LSSWY Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of the final replat of the
Adkisson Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Carroll Point Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
5. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Windsor Park Addition, Section II. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
6. Consider approval of the final replat of the
Lincoln Park Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
7. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
St. Andrews Addition. (The Planning and ,Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
C. Contracts:
1. Consider approval of an Independent Contractor
Agreement with Wade Miser for inspections.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Four
D. Final Payments:
1. Consider approval of final payment to DF/W
Construction Company for Paisley Street
waterline, Project Bid ~ 9250, Purchase Order ~
62551. (The Public Utilities Board recommends
approval.)
2. Consider approval of final payment to Dickerson
Construction Company for Ranch Estates Sewer Line
Project, Bid ~ 9138, Purchase Order ~ 58171.
(The Public Utilities Board recommends approval.)
E. Consider approval of an upgrade to the Wang Word
Processing System. The upgrade will include a CPU
update, software, and all peripherals needed to extend
the system. (REMANDED TO THE DATA PROCESSING ADVISORY
BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION.)
2. Ms. Barbara Galley appeared before the Council requesting
consideration for the regulation of abortion clinics,
Ms. Galley stated that this was controversial but she felt very
strongly that the City needed to address the issue as it was a
silent holocaust representing the murder of 1.5 million babies per
year. She then asked those in the audience in support of regulation
of abortion clinics to stand. Ms. Gailey stated that Denton had
been a leader of other cities and she would like to see Denton take
a stand on abortion. The federal ruling in 1973 did not afford
constitutional rights to the unborn child. A pregnancy was
terminated every 21 seconds in the United States. Ms. Galley
further stated that she would like to see ordinances adopted that
would require the mother be informed of options to abortion, to
require the mother be informed of exact abortion procedures, to
prohibit the sale and disposition of aborted fetuses for
experimentation or other uses, to require the aborted fetus be
buried by state burial standards, and to prohibit the distribution
of tax money to groups which support or perform abortions. Ms.
Galley concluded by appealing to the Council to step out and take
the lead on this issue.
Mayor Stewart recognized a representative from the National
Organization of Women to speak in rebuttal,
Ms. Cathy Edwards, representing NOW, stated that it was not her
intention to debate morality. Ms. Edwards distributed samples of
ordinances prohibiting and/or regulating abortion which had been
overthrown by the Supreme Court.
3. Mr. John Shrader appeared before the Council requesting
reimbursement by the City to the Denton County Historical Commission
for the cost of the purchase of the Fire Department hook and ladder
truck "Old 14"
Mr. Shrader stated that the sale of "Old 14" was before the Council
in 1974. At that time, citizens appeared with a petition signed by
over 250 people requesting the Council reconsider and not to sell
the hook and ladder truck at auction. In June of this year, the
fire truck had been sold at auction to Mr. Roddy of Corinth. Mr;
Roddy had in turn sold the it back to the Denton County Historical
Commission. Mr. Shrader stated that he held many fond memories of
"Old 14" and the hook and ladder truck had saved many structures
from fire. The Historical Commission should be commended for saving
it for the County and if there was any way possible, Mr. Shrader
would like to see that they were reimbursed for the cost.
Council Mem'ber McAdams asked when the truck had been bought.
Shrader responded in 1935 for $5,822.66 and had been replaced in
1974. The truck sold for approximately $4,200.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Five
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he was not aware that the
fire truck was to be sold and would do whatever he could to see that
the Denton County Historical Commission was reimbursed the purchase
price.
Mayor Stewart stated that the question of the legality of the City
reimbursing the cost would have to be reviewed.
Council Member Hopkins asked if any thought had been given to where
the truck would be kept.
Mr. Shrader responded that the truck was presently being kept in the
old drive-in facility of the First State Bank. The truck did not
now nor would it ever again run but could be used for fire
prevention week and other similar uses.
4. Ms. Margaret Brown appeared before the Council requesting
that the 3200 block of Broken Arrow Lane be closed at both ends
between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on July 28, 1984 for a
neighborhood block party.
Ms. Brown stated she was requesting the closing of the street for a
neighborhood "get together". The neighbors had been contacted and
approved. This would not affect traffic on any other street.
The consensus of the Council was to approve the request and have the
City Secretary place this item on the agenda for July 24 for action.
5. The Council considered removing the preliminary plat of the
Morse Street Addition from the table.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to remove the preliminary plat from
the table. Motion carried unanimously.
6. The Council considered approval of the preliminary plat of
the Morse Street Addition.
David Ellison, Development Review Planner, reported that the
Planning and Community Development staff did not have any new
information to bring before the Council on this plat.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that Willow Creek
emptied onto Kerley street in this area. Thirty lots would be added
to the addition.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that there was a very sharp curve in this
area which was dangerous when two vehicles were trying to negotiate
the curve at the same time. If the plan were changed to have an
exit off of Morse Street the developer would only lose one lot.
David Ellison responded that if this was done, the lot depth would
not conform to the subdivision rules and regulations and would
require a variance.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that either way it was handled the
developer would still lose one lot.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to approve the preliminary plat with a
cul-de-sac at the end of Scott Street.
Council Member Stephens stated that the final plat for the addition
was approved in 1971. The existing curve in this area was very
sharp.
Svehla responded that if this preliminary plat was approved, the
City would install signs to warn vehicles of the curve as they
approached. The developer could not appreciably alter the plan
without losing several lots and there were existing homes in place.
This plan would extend the subdivision to Scott Street and provide
for additional lots.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Six
Council Member Hopkins stated that cul-de-sacs were limited to 1000
feet by the subdivision rules and regulations and asked if this cul-
de-sac would exceed that limit.
Svehla responded yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he believed Scott Street should be
opened at one end and have a cul-de-sac at the other.
Council Member McAdams stated that the Council was trying to alter
the plat. If the plat met legal requirements, they could not alter
it,
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that the Council would be adding a
condition.
Vote on Chew's motion failed 5 to 2 with McAdams, Hopkins, Alford,
Riddlesperger and Stewart voting nay: Chew and Stephens voting aye.
Council Member McAdams stated that she assumed that negotiations
with the developer had been attempted and had failed.
Ellison responded that alternatives had been discussed and the
developer did not ~ndicate a willingness to change the plat.
Council Member Stephens asked what the liability to the City would
be if Scott Street was opened to through traffic,
Svehla responded that the City Attorney would have to address that
issue.
Stephens motion, Alford second to refer the plat to the City
Attorney and the City engineering staff for study. Motion carried
unanimously.
7. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing by the City ~ of
Denton City Council with respect to the issuance of industrial
development bonds for Marketing and Research Counselors, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $1,350,000.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
City Manager Chris Hartung spoke in favor reporting that this
particular issue had been before the Council earlier to designate
this site as an eligible blighted area. Marketing and Research
Counselors, Inc. was now requesting the issuance of the bonds. The
Denton Industrial Development Authority had met earlier in the day
and approved the issuance.
John Lowery, Marketing and Research Counselors, Inc. appeared in
favor of the issuance of bonds reporting that his firm had opened
the office in March. There were currently 400 people on the payroll
on a part-time basis.
Council Member Hopkins asked Mr. Lowery if his firm owned the
building.
Mr. Lowery responded yes.
Council Member Stephens asked if the firm planned on expanding and
possibly adding another building.
Mr. Lowery responded no: the projected growth of the firm over the
next 12 months would deplete the bond money.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Seven
city Manager Hartung stated that industrial revenue bonds had been
the subject of much talk lately. Approximately 50 jobs had been
created due to this project.
Due to the connection with this issue, Mayor Stewart moved agenda
item 9.B. forward.
9. B. The Council considered approval of a resolution of the
City of Denton City Council of the City of Denton with respect to
the public hearing and authorizing issue of bonds and approving
documents for Marketing and Research Counselors, Inc. in an amount
not to exceed $1,350,000.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE ISSUANCE
OF BONDS BY THE CITY OF DENTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY TO FINANCE A PROJECT FOR MARKETING AND RE-
SEARCH COUNSELORS, INC. FOLLOWING A PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, by resolution the City Council (the "Governing
Body") of City of Denton, Texas (the "Unit"), authorized and
approved the creation of the City of Denton Industrial Development
Authority (the "Issuer") as a nonprofit industrial development
corporation under the provisions of the Development Corporation Act
of 1979, Article 5190.6, Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, as
amended (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on January 12. 1984, the
Issuer agreed to issue industrial development revenue bonds on
behalf of Marketing and Research Counselors, Inc. to finance the
cost of facilities (the "Project") to accomplish the specific public
purpose for which the Issuer was created: and
WHEREAS, the Issuer now desires to provide for the issuance
and sale of its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1984
(Marketing and Research Counselors, Inc. Pro~ect) (the "Bonds"), in
the maximum aggregate principal amount of $1,350,000, by adopting a
resolution substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A
(the "Resolution"): and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 1984, the Unit held a public hearing
in a, location which, under the facts and circumstances, was
convenient for residents of the Unit, with respect to the Bonds and
the Project following publication of reasonable public notice in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Notice") in compliance with
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the
"Code"); and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body is the elected legislative body
of the Unit; and
WHEREAS, the Act provides that the Governing Body must, by
resolution adopted no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of
delivery of the Bonds, specifically approve the resolution of the
Issuer providing for the issuance of the Bonds, and Section 103(k)
of the Code requires that the "applicable elected representative,"
which with respect to the Bonds is the Governing Body, approve the
Bonds and the Project prior to issuance:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS. THAT:
1. The Resolution of the Issuer providing for the sale
and issuance of the Bonds, substantially in the form attached hereto
as Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Eight
2. The Governing Body hereby specifically approves the
Bonds, as required by Section 103(k) of the Code, and the Project,
all as described in the Notice attached heeto as Exhibit B, and the
Governing Body finds and determines that the Project is in
furtherance of the public purposes of the Act.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 17th day of July, 1984.
McAdams motion., Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously,
The Mayor then returned to Public Hearings and the regular agenda
order.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
George Hopkins requesting a change in zoning on an approximately
36.2 acre portion of planned development (PD-12) beginning at the
southeast corner of the 1-35E service road and State School Road.
The approved PD-12 permits office use on 17.407 acres and a 100 seat
restaurant and 270 multi-family units on 21.799 acres. The proposed
changes would permit office use on 10.498 acres, retail use on 0.6
acres and 260 multi-family units on 17.1 acres. Z-1655
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
George Hopkins, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that he was
representing B. W. Martin. Mr. Hopkins presented a map of the area
and the location of the proposed changes to the planned develop-
ment. The proposed plan abandoned usage of the area near the McNatt
property and would not use Wimbleton for access to the retail
portion of the development. There was not a great deal of usage
change in the petition. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
requested that the fuel stop be removed. Mr. Martin was asking for
approval to have 9.65 zoned for general retail which Mr. Hopkins
felt was feasible. Mr. Martin was also requesting the deletion of
the 100 seat restaurant and to reduce the multi-family units from
270 to 260 units. The area to the east was the new country club
development. Mr. Martin proposed to dedicate an additional 30 feet
of right-of-way to alleviate any future problems on State School
Road.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked Mr. Hopkins if he had been
advised of the possible extension of the south loop in this area.
Mr. Hopkins responded that it was his understanding that the
proposed extension would be adjacent to the property west of the
highway.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 14 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. This was an existing planned development which was
being reconfigured. The developers had reworked the plan and had
submitted specific site plans and uses. The office portion of the
original planned development had been expanded with the addition of
a retail area. The number of multi-family units had been reduced
and the fuel stop and restaurant had been deleted. Several
conditions had been attached by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member Hopkins asked what was the normal amount of right-of-
way on Loop 288.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Nine
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla responded that the amount varied
from 90 to 300 feet depending on where it was located on the loop.
In the general area of this development the requirement would be for
90 feet with an additional 30 feet. If the amount proposed to be
dedicated by Mr. Martin was not sufficient, the additional portion
could be obtained from the other side.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the alignment was correct so that
additional right-of-way would not need to be acquired in the future.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the entire Council was
interested in this right-of-way issue and asked if the property
owners on the other side would dedicate 30 feet so as to line up
with the loop extension.
Mayor Stewart asked staff if it was believed that adequate right-of-
way had been obtained.
Spivey responded stating according to information from the Traffic
Engineer, the additional 30 feet would be adequate.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a planned development at the southeast corner of the 1-35E
service road and State School Road to permit office use on 10.498
acres, retail use on 9.6 acres and 260 multi-family units on 17.1
acres.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-83
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 36.2 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
950, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried 6 to 1 with Council Member Stephens casting the nay vote.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
David Leihgeber requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural
(A) classification to the planned development (PD) classification on
a 2.1 acre tract in the Robert Beaumont Survey, Abstract 31, located
on the west side of Hinkle Drive approximately 200 feet north of
Haggard Lane. If approved, the planned development would permit 16
single family detached garden homes on this site (typical lot size
would be 47 feet x 92 feet). Z-1667
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. David Leihgeber, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that he
believed the two major issues were engineering and aesthetics. This
development would pose no drainage or traffic problems and would
aesthetically enhance the neighborhood. The houses would be priced
in the $90°000 to $100,000 range. The policy in the Denton
Development Guide recommended diversity of housing and this
development would meet that requirement and not compromise the area.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Ten
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 7 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. This petition would permit 16 single-family detached
garden homes which were not considered as high density housing. The
Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval with 5
conditions.
Council Member Hopkins asked what would be the density per acre.
Spivey responded 7.30.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on a
2.1 acre tract located on the west side of Hinkle Drive
approximately 200 feet north of Haggard Lane to permit 16 single
family detached garden homes on the site.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-84
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 2.170 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE ROBERT BEAUMONT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 31,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion,. McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Mr. J. E. McClellan requesting a change in zoning from the
agricultural (A) classification to the planned development (PD)
classification at the northwest corner of Cottonwood Lane and U. S.
Highway 380. The property is more particularly described as lot 37
of the Denton Estates Mobile Home Addition. If approved, the
planned development would permit the construction of mini-warehouses
on this site. Z-1671
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. J. E. McClellan, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that
this site was located 2 1/2 miles west of 1-35 on Highway 380. The
only feasible use for the property was mini-warehouses. No water or
sewer service was available. Mr. McClellan stated that he owned the
adjacent property.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 14 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. The request was for planned development zoning for
commercial use. The entrance to the property would be from
Cottonwood, not Highway 380. This project would provide storage
space to the mobile home park residents. The Planning and Zoning
Commission had recommended approval of the petition with 4
conditions.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approvinq a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification to
permit the construction of mini-warehouses at the northwest corner
of Cottonwood Lane and U. S. Highway 380.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Eleven
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-85
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME .WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO LOT 37 OF DENTON ESTATES
MOBILE HOME ADDITION, CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: AND MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor moved agenda item 9 forward.
9. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing publication of notice of intention to issue Certificates
of Obligation of the City of Denton, Texas, for solid waste disposal
facilities.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the Certificates of
Obligation would be in the amount of $1,800,000 for the construction
of the new landfill.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DENTON
CITY OF DENTON
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and advisable that Notice
of Intention to Issue Certificates of Obligation be given as
hereinafter provided;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON:
Section 1. That attached hereto is a form of "NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES" the form and substance
of which are hereby adopted and approved.
Section 2. That the City Secretary shall cause said
NOTICE, in substantially the form attached hereto, to be published
once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City, the date of the first publication to be at
least fourteen (14) days prior to the date tentatively set for the
passage of the Ordinance authorizing the issuance of such
Certificates of Obligation.
Chew motion, Alford second that the resolution be approved. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Twelve
The Mayor then returned to the regular agenda order.
8. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time, and place for a public hearing regarding the
petition of Mr. R. J. Button for annexation of approximately 11
acres of land located at the intersection of 1-35E and Mayhill Road
and repealing ordinance 84-76 relating the same. A-6
Sharron Jarmon, Planning Technician, reported that due to a
mispublication in the newspaper, it would be necessary to
readvertize. The public hearing would be held on July 24th and
annexation proceedings would be instituted on August 13.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-86
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the petition of James R. Neblett requesting a change in
zoning from agricultural (A) to the light industrial (LI)
classification on a 43.06 acre tract located adjacent and north of
Highway 380E, adjacent and south of the T&P and MKT Railroad,
beginning approximately 700 feet east of Mayhill Road. Z-1661
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-87
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 43.06 ACRES
OF LAND OUT OF THE M. FORREST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 147,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the petition of James R. Neblett requesting a change in
zoning from agricultural (A) to the light industrial (LI)
classification on a 16.909 acre tract beginning at the northwest
corner of Highway 380E and Geesling Road. Z-1662
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-88
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 16.9091
ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE .M. FORREST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
417, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Thirteen
Stephens motion. Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously,
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
abandoning a utility easement on Santa Monica to Clovis C. and
Marilyn E. Morrisson.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was a routine
abandonment of an easement. The easement was not used or needed.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-89
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID EASEMENT TO THE
OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
Hopklns motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
abandoning a utility easement on Santa Monica to Carl L. Coil, Jr.,
and Bonnie Coil.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was a routine
abandonment of 5 feet of easement on one property and 5 feet on
another. The easement was not used or needed.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-90
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID EASEMENT TO THE
OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye." and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
abandoning a utility easement on Lynhurst to Charles L. and Eleanor
Roedema.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that also was a routine
abandonment. The easement was not needed.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-91
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID EASEMENT TO THE
OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Fourteen
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
9. Resolutions
Agenda items 9.A and 9.B had been moved up in the agenda order and had
been acted on by the Council.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution accepting
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order issuing Denton a
license for the Lewisville Hydroelectric Pro~ect.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the city had received a
license for the Lewisville Hydroelectric Pro~ect. In order to validate
the license, the Council must approve the resolution,
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City' of Denton, Texas has filed an application
with the United States of America, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
for a license under Part I of the Federal Power Act to construct,
operate, and maintain the Lewisville Project No. 3940-001: and,
WHEREAS, the feasibility study for the construction of the
Lewisville Hydroelectric Pro~ect has been completed and presented to the
Denton City Council: and,
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has received an Order Issuing
License (Ma~or) (Issued March 27, 1984) from the United States of
America, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for said Project No.
3940-001: and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
recognizes the feasibility of the Lewisville Project 3040-001, now,
therefore,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
THAT:
SECTION I.
The Director of Utilities of the City of Denton, Texas, be and
is hereby authorized to accept the terms and conditions of the subject
order between the United States of America, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, and the City of Denton, Texas,
SECTION II.
This Resolution shall be in effect immediately upon its passage,
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 17th day of July, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Fifteen
Alford motion, Riddlesperger second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
10, The Council considered approval to provide sanitary sewer
service for R. O. McDonnell on an 80 acre tract located outside the
Denton city limits.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the property was
located on East McKinney Street and was being developed by Mr.
McDonnell as a residence. Mr. McDonnell was requesting the sewer
service and would perform the installation.
Mayor Stewart asked how this would affect the city rate. The Public
Utilities Commission has placed restrictions on service in the extra
territorial jurisdiction,
Council Member Hopkins asked if Mr. McDonnell would pay 1 1/2 times
the rate to Denton residents.
Nelson responded yes.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the sanitary sewer service
for Mr. McDonnell. Motion carried unanimously.
11. The Council was to consider approval of abandoning a
portion of an existing 6 inch waterline adjacent to the Dave Krause
automobile dealership on West University Boulevard between Cornell
Street and Malone Street.
This item was removed from the agenda by staff.
12. The Council considered approval of downtown square
underground padmount switch and transformer space.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that Gilbert and
Associates had completed a study on possible locations for switches
and other equipment to allow for underground utilities on the
square. An underground vault had been considered but was too
expensive. In order to install these switches, certain parking
spaces would have to be designated as locations for the
transformers. The locations were selected to avoid rear building
entrances or loading areas as much as possible.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the downtown square
underground padmount switch and transformer space. Motion carried
unanimously.
13. The Council considered appointment of Deputy City
Secretaries.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that, as a result of staff
changes in the City Manager's Office, he was recommending that
Laurie Jackson and Vic Boyer be appointed as Deputy City Secretaries.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to appoint Laurie Jackson and Vic
Boyer as Deputy City Secretaries. Motion carried unanimously.
14. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
15. The following items of new business were suggested for
future agendas:
1. Council Member Stephens asked for a time line and plan to
establish Loop 288 south
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 17, 1984
Page Sixteen
2. Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked that an item be placed on the next
agenda to allow the Council to take action on the reimbursement of
costs for hook and ladder truck "Old 14"
3. Council Member Hopkins asked for an update on street
repairs as soon as possible
The Council then adjourned into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
The following official action was taken:
Hopkins motion, Chew second to appoint Joe Morris as Acting City
Attorney until a City Attorney could be recruited. Motion carried
unanimously.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to extend the term of Rod Hutton on the
Library Board for one year to expire in 1986 and to have the Data
Processing Advisory Board draw lots for length of terms in order to
have staggered expiration dates. Motion carried unanimously.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLOTTE-~LLEN, CITY SECRETARY
1516C
City Council Minutes
July 24, 1984
The Council convened into the work session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams and Riddlesperger
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member Stephens
1. The Council received a report on the Arthur Andersen
management letter.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, reported on the implementation of
various recommendations made by the City's auditors, Arthur
Andersen. Regarding collection efforts, in May, 1984 the city had
contracted with an attorney for the collection of past due property
taxes. Also, the Accounting Division was in the process of revising
the treatment of recording revenue at the time the tax levy was
made. Full implementation of this recommendation would occur with
the 1984-85 fiscal year. Reconciliation between tax records and the
general ledge~ was occurring on a regular basis. Recording of the
tax levy was being done: however, staff was experiencing some delay
in receiving the information from the Tax Appraisal District office.
Mayor Stewart stated that could result in a large loss if it was not
kept current.
McGrane reported that the recommendations for the utility customer
accounts receivable and work order budget versus actual comparison
had been implemented. Regarding the recommendation for a utility
fixed asset system, the staff was in the process of reviewing
whether to perform the inventory and evaluation of assets in-house
or to contract the service from an outside firm. A fixed asset
system would be implemented in the near future. Bank reconciliations
were being performed on a monthly basis and all old items would be
voided as part of the year-end closing procedures. The recom-
mendation that cash disbursements be performed in a timely manner
would be implemented as a part of the current closing procedures.
Regarding overall management controls, the communication among
departments was improving and a policies and procedures manual was
in the review process. Included in the manual would be a conflict
of interest policy. Also, the Director of Finance position had been
filled.
In response to the recommendations for electronic data processing
controls and related matters, report writers were being used where
feasible and the city was currently conducting a review with I.B.M.
to determine the overall need for terminals and personal computers.
The recommendations for system planning and checking of input had
been implemented.
Regarding utility matters, PURPA reporting was no longer
applicable. The recommendations regarding the reconciliation of
purchases and sales had been implemented.
Council Member Hopkins asked what this reconciliation meant.
McGrane responded that an example was the reconciliation of the sale
of water to the amount which was created.
In response to recommendations regarding internal controls, security
screens had been ordered to divide the City Council Chambers and
Civil Defense Room area from the rest of the building. Another
internal control recommendation regarding forms was being addressed.
Staff had been asked to review all current forms used and to make
recommendations. This process would be completed by year-end.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Two
Regarding uncollectible accounts, the city was making a concentrated
effort at collection before determining the account to be
"uncollectible". These accounts were not automatically written off.
The recommendation on mileage requirements had been implemented.
The city currently paid 25~ per mile for travel. The federal
allocation was 20.59. The additional compensation would be taxable.
The Accounting Division was aware of which expense advances were
outstanding and had assigned an accountant to contact individuals
for documentation and reconciliation. Also the auditor's
recommendations for the bidding process had been implemented.
Regarding the municipal court computer system, a needs analysis had
been completed and a recommendation would be made to the Council in
the near future.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that staff had reviewed the
computer system used in the City of Bryan municipal court and would
look at the system in E1 Paso in August when it was fully
implemented and operational.
Hartung then recognized Jay Anderson, Assistant to the Finance
Director, for his fine efforts and contributions during the time the
city was without a Director of Finance.
McGrane reported that draft motor pool policies were being written
and reviewed. An accounting procedure would be implemented to
assure that the various divisions within the city knew the salvage
value of equipment and would transfer credits when equipment moved
from one division to another.
Regarding the status of the prior year recommendations, Arthur
Andersen had recommended that a formal disaster recovery plan be
implemented for the data processing function. McGrane reported that
the Data Processing Division did have a disaster plan, but it was
not documented.
2. The Council held a discussion on financial reporting.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, requested comments from the
Council on the type of reporting requirements needed. Feedback was
requested on the frequency of reports, the comprehensiveness of
reports, the type of information and presentation for the
information, and the amount of detail.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would want to know where there
were problems and, if a problem did exist, a narrative explanation.
McGrane stated that the Finance Department would furnish monthly
reports in chart form with a narrative memorandum. A report on
long range issues would be forwarded every six months. This
reporting would begin with the new fiscal year.
3. The Council held a discussion on budget work sessions.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, asked when the Council would like
to begin the budget work sessions.
Council Member Hopkins suggested that the all day sessions did
enable the Council to get into the budget.
August 21 was set as the date for the first budget work session.
4. The Council held a discussion on policies and procedures
for the City organization.
Kathryn Usrey., Director of Personnel, reported that the first nine
policies were completed. This project had been on-going for nineteen
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Three
months involving several task forces and a steering committee. Each
policy had been drafted by a task force and then submitted to the
Steering Committee. After review by the Steering Committee the
policy was reviewed by the executive staff. Draft copies of the
policies were then made available for employee input to the Steering
Committee. The Steering Committee reviewed the input and
incorporated the feasible changes. The policies then were sent back
through the executive staff and on to the legal department for
review prior to coming to the Council.
Usrey then gave a brief description of the nine policies being
presented. There were no additions to the holiday policy. The
policy on medical examinations spelled out when an examination would
be required. The overtime compensation policy established exempt
and non-exempt positions. The policy on vacation bonus time did not
set a limit on accruals. The remaining policies on jury duty, death
in the family, absenteeism/tardiness, in-house advancement and
compensatory time were mostly more documentation of established
rules.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he was surprised at the portion
of the absenteeism/tardiness policy which stated that an employee
who did not return from leave on the prescribed day would be
terminated. Hopkins then asked what other policies were still being
prepared.
Usrey responded that approximately 60 or 70 more policies were in
preparation. Most were near completion and should be brought to
Council very quickly.
The Council then convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Special Called meeting at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of R. J.
Button for annexation of approximately 11 acres of land located
along the north side of 1-35E at Mayhill Road. A-6
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr, R. J, Button, the petitioner, spoke in favor of the annexation
and stated that he was available to answer any questions which the
Council might have.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Sharron Jarmon, Development Review Planner, reported that this
property was on 1-35 southeast of Mayhill Road. The proposed land
use was for commercial light-industrial. The Planning and Zoning
Commission had recommended approval. Institution of annexation
proceedings would take place at noon on August 13.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Four
2. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an amendment to the
Code of Ordinances regarding the establishment of fees.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended this
amendment which would be a step towards the recovery of cost of
service. These figures would not fully recovery actual costs but
was the second year of a five year plan.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-92
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A AND B OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO PROVIDE FOR
FEES FOR REQUESTS FOR, OR APPROVAL OF, SPECIFIC USE
PERMITS, ZONING AMENDMENTS, HISTORICAL LANDMARK
DESIGNATIONS, PLATS, REPLATS, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION VARIANCES, BY REFERENCE TO FEE
SCHEDULES ORDINANCES AS APPROVED AND AMENDED FROM TIME TO
TIME BY THE CITY COUNCIL: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting fees.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that this amendment would expedite the revision of fees in the
future.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-93
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON ESTABLISHING OR REVISING
FILING FEES PROVIDED FOR BY APPENDIX A, THE DENTON
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND APPENDIX B-ZONING, OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH: AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on approximately 31.335 acres of
land located on the east side of FM-2164 (North Locust Street) and
west of the Twin Lakes Mobile Home Park. A-5
Sharron Jarmon, Development Review Planner, presented an overhead
projection map of the area and reported that this was a voluntary
annexation. The owners were requesting annexation and would then
request specific use zoning for a mobile home park. The final
action of this annexation was scheduled for September 4.
The following ordinance was presented:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Five
NO. 84-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 31.335
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE V. E. GAILOR
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 452, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING
THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY: AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
removing parking in the North Texas State University area to provide
for bicycle paths.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that this issue had been
discussed previously. When the university first proposed the
bicycle path, the route was on Welch and Hickory streets. After
further review, Welch Street was considered to be too narrow and
North Texas requested to remove Welch and to reroute the bike path
down Avenue A and Hickory Street. The merchants on Avenue A were
not in favor of the plan and North Texas was now asking that the
portion of the route on Avenue A be eliminated. Staff had discussed
this with the North Texas State University Police Chief Dan Martin
and concurred. The proposed ordinance would not affect Welch Street
or Avenue A.
Council Member Hopkins asked to hear from Chief Martin.
Dan Martin, North Texas State University Police Chief, distributed
copies of a map showing the proposed route of the bicycle path.
Martin reported that the justification for the path had been
previously discussed with the City Council. The university did not
want to penalize the merchants and felt that the removal of the
Avenue A portion would be a workable compromise. University
administrators did not want to sacrifice the entire system for one
problem area. The merchants on Hickory Street had been contacted
again regarding the new route.
Coucil Member Hopkins asked how the bicycle path would be marked.
Martin responded there would be striped lines on the outside of the
path and a double-striped line on the inside with reflector buttons.
The Mayor recognized those in the audience who wished to speak to
this issue.
Joe Northern, owner of Joe's Cleaners on Avenue A, presented a
petition from merchants on Avenue Ao Hickory Street and Welch Street
in opposition to the removal of parking. Mr. Northern stated that
they were not opposed to the idea of the path, but did not want to
give up the parking spaces. Mr.~ Northern further stated that he had
solicited signatures from property owners as well as merchants. Of
the 45 business operators, all had signed with the exception of the
bicycle shop and those persons who could not be contacted. He had
also contacted as many property owners as he could and none were in
favor of giving up the parking.
Council Member Stephens asked Mr. Northern if he was opposed to the
compromise offered by the university..
Mr. Northern responded that the compromise had been offered after he
had begun his petition. The compromise route would take one-fourth
of the parking.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Six
Council Member Riddlesperger asked how many parking spaces would be
lost on Avenue A and Hickory Street.
Mr. Northern responded there would be 8 or 9 spaces on Avenue A and
approximately 16 spaces on Hickory.
Council Member Alford stated that the only argument seemed to be the
parking spaces on Hickory.
Council Member: Riddlesperger asked Chief Martin how many parking
spaces would be removed on Hickory.
Martin responded 18.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the university administration
had given thought to using the sidewalks for bicycles.
Martin replied that the university was trying to eliminate the use
of sidewalks on campus by cyclists as it was a dangerous practice.
Martin further stated that most of the metered parking spaces on
Hickory Street were used by students going to class and not by
customers.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked about night and weekends.
Martin responded that North Texas had expanded the weekend and night
courses such that the bicycle path would still be useful at those
times.
Council Membe~ McAdams asked if the parking meters were for a
maximum of two hours.
Martin replied yes.
Council Member McAdams then stated that the time on the meters could
be reduced and would thus discourage students from parking in the
spaces.
Martin responded that the university was trying to keep students
from using these metered spaces.
Council Member Alford stated that the area from Avenue B to A on
Hickory Street would still have metered parking on the north side:
only the spaces on the south side would be forfeited for the bike
path. The parking from Avenue A to Welch Street on Hickory would
not be affected.
Curtis Loveless stated that the meters were now set for different
lengths of time, which was helpful. The merchants had given input
to the length of time on the meters. However, he felt the merchants
needed every parking space now available on Hickory.
Council Member McAdams stated that the Council also recognized that
there was a need for a safe place for bicycles. There must be a way
to reach a compromise.
Mr. Loveless stated that the feeling of the merchants was that the
paths should be located on campus.
Mayor Stewart asked Mr. Loveless if the merchants found that they
received more business from citizens or students.
Mr, Loveless ~esponded that parking was a problem now and citizens
customers found parking elsewhere and walked to the shops.
Mayor Stewart stated that the students appeared to be the primary
customers of the merchants in this area.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Seven
Fred Pole, Vice-President of Administrative Affairs at North Texas
State University, responded that there had not been a problem
getting parking spaces. Most of the parking places on the south
side of Hickory Street were used by students. The request for the
bicycle path was the result of a concern for the safety of
students. There were currently 1000 bicycles registered on campus
and this number would increase. The university had tried to reach a
compromise with the merchants on Avenue A and could not.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked Dr. Pole if he felt the
university had already compromised.
Pole responded greatly.
Council Member Stephens asked Dr. Pole how the university was
planning to get the bicycles off the campus sidewalks and onto the
paths.
Pole responded the university administration would have a program of
orientation, education and then enforcement.
Mr. Marvin Loveless appeared before the Council and stated that this
particular area was totally dependent upon the available parking for
business. Although many customers were NT students, not all were.
All parties in this were interested in a healthy business
atmosphere. Mr. Loveless further stated that if the parking were
eliminated, he would sell his property immediately.
Council Member McAdams reiterated that she believed that these
spaces adjacent to the campus were used by students.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-94
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON THE
EAST SIDE OF AVENUE C FROM HIGHLAND TO MULBERRY; THE NORTH
AND SOUTH SIDES OF MULBERRY FROM AVENUE C to AVENUE B: BOTH
SIDES OF AVENUE B FROM MULBERRY TO HICKORY: THE SOUTH SIDE
OF HICKORY FROM AVENUE B TO AVENUE A: THE WEST SIDE OF
AVENUE A FROM HICKORY TO MULBERRY: THE NORTH SIDE OF
MULBERRY FROM AVENUE A TO WELCH; THE SOUTH SIDE OF PRAIRIE
FROM WELCH TO AVENUE A: THE NORTH SIDE OF CHESTNUT FROM
WELCH TO AVENUE A: AND THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND FROM
WELCH TO AVENUE C; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE:
PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
closing the 3200 block of Broken Arrow at both ends between the
hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. on July 28, 1984 for a neighborhood
block party.
This item had been discussed at the July 17 meeting.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Margaret Brown has requested that the 3200 Block
of Broken Arrow Lane, a public street within the corporate limits of
the City of Denton, Texas be temporarily closed to public vehicular
traffic between the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on July 28, 1984,
for the purpose of having a neighborhood block party: and
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Eight
WHEREAS, Margaret Brown has assured the City Council that
all residents in such block have agreed to the temporary closing of
that portion of Broken Arrow Lane; and
WHEREAS, Margaret Brown has further assured the City
Council that no alcoholic beverages will be served at the above-
mentioned block party;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DENTON TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That Broken Arrow Lane, a public street in the corporate
limits of the City of Denton, Texas, be temporarily closed to
vehicular traffic in the 3200 Block of said street from the hours of
5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on July 28, 1984, for the purpose of having a
neighorhood block party.
SECTION II
That the City Manager shall direct the appropriate City
Department to erect barricades at both ends of the 3200 Block of
Broken Arrow Lane at 5:00 p.m. on July 28, 1984, and to have the
same removed at 9:00 p.m. on said date.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 24th day of July, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
4. The Council considered approval of the preliminary plat of
the Morse Street Addition.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the Council had
requested opinions on the plat from the City Attorney and the City
Engineer.
Council Member Stephens asked if the 30 day automatic approval apply
to all plats.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris responded yes: that was a state
statute.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the preliminary plat of the
Morse Street Addition. Motion carried 6 to 1 with Mayor Pro Tem
Chew casting the nay vote.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Nine
5. The Council considered approval of reimbursement to the
Denton County Historical Commission for the cost of the hook and
ladder truck "Old 14."
This item was placed on the agenda as a result of discussions held
at the July 17 Council meeting.
McAdams motion, Chew second to purchase the truck with the conditions
that- the Denton County Historical Commission be responsible for the
full care, maintenance and storage of the truck and that if sold,
the City would be reimbursed the funds.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris stated that there would be a problem
with the legality of such a transaction.
Motion and second were withdrawn and no action was taken.
6. The Council considered proposed pro rata and oversize
agreements with John Pass, Investments, for a new sanitary sewerline
from his property on Dallas Drive, along Duncan Street, along the
creekbed to the Pecan Creek Woodrow Lane twin outfall interceptors.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that Mr. Pass had offered
to participate in the sewerline. The city would be obligated to
approximately $98,000 for the oversizing and right-of- way.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the pro rata and oversize
agreements. Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered approval of an agreement for water
pro rata participation for Hickory Creek Limited and the City of
Denton to serve a 61 acre mobile home park on South Teasley Lane.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was the
formalization of a previous agreement.
Council Member Hopkins stated that this development was outside the
city limits and asked if the developer would pay more.
Nelson responded no; the property was located on a state highway.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the agreement for water pro
rata participation. Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered setting a date for a utility revenue
bond election.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this issue had been discus-
sed in a joint meeting with the Public Utilities Board. The bond
funds would be used for vitally needed utility projects. Due to the
requirements for legal notices and since this was peak vacation time,
the staff was recommending that the election be held on September 15.
Council Member Stephens asked if a committee would be needed to help
show the importance of the bonds.
Hartung responded that the Public Utilities Board and the Planning
and Zoning Commission had data available to substantiate the need
for the additional funds.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that an election was not
required by state law.
McAdams motion, Chew second to set the date for a utility revenue
bond election for September 15. Motion carried unanimously.
9. The Council considered authorizing the City Manager to
execute an agreement to provide assistance to the City Council in
matters relating to Flow Memorial Hospital.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 24, 1984
Page Ten
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that staff had contacted
additional firms regarding this matter. Proposals had been received
from the Pace Group, Arthur Andersen and Medical Consultant
Associates.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he was not sure that a survey was
what he was looking for. Flow Hospital was now under new management
and could possibly furnish the information necessary. He was
interested in knowing about the economic viability of the hospital.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that Hunt County had a 7~ tax to
support their hospital and the tax in Dallas and Tarrant counties was
even higher.
Council Member McAdams stated she felt did not feel a survey of Flow
Hospital users would answer her questions. She was more interested
in the stand of the County Commissioners, especially on the issue of
indigent care. Perhaps further conversations with the Flow Hospital
Board of Directors, the County Commissioners and the City Council
would be more helpful.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the problem was funding. If the
County Commissioners would not support the hospital, which direction
should the City Council take. There were several options, such as a
hospital district or to sell the hospital.
Council Member McAdams asked if a consultant could offer some insight
on the various options which would be open.
Hartung responded that he had tried to steer the consultants in that
direction. It was difficult to evaluate options under the cloud of
the unknown regarding the payment for indigent care.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he felt the Council should
talk to the various groups.
Council Member McAdams stated that she felt it appropriate to
approach the Board of Directors and communicate the enthusiastic
support of the Council for Flow. The Council should consider
meeting with the Board first and the consultants second.
Hartung stated that he would be glad to arrange a meeting.
10. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
11. The following items of new business were suggested:
1. Council Member Stephens stated that the issue of ~oint
funding for tile Public Health Board and the Library needed to be
discussed with the County Commissioners and suggested an update in
the City Manager's Status Report.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No official
action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRET~R1U
o4o2
City Council Minutes
July 31, 1984
The Council convened into the ]oint work session with the Planning
and Zoning Commission at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room.
COUNCIL
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
COUNCIL
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
P&Z
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Andy Sidor and Tom Pearson
1. The Council considered approval of an upgrade to the Wang
word processing system. The upgrade would include a CPU update,
software, and all peripherals needed to extend the system.
Ann Bingman, Program Administrator, reported that this upgrade to
the Wang system had been reviewed by the Data Processing Advisory
Board at the Council's request. The board was agreeable and had
recommended approval. They had also recommended that the Director
of Data Processing work closely with the Word Processing Center and
to bring future upgrade items before the board.
Mayor Stewart asked at what point would the need for upgrading to
the system stabilize.
Bingman responded that that would be contingent upon the growth of
the city and the demands made on the Word Processing Center. It was
believed that this upgrade would stabilize the system for 3 or 4
years. The Center was fairly stable with some work overage being
handled by personal computers in various departments.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he had wanted the Data Processing
Advisory Board to review this item to ensure that the equipment would
remain compatible. He felt the board should be involved in areas
other than just the Finance Department.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the upgrade to the Wang
word processing system. Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council considered approval of a resolution to express
the City's opposition to the mandatory minimum jail standards for
municipalities contained in House Concurrent Resolution 247.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the Texas Municipal League
had been following legislation on mandatory jail standards and was
asking cities to pass resolutions to be forwarded to the legislature.
TML felt that the adoption of mandatory standards would put a finan-
cial burden on cities by requiring modifications to existing jail
facilities to bring them into compliance.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the proposed legislation would
set up standards which would make the City of Denton jail out of
date.
Hartung responded that this legislation was in process.
Council Member McAdams stated that she was fearful of having no
standards and the resolution sounded very negative. It was her
belief that there should be some type of standards.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 31, 1984
Page Two
Council Member R~ddlesperger stated that he could see why the Texas
Municipal League would take this stand.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he was ~n favor of being
supportive of TML and felt that they would not asked for assistance
if they had not researched the legislation.
Richard Gladden appeared before the Council and stated that he had
been incarcerated in the old Denton city jail and had worked on the
new jail. When he was arrested for public intoxication, he was
required to spend 4 hours ~on the "drunk tank." There was no light,
no window, no toilet facilities and no running water. Nine other
persons were ~.n the same cell. Gladden further stated that animal
pounds have minimum standards and felt there should be some for jail
facilities. Gladden summarized by stating that he saw that no
alternative recommendations had been made and questioned how the
Council could object to minimum standards.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would like to see what were
the mandatory standards. He was not opposed to minimum standards
but d~d object to oppressive requirements which would be cost
prohibitive to meet.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he did not want the City to
be required to build a "Holiday Inn" for prisoners.
Hartung reported that during the construction process, Mr. Gladden
had ample opportunity to see the City Manager or any Council Member
with his suggestions for the new ~ail. The resolution before the
Council opposed mandatory standards.
Mayor Stewart stated that when the new jail was completed, he had
asked why there were no toilet facilities in the "drunk tank" and
had been told that the prisoners would destroy them.
Gladden responded that this was more likely to occur in the holding
cells and these cells had toilets.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to table approval of the
resolution. Motion carried unanimously.
3. The Council considered the 1984 Denton Development Guide
update.
Steve Fannings, Planning and Community Development staff, reported
that the primary goal of the update was to give an interpretation of
the issues and needed clarification. The Guide was used by staff
and had an influence on development in the city and also had an
impact on potential developers. There were 17 issues to be reviewed.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the city-wide intensity studies in
the back of the update material were new or were they included in
the original Denton Development Guide.
Fanning replied that they were new. The staff had many questions
which ~nfluenced the intensity studies. These were now codified
into working document form.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Guide was now very intensity
oriented and asked if the calculations used to arrive at the
intensity were standard or created by the staff.
Fanning responded the procedure used to derive acceptable intensity
was a mixed bag. Some of the factors, such as car trips generated
in retail areas, were substantiated by actual studies.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the intent was to set policies
but he was very concerned about a potential loss of flexibility for
developers ~f staff was to be locked in to a specific set of numbers
on intensity.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 31, 1984
Page Three
Thomas Pearson, Planning and Zoning Commission Member, stated that
when the Denton Development Guide was developed, the assumption was
for a projected population of 250,000. He was concerned that the
Council was thinking in terms of an overview of the entire city
while the Planning and Zoning Commission looked at each parcel of
land. If a development would violate the intensity of a parcel,
this raised a red flag to the staff that there could be potential
problems.
Andy Sidor, Planning and Zoning Commission Member, stated that these
criteria were intended to be used only as a guide.
Fanning reported that the use of the intensity planning concept
would enable %taff to alert the Council when intensity had been
exceeded in any one particular area. If the Council approved zoning
in an area where intensity had been exceeded, staff would work to
achieve the best development possible.
$idor stated that the goal was to have controlled growth and the
balance between high and low development.
The Council then began an issue by issue review of the proposed
update to the Guide.
Issue #1 - How Important are the Intensity Policies?
Fanning reported that intensity should be a priority issue but not
the only one. The recommendation was that the changing of an area's
intensity index standard was considered a major decision of the City
and therefore incremental planning activities and decisions that
would change the current or projected intensity of area should be
tabled, time permitting, so a special intensity study of that area
could be referred to the P&Z. Incremental planning activities
and/or decisions include but were not limited to, zoning, utilities,
drainage, transportaiton, park planning, etc. These could directly
or indirectly change an area's ultimate land use intensity. The P&Z
would focus on the intensity question and make their recommendation
to the Council.
Issue #2 - Intensity Standards, Do they Reflect our Objectives?
Fanning reported that the P&Z wanted to examine and discuss this
issue further before making any recommendations to the Council.
Issue #3 - Are Current Efforts to Implement the Intensity
Standard Adequate?
Fanning reported that the problem was the system currently used and
perhaps a review should be made of the zoning process. The P&Z had
asked staff to bring back to them a recommended program which would
combine the current efforts and concentrate on the infrastructure.
Sidor stated that it had also been recommended that all major zone
cases petition for the planned development classification with a 3
year time limit for substantial (15%) development. If this was not
accomplished, the zoning would be rescinded. Council should
consider if the 15% be defined as financial development or actual
construction.
Issue ~4 - Clarify What Type of Pro~ect Falls Under the Guide
Category called Apartment Policies
Fanning reported that the staf~ recommendation was that a
development of 12 units or above on 1 acre be considered as an
apartment.
Issue #5 - Access Required for High Density Housing
Fanning reported that the recommendation was that in low intensity
areas, high density housing would require the only access by a
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 31, 1984
Page Four
secondary arterial or greater. In a moderate intensity area, high
density housing would require access by a major or secondary
arterial with no access by low density residential streets.
Issue #6 - Clarify the Intent of the Policy "To Have Strict Site
pesign Review for Ail Pro~ects within One Block of
Existing Single Family Dwellings." (The intent is to
protect the character of the neighborhood)
Fanning reported that the intent was to have site plan control. In
the past, planned development zoining had been used to control land
use. The P&Z recommendation was to incorporate the following: if
the proposed development was to be within 1,600 feet of an existing
low density residential area, or a distance as judged to be
materially affecting the character of the neighborhood, the
following policies would apply for commercial/apartment development:
1. if adjacent residential areas have landscaped front yards,
the commercial/apartments would likewise have landscaped
front yards
2. if adjacent to single story residential, the commercial/
apartments would be single story or have large setbacks for
transition to the neighborhood
3. signs would have to be in scale with the neighborhood,
usually meaning attached to the face of the building
4. the parking lot design would need to consider access away
from residences, parking areas setbacks, permanent
screening from residences, and parking lot lights
positioned away from residences.
5. when practical, compatible architectural style would be
encouraged.
Issue #7A - Clarification of the Policy on Apartment
Concentrations in Low and Moderate Intensity
Neiqhborhoods
Fanning reported that the P&Z recommendation was to change the guide
policy to specific standards, such as:
1. concentrations in low intensity areas should be limited to
200 units
2. concentrations in moderate intensity areas should be
limited to 750 units
3. concentrations must be separated from other high density
housing by 1/2 mile or 50% of the intensity area length,
whichever is less. This included separation from adjacent
intensity area high density housing, including moderate
intensity areas, adjacent to low intensity areas.
Issue #7B - Clarification of the Policy on What are "Small
Scattered Sites (concentrations of neighborhood
commercial, office, etc.)?"
Fanning reported that the purpose was to limit office/retail
concentrations. The recommendation was that specific concentration
standards for neighborhood commercial and office be developed,
specifically, an intensity concentration limited to a typical 4 acre
neighborhood retail center. Specifically, the policy would state
that:
1. concentrations of office/retail, etc. in low intensity
areas would be limited to 4 acres or 2,600 intensity units,
whichever is greater.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 31, 1984
Page Five
2. concentrations must be separated from other high intensity
retail, office, or similar land uses by 1/2 mile or 50% of
the intensity area length, whichever is less. This
includes separation from adjacent intensity area high
intensity land use areas, including moderate intensity
areas adjacent to low intensity areas.
Issue %8 - Policies for Mobile Home Parks
Fanning reported that P&Z recommended that location policies be the
same as suggested for apartments. For example, in low intensity
areas:
1. the overall intensity standard not be violated
2. no concentration of more than 200 units
3. access by a collector street or larger (if density was less
than 12 units per acre)
4. strict site plan control within 1,600 feet of any existing
single family residential area
5. sufficient green space, recreational facilities, etc. be
provided
6. input from the neighborhood in planning
In moderate intensity areas:
1. the overall intensity standard not be violated
2. limit concentration to 750 units
3. access to collector street or larger (if density is less
than 12 units per acre)
4. strict site plan control within 1,600 feet of any existing
single family residential area
Issue %9 - The Protection of Existinq Housinq
Fanning reported that the P&Z recommendation to Council would be to
continue the current policy which was a very strict and narrow
interpretation of the criteria, including the planned development
site plan requirements to include a design compatible in
architectural scale and style, such as front yard, side yards, etc.
Other requirements which would be followed in their most restrictive
interpretation would include only access by secondary arterial or
greater for multi-family/commercial, required open space, input from
neighborhood, and no violation of the overall neighborhood intensity
standard.
Issue %10 - Diversified Lane Use Encouraqed in Low Intensity Areas
Fanning reported that the recommendation was that all current
policies be strictly enforced and applied equally to all low
intensity planning areas. Limited amounts of apartments, small
housing, mobile homes, etc. would be allowed in all neighborhoods,
but the policy would prohibit a concentration of any one type of
housing in any one neighborhood. A strict enforcement of the
overall intensity and concentration standards would be required.
Issue %11 - Commercial/Office Development on Carroll Boulevard
Fanning reported that the recommendation was to reconfirm the
current Denton Development Guide policies. The current policy
states that Carroll Boulevard is intended to be a major north/south
throughway and maintaining throughway traffic flow is of high
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 31, 1984
Page Six
priority: therefore, strip commercial zoning of Carroll is strongly
discouraged. However, selected nodes such as the immediate downtown
area would be permitted. Other sections of Carroll could support
duplexes and small scale multi-family and office zoning under very
limited conditions:
1. "site design to protect adjacent single family requiring
such things as screening fences, large setbacks, landscaped
front yards, sign control, etc."
2. "site design to insure good off-street circulation and
parking and very limited curb cuts in order to minimize
traffic disruption on Carroll"
3. "input from adjacent neighborhoods prior to a decision"
Issue #12 - New Southern Alignment of Loop 288 and the
Corresponding Medium Intensity Areas
Fanning reported that the P&Z recommendation was to change the
alignment to Hickory Creek Road. If this realignment were
accomplished, the City would not have to buy additional right-of-way
back from Lakewood Estates. The two current medium intensity areas
on Ryan Road should be moved to Teasley and Hickory Creek Road and
to Fort Worth Drive and Brush Creek Road.
Mayor Stewart stated that he felt this issue should be omitted at
the present time due to a meeting which had recently been held with
the State Highway Department regarding the loop.
Issue #13 - Bell Avenue Right-of-Way and Functional Designation
from McKinney Street North
Fanning reported that Bell Avenue was now serving as a secondary
arterial from University south to 1-35E. The 1982 Development Guide
eliminated the loop around TWU due to voter disapproval.
Right-of-way constraints make an extension of Bell north of Mingo
Road difficult.
Jerry Clark, City Engineer, reported that staff had already made
several commitments. Staff would recommend that Bell Avenue loop
into the property being developed by Joe Belew and that traffic
signals be added through the Texas Woman's University campus. Bell
should be downgraded to a collector street.
Fanning reported that the P&Z recommendation on this issue stated
that the main concern was to set a definite right-of-way policy as
decisions must be made on platting. The elimination of Bell as a
major arterial north of McKinney could have some negative city-wide
land use impact due to the limited north/south major arterial
options. Carroll Boulevard could not carry the entire north/south
load for a population of 200,000. The question of Carroll was
especially important in light of related policy decisions on land
use. Capacity on Carroll would decrease with added commercial or
office zoning and additional curb cuts. The Engineering Department
was recommending that Mingo/McKinney south be designated as a
secondary arterial and Bell north of McKinney to Locust be collector
width (60 feet) with the understanding that the City could make
alternate routes a priority thoroughfare planning activities.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would be in favor of rerouting
Bell. If staff was recommending the elimination of Bell as a major
arterial, he would like to see a specific alignment study for the
looping of Bell from Mingo to Sherman.
Issue 914 - Minqo Road Right-of-Way
Fanning reported that Mingo Road did not carry enough traffic to be
classified as a major arterial and should be downgraded. Mingo ran
City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 31, 1984
Page Seven
along the railroad right-of-way which made additional right-of-way
difficult to obtain. P&Z was recommending that the 1981 Denton
Development Plan of designating Mingo as a secondary arterial be
reinstated and to have 60 feet of right-of-way on Mingo where it ran
parallel to the railroad.
Issue #15 Redefininq Thorouqhfare Classification
Fanning reported that the P&Z was recommending the new classifi-
cation "expressway" be added. Current classifications were:
freeways which have controlled access
expressways which have frontage roads, with some at grade
crossings
major arterials which traverse the city
secondary arterials which serve parts of city but do not
tranverse city
collectors which serve neighborhoods
Issue ~16 - Chanqe Yearly Guide Update Time from April to October
Fanning reported that the recommendation was based on the hope that
October might be a less crowded time on the City Council and
Planning and Zoning Commission's agendas.
Issue ~17 - Development Near the Pecan Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Fanning stated that the current policy suggested that residential
development be discouraged adjacent to the Wastewater Treatment
Plant but did not provide specifics. The P&Z was recommending that
no additional residential development be zoned within 2,500 feet of
the plant and that residential development generally be discouraged
between 2,500 and 4,000 feet. The Utility Department recommended
that the area within 2,500 feet of the Wastewater Treatment Plant be
utilized for industrial purposes, preferably industries that could
utilize the effluent from the plant as cooling water or other
processes requiring lower quality water. This could enhance the
future water supply situation and save money as the city would not
have to purchase its water or treat and pump it.
4. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
5. No items of new business were suggested for future agendas.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHaRLOtTE ~L~N~ CIT~ECRETA~y
0404j
City Council Minutes
August 7, 1984
The Council convened into the work session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a report from Dr. James Glass on the
results of the 1984 Denton Survey of Citizens.
City Manager Chris Hartung introduced Dr. Glass to present the
results of the survey.
Dr, Glass reported that he had followed the same format as used in
the past and would give the Council the important summary aspects.
The format used was a random sampling of adults selected from the
telephone book. The same descriptors from previous surveys had been
used. Some of the descriptors were informative and some were not.
The Council and staff could be encouraged by the sample character-
istics in that there was little difference from past surveys.
The report of the results was divided into three parts -- city
services, city administration and the appearance of Denton.
Approximately 75 % of the questions on the survey dealt with city
services. Citizens had indicated in the survey that they felt the
streets were a serious problem and a significant portion of those
surveyed favored a tax increase for street improvements.
Council Member Stephens asked if the citizens who were not in favor
of a tax increase were asked why they opposed.
Glass responded no, but surveyers did follow-up by asking how much
of an increase the citizens would be willing to pay.
There was a definite improvement in the ratings in the library
category as well as an increase in the favorable response to the
recreation programs and the parks. However, the increase in the
library category was greater.
There was also an increase in those who voiced that they had
experienced a missed pick-up of solid waste.
Under the emergency services category, there was a decrease in the
positive evaluation of police services. Perceptions of police
officers showed a slight decline from the category of "good" to
"fair." The response to the crime prevention program was similar to
that in 1983. There was an increase of 10% in those responding that
they felt safer due to the program. The fire protection service
inquiries received all "excellent" and "good" responses. All
responses to questions on ambulance service fell within the expected
range.
A decline was noted in the responses to animal control services from
"excellent" and "good" to "fair" and "poor".
The question was then asked of all services, which did the citizen
feel needed the most improvement. Improvement to the streets
received 92.2% of the responses with recreation and garbage
collection next.
When asked which services the citizen would delete if cut-backs had
to be made, the rankings were for recreation and parks, library, and
garbage collection. Police and fire service were ranked last.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Hopkins asked why Animal Control was left out of the
responses for services which needed improvements.
Glas responded that citizens did not feel this service was essential.
Mayor Stewart stated that perhaps it was due to the fact that people
either liked animals or they did not and therefore did not see this
as essential.
Glass further reported that under the section dealing with city
administration, 20% of those surveyed had had contact with the
city. For the most part, citizens were satisfied and felt the
person with whom they had dealt was helpful.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked if those conducting the survey kept a list
of who they contacted so as not to call the same person each year.
Glass responded that he did not keep a list but due to the random
sampling from the telephone book, there would only be a remote
possibility of contacting the same person again.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that the results were from only a sample
of the citizens and might not depict the accurate views.
Glass replied that the results were a good indicator of views.
Council Member Stephens stated that the results did only reflect the
view of the persons contacted.
Glass responded that he felt confident that the figures were good
indicators when compared with responses from previous surveys.
City Manager Hartung reported that the survey was not intended to be
precise but rather to reflect trends in citizen opinions over the
years. Consistency in the survey results over a series of years
would show ~these trends. The recurring response to the needed
improvement to the streets was a good example of these expected
trends.
Glass reported that the response to the question of how well the
citizen felt Denton was run was fairly consistent with the last
several year's results.
Responses to questions regarding zoning showed slight increases in
the "good" category and also in the "bad" category.
Fifty percent of those surveyed were aware of the city's efforts to
attract industry to Denton. Sixty two percent felt the growth in
Denton was too rapid.
Questions related to perceptions of living in Denton were the third
category. Most people felt generally satisfied with their
neighborhoods. Some did respond that they felt litter, junked cars,
etc. had increased. When asked for input on ways to improve the
appearance of Denton, the general response was to plant more trees
and have larger green spaces. Most of those surveyed rated Denton
as a good place to live which was consistent with the 1983 survey
results.
Glass concluded by stating that he ~elt the survey had value and
felt that confidence in the results would increase as more input was
received in future years.
Council Membet~ Riddlesperger stated he ~elt the results were very
helpful and complimented Dr. Glass on his work.
Council Member McAdams stated that responses from minorities and the
poor were consistently negative about the city and asked how this
could be remedied.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Three
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that it was a basic truth that
affluent people usually were happier than poor people.
Dr. Glass added that Denton was a fairly affluent community.
Council Member McAdams stated that the results dealt with city
services and she did not see a correlation between being poor and
unhappy and having a problem with city services. Renters would
soon, if they did not now, outnumber homeowners and all would use
the services.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the attitude among
m~norities toward the police should be examined.
Council Member McAdams stated that the responses to the questions
relating to the effectiveness of zoning would depend on what the
person being surveyed felt was "effective" Sometimes this could
mean "now well does it serve me."
Council Member Stephens stated that, in light of the decisions made
to update the Denton Development Guide, it might be appropriate to
include questions relating to city-wide land use.
Council Member Riddlesperger replied that few people in Denton
real~zed that there was a development guide.
Council Member Hopkins stated that future surveys needed to address
the issue of.economic development in an effort to solicit feedback.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council Members associated with.
certain types of citizens in their social circle. The purpose of
the survey was to gather input from a random sampling.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. ~n
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Special Called Meeting of February 21, 1984: the Regular Meeting of
March 13, 1984; the Regular Meeting of March 20, 1984; the Special
Called Meeting of March 27, 1984: and the Special Called Meeting of
April 3, 1984.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
Staff requested items 2.A.2 and 2.B.5 be removed from the Consent
Agenda.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the Consent Agenda with
the exceptions of items 2.A.2 and 2.B.5. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Four
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 930'7 - Electric Distribution trans- formers
2. Bid ~ 9308 - Disposal of PCB capacitors (REMOVED
BY STAFF)
3. Bid # 9309 - Electric meters
4. Bid 9 9312 - Truck cab/chassis
5. Bid # 9313 - Water meters
6. Purchase Order # 64152 to sar-T-Mark Supply
Company, Inc. in the amount of $3,690.00
7. Purchase Order ~ 64197 to Group Graphics in the
amount of $3,597.00
8. Purchase Order ~ 64240 to J. S. Equipment Company
in the amount of $4,843.00
B. Plats, Replats and Site Plans:
1. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Barister
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
2, Approval of the final replat of the Bellaire
Heights Addition, Phase I. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Approval of the final replat of the Haywood
Jester Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of the final replat of the Teasley Mall
Subdivision. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
5. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Westgate
Park Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.) (REMOVED BY
STAFF)
6. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Mt.
Calvary Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
7'. Approval of the preliminary plat of the
Southridge II Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
8. Approval of the site plan of Township II, Phase
II. (San Jacinto Shopping Center) (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
9. Approval of the preliminary replat of Township
II, Phase II. (San Jacinto Shopping Center)
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
C. Final Payments:
1. Consider approval of final payment for 1983
drainage improvement projects (Bell- Coronado,
Paisley-Mulkey, and Ponder Street).
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Five
D. Contracts and Agreements:
1. Consider approval of the maintenance contract
with TRES Payroll Personnel System. (The Data
Processing Advisory Board recommends approval.)
2. Consider approval of the maintenance contract of
the AMS Financial System package. (The Data
Processing Advisory Board recommends approval.)
3. Consider authorizing the City Manager to execute
an agreement with the City of Farmers Branch
extending the landfill use contract.
Agenda Item 4 was moved forward as the petitioner for Item 3 was not
present.
4. Public Hearings
A, The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Keith Shelton requesting historic landmark (H) zoning designation at
621 Grove Street. The property was more particularly described as
lot 2 and the west 11 feet of lot 1, block 2, of the Woodland
Addition, H-32
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Keith Shelton, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that a
similar request had been granted by the Council to Mr. A, W.
Woosley. The Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning and
Zoning Commission had both unanimously recommended approval. The
property traced back to a land scrip in the 1800s with the house
being constructed in 1924. Current zoning was multi-family 1. A
neighborhood group had been formed to protect the neighborhood.
Dr. John Carrello 601 East College, spoke in favor stating that he
was representing the neighborhood association. He felt fortunate to
live in a neighborhood which reflected homes built in the 1920s and
this request was supported by the association. Dr. Carrell stated
that he had- been impressed with the fact that the historic zoning
ordinance viewed preservation as a public necessity and was an
effort to establish civic pride. The Shelton's property fell within
the criteria established for the zoning. The plaque displayed on
homes with historic zoning represented the responsibility of the
owners to maintain the property and would permit retention of
property values in the neighborhood. There had been objections from
Texas Woman's University because this parcel was located in an area
included in their master plan. TWU had offered to buy the Shelton
home, but if sold, there would be no obligation by the university to
maintain it. The current zoning in the neighborhood was MF-1 which
meant that a developer could buy the property from TWU, tear down
the home and build apartments. The current master plan for TWU
called for the bulldozing of ali homes and trees for a paved parking
lot. Dr. Carrell stated that he knew that the university had the
power of emminent domain but the residents were trying to preserve
the neighborhood. With historical designations for the Woolsey and
Shelton homes, TWU would have to appear before the Historic Landmark
Commission prior to demolition. The Council could overturn the
designation by a simple majority vote. Carrell further stated that
he did not believe this was a onerous burden to TWU. The residents
were asking that the designation be given in order to maintain the
neighborhood until the university was prepared to implement the
master plan, The association was asking that qualifying properties
be awarded the historic designation and that the Council allow the
neighbors to protect their property values.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he had reservations about
any home built since he could remember being historic and asked when
the house was moved onto the property.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Six
Carrell responded that the house had met all of the criteria set by
the Historic Landmark Commission. Homes of this vintage represented
significant historical value to Denton.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked, when Texas Woman's University
needed the property, could the home be moved.
Carrell responded yes, the ordinance would even allow for demolition
if the Council so chose. The residents were asking for an interim
alternate to protect the neighborhood.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he had received a letter
from a citizen complaining about the restrictions placed on the
property owner by the historic landmark designation and asked if the
Shelton's were aware of these restrictions.
Carrell responded yes.
Council Member Stephens stated that the structure was representative
of an era in Denton's past and asked if the neighborhood was united
behind the petition.
Carrell responded yes, by all neighbors who were resident property
owners. There had been one abstention by an owner who was an
employee of TWO'.
Council Member Hopkins asked when the property had been zoned
multi-family.
Carrell replied it was zoned for apartments prior to his moving into
the neighborhood in 1959.
Council Member Hopkins stated that it appeared to be more feasible
to back zone the property to single family.
Dr. Carrell responded that he understood the question but this was a
paradoxical situation. The residents wanted to remain in the
neighborhood but had the constant fear of revisions in the TWU
master plan. But if the area were zoned single family, the
neighborhood could deteriorate.
Mary Hardin, Chairperson of the Historic Landmark Commission,
reported that there had been unanimous approval of the Shelton
petition as it had met 9 of the 13 criteria.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked Ms. Hardin to comment on the
criteria.
Hardin responded that the Shelton home was an example of popular
architecture of the 1920's and was in character with the other homes
in the neighborhood. The Commission was trying to preserve these
neighborhoods. A representative of the State Historical Registry
had visited Denton recently and had toured the city. One area which
he had felt was worth saving was around the campus of TWU. The idea
of historic preservation was not just to save old, fabulous homes.
Homes destroyed now would be gone forever and in 40 years, there
would not be any 100 year old homes left.
Hardin concluded by stating that she hoped the City Council
appreciated the participation and attendance by the neighborhood at
this hearing for it did show an interest in preserving the area.
There had been no opposition at the Historic Landmark Commission
discussions or the hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mayor Stewart stated that he could understand the residents of the
neighborhood trying to preserve the integrity but hated to see
neighborhoods preserved by historical zoning of homes.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Seven
Hardin responded that the home was a prime example of how people
lived during this. era and that protecting the neighborhood was of
lust icing on the cake.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Commission did not seek
petitions. Those requesting the zoning sought out the CommissiorL
and agreed to accept stringent requirement for maintenance.
Mr. John Lawhon, attorney for Texas Woman's University, spoke in
opposition stating that the university owned property on three sides
of this property. The master plan had been approved six year ago
and had been followed. When Dr. Woolsey applied for historic
zoning, the university did not oppose the petition as it was only
one home and they had no idea others would petition. The need for
parking space was critical. The university had not used the right.
of emminent domain to displace homeowners. This particular house
was not historical. It had begun with two bedrooms and one bath
with an additional bedroom and bath being added. Other
modifications had been made and the original structure had been.
altered two times. Reference had been made in the backup material
to a grist mill which was located on McKinney Street but it was not
next to the house. The builder had built approximately 100 homes
much like this. There was nothing special about this house.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Bullitt Lowrey had
stated that until TWU made a substantial offer for the home, the
owners should be allowed to maintain the property. The university
had made an offer but had not heard back. The feeling was that if
the property was zoned historical, it would put the university in
direct conflict with the Historic Landmark Commission and the City
Council.
There were two specific reasons why the university objected -- it
was in the TWU master plan and it was not a historic structure.
Council Member Stephens asked why the university did not voice
opposition before now.
Lawhon responded there was no particular reason.
The Mayor allowed Dr. Carrell to speak briefly in rebuttal.
Dr. Carrell stated that the neighborhood association was in favor of
the petition and did not presume to be experts on what was or was
not historical. That was the job of the Historic Landmark
Commission. The question before the Council was whether the
Commission had done a proper job, did the house meet the criteria
and did the Planning and Zoning Commission meet their responsibility
in recommending the house for the zoning.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 9 reply
forms had been mailed with 5 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. Thls was the third request for the historic zoning in
the TWU area. The petition for 619 had been approved and another
petition at 630 Grove was approved by the P&Z but denied by the
Council. The older and distinctly residential character of this
section of the city was quite strong and worthy o~ every available
protection. Historic preservation could bring added attention to
the Development Guide policies demanding protection of existing
housing stock in older neighborhoods. As this area was zoned
multi-family, the historic zoning classification could protect this
area from the encoachment of apartments. It would take six
affirmative votes to approve the ordinance.
Council Member McAdams stated that this was a wonderful area with
lots o~ trees. The request had met the criteria and deserved
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Eight
consideration. She felt the Council should accept the recom-
mendation of the Historic Landmark Commission as they were the
experts. If there were difficulties, perhaps the Historic Landmark
Zoning Ordinance should be amended.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance approving the
historic landmark (H) zoning for 621 Grove Street. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "nay," Stephens "aye," Alford "nay,"
Riddlesperger "nay," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "nay." Motion
carried failed 4 to 3 with Council Members Hopkins, Alford,
Riddlesperger and Mayor Stewart casting the nay votes.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
W. D. Byrne, representing the Y,M.C.A. of Metropolitan Dallas,
requesting a specific use permit on an 8.59 acre tract located at
the northwest corner of Windsor Drive and Riney Road. If approved.
the specific use permit would allow the development of a Y.M.C.A.
facility.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. W. D. Byrne, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor stating
that the Rayzor family had offered this land for the purpose of
providing for a YMCA facility. The Planning and Zoning Commission
had attached three conditions, one of which was for a 6 foot solid
wood fence along the north property line. This particular strip was
700 feet long and it would cost approximately $8,000 to build this
type of fence. The property abutted a wooded area to the north.
Another P&Z condition was that there be no signs except for
scoreboards. The YMCA would like to place a small sign on the
property stating what was going to be built there.
Ms. Aha Rocca Pena, owner of 14 acres across the street, spoke in
opposition. Ms. Pena stated that Mr. Byrne was proposing to build
athletic fields which would bring in 2,000 children. She had tried
for 2 years to have property in this same area zoned. She was in
the process of completing a third plat to bring to staff for a
proposed development. Her development would require paving of three
roads and she felt the YMCA petition was spot zoning. If approved,
this particular facility would create traffic and parking problems.
She stated that the YMCA did good work but felt it would devaluate
her property w~lue.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Byrne to speak briefly in rebuttal.
Mr. Byrne stated that the YMCA location in Dallas was very
prestigous. The parking requirements were the same as for
commercial zoning. On Sunday, most of the residents who would use
the YMCA would be in ch'urch which would alleviate parking and
traffic problems. The facilities would include a swimming pool, a
gym and soccer fields. Mr. Byrne concluded by stating that he hoped
there would be 2,000 children at the facility at one time but felt
that was unrealistic.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 10 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in opposition and 0 returned
in favor. This was in a low intensity area and the Denton
Development Guide encouraged some land use diversity if protection
was provided for neighborhoods and adjacent housing. The Guide
discouraged concentrations of multi-family, office, commerical and
other higher 'intensity uses. This petition met the 5 criteria of
the Guide. The P&Z had recommended approval with 3 conditions.
Council Member Stephens stated that he had been involved with the
YMCA in the past and knew that the need for facilities was great.
He had spoken to the neighbors and they were in favor of the
petition.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Nine
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-95
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A YMCA
FACILITY: PROVIDING FOR THE REFERENCING OF SUCH USE ON THE
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS
ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID
MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 8.590 ACRES OF LAND IN THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS: AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance with.
the 3 conditions set by the Planning and Zoning Commission and to
allow for a temporary sign. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye,"
Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye,"
Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3 was heard at this time.
3. Mr. Carl Young appeared before the Council requesting
approval of a request for the use of Fred Moore Park, with a waiver
of the fee and for a midnight curfew, for a Labor Day celebration.
Mr. Young stated that he was a member of the Vier Nam Veterans
Association. The association worked with several community projects
and was requesting the use of Fred Moore Park for a Labor Day
celebration. There would be ball tournaments, three bands, spade
and domino contests among other activities. Free hot dogs would be
furnished to children.
_ Council Member Stephens asked what days would the association hold
the celebration.
Young responded August 31, September 1 and 3. The neighbors near
the park had been contacted and the celebration had support from the
community.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he had spoken with Mr. Young and felt
the Council should give Mr. Young another chance.
Council Member Stephens asked who would clean up the park.
Young responded that the Vier Nam Veterans Association would clean
up after the celebration.
Mayor Stewart stated that this request would be placed on the agenda
for August 13 for formal approval.
The Council then returned to the regular agenda order.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
George D. Scoggin requesting a change in zoning from the single
family (SF-7) classification to the two family (2F) classification
at the northeast corner of Willowwood and Jacqueline Streets. The
property was more particularly described as lots 1-5, block E, and
- lots 8-12, block C, of the Wylie H. Barnes Addition.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. George Scoggin, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that the
staff had recommended approval and Mr. Claiborne of the Planning and
Zoning Commission had spoken in favor of the petition. The request
met the land use plan by offering a buffer zone. Mr. Scoggin
presented a slide of the plat and stated that the development would
increase fire protection, provide attractive housing as well as an
investment opportunity for low income investors. There was a demand
in this area for duplexes. The land had been vacant or zoned for
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Ten
single family use for over 20 years. At $120 per linear foot it
would cost $52,000 just to build the street. If the area was
rezoned for duplexes it would allow the extra margin of funds to
develop the property. Mr. Scoggins stated that he now proposed to
build single story duplexes of brick and not wood construction. The
design varied from three to two bedrooms. Underground utilities
would be installed. The central issue was whether to build
two-family or multi-family.
Council Member Stephens stated that Mr. Scoggins had mentioned many
changes from the original petition. As he had made so many changes,
it was logical to refer this back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Greg Edwards stated that the drainage situation had been addressed.
The petitioner had looked at the master drainage plan and was
following all of the elements.
Charles Lambert, architect, stated that the staff had been satisfied
with the petition.
Mr. J. D. Tadlock, 1911 Mercedes, spoke in opposition stating that
he had lived in the area since 1966, which was longer than Mr.
Claiborne on the P&Z. The developer had already "flip-flopped" the
plan and wondered if he would be honest. Mr. Scoggins had told the
neighbors that the duplexes would be two story and was now saying
that they would be one story. Mr. Tadlock stated that he believed
the development would be damaging to property values and would move
multi-family housing closer to the single family zoning.
Ms. Betty Ford, 1905 Jacqueline, spoke in opposition stating that
there were some very attractive duplexes in the neighborhood on
Parvin and apartments on the corner. Her objection was to the
potential drainage problems. There was rental property in the area
which was used by North Texas State University students. There was
a lot of traffic in the area.
Mr. Carl Ferre, 1107 Oakwood, spoke in opposition stating that he
owned the adjacent property to the north. To the east was the
Oakwood Baptist Church and felt there was a question on whether or
not a road would be put in. He also felt the two-family zoning
would increase the density and property values might be affected.
The duplex zoning would only be an advantage to the developer.
There would be traffic and drainage problems. The petition had been
recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission due to
opposition from the neighbors.
Council Member Stephens asked where the proposed road would be in
relation to Mr. Ferre's property.
Ferre responded the street would be east of his property. He would
like to see the area developed as single family.
Ms. Janie Stauffacher, 1106 Oakwood, spoke in opposition stating
that no one had addressed the issue of the street that was not
there. The developer had promised several things. This petition
was for zoning only and the neighbors wanted assurance on the type
of housing which would be constructed. There was no room for a
street. This issue had been in contention for 20 years. Ms.
Stauffacher asked that if the zoning was granted, would the Council
please apply a condition which would require maintenance of the
street.
Mr. Robert Whitaker, 1110 Oakwood, spoke in opposition stating that
there were sewer problems which would increase if more houses were
built.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Scoggin to speak briefly in rebuttal.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Eleven
Mr. Scoggins stated relative to the plan for the road, the church
was at the end of Oakwood leaving a 50 foot right-of-way. Not all
of the street was paved. The street would be split with the
developers having 25 feet of right-of-way and would hook in with
Oakwood. There would probably be stop signs and adequate room for a
curve. The street would continue into Jacqueline. There would be
51 feet between the private property and the sidewalk. Drainage and
sewer improvements would be made. The plan had not been.
"flip-flopped"; he was trying to accommodate the neighbors.
Council Member Hopkins asked Mr. Scoggins if he owned the property'
for the street.
Scoggins responded no; the property was owned by R. H. Turnbull who
claimed no right. The Oakwood Baptist Church had the easement and
he had asked them if they would dedicate the easement to the
developer.
Council Member McAdams asked if Mr. Scoggins would consider planned
development zoning.
ScoGGins replied yes.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 26 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 6 returned in
opposition. The petitioner planned to construct a maximum of 10
duplexes. Willowood Street was a collector street and public
utilities were in place. This was a moderate intensity area and
duplexes would help to provide a diversification of housing. At the
public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, many
neighbors had opposed the petition. It would require six
affirmative votes to approve the petition. If referred back, the
P&Z would not reconsider the petition for one year.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he felt the petition should be
referred to the P&Z with the new information which had been provided
in an effort to work out the problems.
Council Member Stephens stated that the petition had raised more
questions than it had answered.
Stephens motion, Chew second to deny the petition. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Christopher Bancroft requesting a change in zoning from the
agricultural (A) classification to the planned development (PD)
classification on a 19.39 acre tract located on the south side of
Highland Park Road approximately 1,500 feet east of Bonnie Brae
Road. If approved, the planned development would permit 71 lots for
single family detached use (minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet)
and a two acre tract reserved for a private school.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Christopher Bancroft, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating
that there were two reasons for this development -- a person had
already agreed to be the landlord for the school and market research
had shown a demand for this type of single family housing. The
project would begin construction late in 1984. This was a logical
time and place for this type of development.
Jack Barton distributed photographs of the streets in the proposed
development and spoke in opposition stating that he did not
understand the nature of the request. There would be problems with
this development feeding into streets which were already in terrible
condition. The street situation was vague and he was concerned
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Twelve
about traffic. Everyone was familiar with the traffic situation on
Teasley Lane which had become a nightmare. Mr. Barton stated that
he believed this development was premature and that the developer
should get together with the neighborhood groups and talk out their
problems.
Mark Atkins, 2223 Highland Park Road, spoke in opposition stating
that Highland Park Road was the only access in and out of the
proposed development. Bonnie Brae from Highland Park Road south of
the Santa Fe railroad track, was only 16 or 17 feet wide, Cars
parked up and down the road at the Estes Stables and Airport Road
fed into an industrial area. Traffic was already awful and the
addition of 71 more single family homes and a private school would
only make the problem worse. A Sheraton hotel was being constructed
at the intersection of 1-35 and Bonnie Brae at Avenue D. Mr. Atkins
concluded by reading from an article in the Denton Record-Chronicle
regarding the Denton Development Guide's criteria for intensity and
traffic impact on development areas.
Mr. P. A, Baker, 1803 Wisteria, spoke in opposition stating that
there were three streets in the Laurel Addition which had vacant
lots and vacant homes. He could not see the economics of adding
another addition in the same area. The plan did not show what type
of housing would be built. The city could not maintain the existing
streets.
Mr, William A. Stockman, 1806 Wisteria, spoke in opposition stating
that he was concerned that Highland Park Road was not adequate at
the present time and the new development would cause residents to
use Wisteria as an alternate route. The new tract would provide for
a private school and one was already in the area.
Mr. John Fields, 1806 Highland Park Road, spoke in opposition
stating that there was currently traffic in front of his house all
night. There were not enough students in the area for a private
school which meant they would have to be driven to school. This
would increase the traffic even more.
Mr. James, 2106 Azalea, spoke in opposition stating that the paving
contractor had to resurface the street due to a roller coast effect
caused by heavy traffic. Additional traffic was not needed as it
would cause the same problem on other streets in the area.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Bancroft to speak briefly in rebuttal.
Mr. Bancroft stated that the staff had addressed the street issue
and that the City had directed the planned development approach.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 10 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 5 returned in
opposition.
The site was located in a low intensity area and according to the
Denton Development Guide, low intensity areas represented the
primary housing areas of the City and should emphasize residential
use. This proposal was located immediately south of the Laurel
Addition and was a logical continuation of the existing land use to
the north. The five key criteria for low intensity residential
areas were:
1. strict site design control is provided within one block of
existing low density residential
2. the overall density/intensity standard is not violated
3. traffic planning ensures access by a collector street or
larger and not through local low density streets
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Thirteen
4. sufficient green space area is provided for recreational
facilities
5. input into planning by the neighborhood has been solicited
This request complied with the Denton Development Guide policies of
emphasizing residential land use in low intensity areas. While not.
accessed by a collector street or larger, the private school site
did provide ample room for parking and recreational areas. The P&Z
recommended approval with 2 conditions. The sign restriction
condition attached by the P&Z had been removed by the City Attorney.
Council Member McAdams asked how it was anticipated to handle the
traffic.
Jerry Clark, City Engineer, reported that there were access
problems. The Traffic Engineer had looked at the site and felt
these problems could be handled. Access to Highland Park Road would
be denied by channelization or traffic buttons. The entrance to the
development should be relocated so that access would be to Wisteria
and Bonnie Brae. While this did not precisely meet the Denton
Development Guide policies, the development plan should be evaluated
on its merits. Highland Park Road was not built to the master
thoroughfare plan but might be expanded due to this development. As
the area developed in the future, the access problems would be
addressed.
Council Member Hopkins asked if there were any other plats in the
area which would utilize these streets.
Clark responded no.
Council Member McAdams asked if the area on Highland Park Road was a
dedicated street.
Clark responded no; it was a dedicated alley.
Council Member Stephens stated that he had driven in the proposed
development area and there was not room for two-way traffic. He
felt the proposal was premature.
Clark reported that single family sites were not often proposed to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and they had felt the value of
the overall development would offset the traffic problems.
Council Member Stephens stated that Highland Park Road was very
narrow, had no curbs and there were sharp corners. He felt this was
a safety hazard.
Clark responded that traffic would follow the path of least
resistance. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for
approval had been based on the ~eeling that there was a need to
encourage single family development.
Council Member McAdams asked if it was not true that every effort
would be made to impede the use of Highland Park Road.
Clark responded yes.
Council Member McAdams stated that a single family development in
this area would be a real plus but she was concerned about the
amount of traffic which would be generated by the private school.
Clark replied that the numbers used by staff to calculate traffic
was 85 car trips per day per acre for single family and 170 car
trips per day ~or a school. The petition was for a planned
development. The petitioner could remove the school from the plan
and construct only the single family dwellings.
City Council M~nutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Fourteen
Council Member Hopkins stated that th~s seemed like starting at the
other end of the world and trying to get back.
Council Member R~ddlesperger stated maybe the petition should be
tabled to allow t~me to work out the traffic problems.
Council Member Stephens stated if tabled, ~t should be for a
specific per~od of time.
R~ddlesperger motion, Alford second to table the request for a
maximum of three months.
Council Member Stephens stated he would l~ke for staff to t~e this
petition w~th other developments in the area and the street
situation together.
Council Member Hopklns stated that he would like for the developer
to have time to work out the problems and have staff do a study on
the engineering aspects and the traffic intensity and accessibility.
Motion to table for a maximum of three months passed unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Douglas Wuenschel, representing Good Samaritan Village, (PD-21) at
2500 H[nkle Dr~ve. The current PD site plan permitted the
development of a senior citizen retirement complex, health center
complex, adult day care center, nine (9) duplexes and three (3)
triplexes. The petitioner desired to construct three (3) additional
duplexes on the s~te.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke ~n opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Sp[vey, Development Review Planner, reported that 10 reply
forms had beef% mailed w~th 1 returned in favor and 0 returned ~n
opposition. Th~s was a request for an amendment to the original
planned development for the Good Samaritan V~llage to add three more
duplexes. The property had access to H~nkle Street and the addition
would complime'~t the existing planned development.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-96
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO
PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDED SITE PLAN THEREFOR, PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX B-ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AS SAID SITE PLAN APPLIES TO
APPROXIMATELY 27.437 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, OUT OF
THE ROBERT BEAUMONT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 31: AND DECLARING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopk~.ns "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
R~ddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
5. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 81.44 acres o~ land located on
the south side of Paige Road and along the west s~de of Swisher Road
and north of the MKT Railroad. A-1
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Fifteen
Sharron Jarmono Development Review Planner, reported that this was
the final action on this annexation. Adoption of the ordinance
would accept the service plan.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-97
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 81.44
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE G. WALKER,
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1330, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 470 acres of land beginning 350
feet south of and perpendicular to the center line of U. S. Highway
380. A-3
Sharron Jarmon, Development Review Planner, reported this was the
final action on this annexation.
The following ordinance was presented:
-- NO. 84-98
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 470
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE M. FORREST
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 417, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: CLASSIFYING
THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY: AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
changing the name of Ridgeway Drive to Lillian Miller Parkway.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that the request
had been reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission and the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Ridgeway Drive had not been
technically accepted by the city. Naming the street Lillian Miller
Parkway would be done at the formal acceptance.
Mayor Stewart asked why the request had been reviewed by the
Historic Landmark Commission.
Spivey responded that was the normal procedure for a street name
change. Streets being named or renamed in the County were referred
to the Denton County Historical Commission.
Council Member Stephens stated that many Dentonites knew Council
Member Miller who had given lengthy and exemplary service to the
community. Ridgeway was the working title of the street and because
it was so close to Ridgecrest, he ~elt it would be fitting to change
the name to Lillian Miller Parkway. Ms. Miller was the first woman
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Sixteen
elected to the Denton City Council, was a charter member of the
Denton County 'Health Board when it was formed in 1969, was a member
of the North Texas State University Faculty Wives Club, a member of
the Business and Professional Women's Club, President of the Denton
Association of Christian Women, an instructor and administrator of
Catechism at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, a delegate to
the National Democratic Convention in 1972, precinct chairperson and
election judge, and member of the League of Women Voters. Ms.
Miller was elected to the City Council in April of 1973 and served
until her death in June of 1974. Stephens stated that it felt it
would be appropriate to honor Ms. Miller in this manner.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-99
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROVIDING FOR THE
RENAMING OF RIDGEWAY DRIVE, UPON ITS APPROVAL AND
ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF DENTON AS A PUBLIC STREET,
SITUNrED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, TO LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance.
Mayor Stewart asked where would the Council stop in renaming streets.
Council Member Stephens responded that this was not renaming as the
city had not accepted the street. He had checked with David
Dunning, the developer about the naming of the street. Mr. Dunning
had stated that they had called it Ridgeway because they had to call
it something.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that all who knew Ms. Miller had
a great affection for her and it would be impossible to vote against
her but felt perhaps naming a park for her would be more appropriate.
Council Member Stephens stated that this would be a major thorough-
fare and the name would be remembered.
Council Member Alford stated that although the street was not
formally named at this time, many people referred to it as
Ridgeway. He had received phone calls from citizens who had a
problem with this renaming.
Mayor Stewart stated that there already was a Miller Street in
Denton. He personally had great respect for Ms. Miller but citizens
had also been calling him wanting to know where the Council started
and stopped naming streets after people.
The Council then took a vote on the motion. On roll call vote,
McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "nay,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "nay." Motion
carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Alford and Mayor Stewart casting
the nay votes.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
allowing the City Secretary to microfilm official city records.
Vic Boyer, Administrative Assistant, reported that he had been
working with the City Attorney on the legal aspects of microfilming
records. There were approximately 280,000 documents in the vault
and 20,000 were being added each year. The older records were
presently being sent to storage at the warehouse. These older
records were beginning to deteriorate. Microfilming would provide a
back-up set of records which would be stored off-site in case of a
natural disaster, such as fire. The purpose of the ordinance was to
meet the state statute requirements. The estimated cost of the
microfilming would be $10,200.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Seventeen
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-100
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROVIDING FOR
MICROFILMING OF OFFICIAL CITY RECORDS; SPECIFYING THE TYPES
OF RECORDS TO BE MICROFILMED; REQUIRING INDICES TO
MICROFILM RECORDS; REQUIRING MICROFILM TO MEET REQUIREMENTS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STANDARDS INSTITUTE;
REQUIRING THE CITY SECRETARY TO CERTIFY THAT EACH MICROFILM
RECORD IS A TRUE AND CORRECT DUPLICATION OF THE ORIGINAL
PUBLIC RECORD; AND GUARANTEEING THE PUBLIC FREE ACCESS TO
INFORMATION ON THE MICROFILM TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED BY'
LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion.
carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
establishing a mandatory pet registration program for the City of
Denton.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this item had been discussed previously. The pet registration
program:
1. would allow the animal control staff to establish the
number and location of animals in the city
2. would help to control rabies as animals could not be
registered without proper vaccination
3. would be less holding time in the center as staff would be
able to notify the pet owner
4. would allow staff to plan services and budget requirements
more accurately
5. some of the cost of services at the Animal Control Center
would be borne by the pet owners and not of the all
taypayers
Every pet owner had had an animal escape. If the pet was
registered, the owner would be notified and would not have to drive
around looking for the lost pet. The program had received support
from the Humane Society.
Council Member Hopkins asked how many pet owners did staff expect
would participate.
Angelo responded approximately 75% during the first year, depending
on the promotion and enforcement of the program.
Council Member McAdams asked if other neighboring cities had this
type of program.
Angelo responded yes.
Council Member McAdams asked what was the participation rate in
these other cities.
Angelo responded the participation varied on the promotion of the
program and the enforcement but the rate was approximately 40% to
60%.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what would happen if a cat was
impounded.
Angelo replied the owner would have to register the cat before it
would be released from the Animal Control Center.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Eighteen
Deborah Shelton, representing the Denton Humane Society, stated that
the society was in favor of the program because:
1. the registration fees would help to offset the ever
increasing cost of animal control services
2. the registration process would help to educate pet owners
to their responsibility to the community
3. the program would help to unite lost pets with their owners
The Humane Society also encouraged the neutering of pets as there
was a tremendous problem with strays.
Cheryl Lange stated that she was in favor of registration but she
owned 4 pets and had paid $200 to have the pets vaccinated and
neutered. She did not feel she should have to pay the additional
registration fee for it placed the burden on responsible pet
owners. She also stated that she felt the fee for un-neutered pets
should be $10.
Council Member Hopkins asked ~f Ms. Lange thought the $3
registration fee was too much or would a $1 fee be more reasonable
considering the advantages of the program.
Ms. Lange responded that she felt ~f the fee were too high, less
people would voluntarily register their pets.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-101
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 ("ANIMALS") OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO REQUIRE CERTAIN
ANIMALS BE RESTRAINED BY A LEASH, FENCE OR ENCLOSED STRUCTURE;
BY ADDING A NEW SECTION PROVIDING FOR THE REGISTRATION OF DOGS
AND CATS: ESTABLISHING FEES THEREFOR; REQUIRING IDENTIFICATION
TAGS TO BE WORN BY DOGS AND CATS: PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO
EXCEED TWO HUNDRED ($200.00) DOLLARS FOR VIOLATION THEREOF:
PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Stephens stated that he would like to see a report on
the effectiveness of the program after it was implemented.
6. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to sign utility permit forms and
utility joint use agreements from the Texas State Highway Department.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time for the City of
Denton to apply for a utility joint use agreement or utility permit
involving construction within the State Highway Department
right-of-way in the City of Denton: and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to obtain agreements and permits
from said Highway Department for said construction: and
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Nineteen
WHEREAS, the City Manager through his office makes
application for said construction: NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council of the City of Denton hereby'
authorizes the City Manager acting in his official capacity to
execute the appropriate documents as an official representative of
the City of Denton.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 7th day of August, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the resolution be passed. On
~oll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered approval of an agreement with Joe
Belew for participation in a new water line on his property from
Windsor Drive along Locust Street to Hercules Lane.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was a standard
agreement form.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the agreement for
participation in a new water line with Joe Belew. Motion carried
unanimously.
8. The Council considered approval of a contract with Rady and
Associates for temporary engineering plan review.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that there had been a turn over
in the Engineering Department and the staff was reviewing a great
many plans. Rady and Associates did not have a conflict of interest
with the city and the contract would be ended when the vacant
position in Engineering was filled.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the contract with Rady and
Associates. Motion carried uanimously.
9. The Council considered a utility revenue bond election.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that staff had contacted the
city's financial advisors and bond counselors regarding the Charter
provision on bond elections. The bond counselor had stated that
this Charter provision was inconsistent with current state
statutes. There had been a similar situation in the City of
Austin. On the timing, if the bonds were not sold by the end of
September, the city could not sell until early in 1985 due to the
audit which would begin in October.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 7, 1984
Page Twenty
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he had expressed himself on
this inconsistency. The responsibility to issue bonds was the City
Council's and he felt it would be unfair to the voters to tell them
they could have a non-binding referendum. He believed it was the
duty of the Council to make the decision and proceed.
Council Member McAdams stated the city had to have the bond money
and it would not be wise to spend the money to hold an election
which would only be a popularity contest.
Council Member Stephens stated that he believed the Council could
trust the Denton public and felt that they would approve the bond
sale. He had taken an oath to uphold the Charter. The Charter had
not been changed and the Attorney General had not made a ruling.
The public had spoken at the ballot box and he did not feel inclined
to ignore that..
Council Member McAdams stated that the state law superseded the City
Charter.
Council Member Stephens stated that was only the opinion of the bond
counselor.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he wished the Council could
pass this on. to the public but the Council must take the
responsibility. The legal advisor was competent and had stated that
an election was not required.
Council Member Stephens then stated that he was concerned about due
process. If the Charter was inconsistent with state statutes, the
Charter should be revised.
Stephens motion to hold the utility revenue bond election on
September 15 as had been previously presented. There was no
second. Motion died.
10. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
11. No new items of business were suggested for future agendas.
The Council then convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLOTTEt ~LLEN, CITY SECRETARY
0403i
City Council Minutes
August 13, 1984
The Council convened into the Special Called meeting at 4:45 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens·
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Mayor Stewart
1. The Council considered approval of the request by Mr. Carl
Young for the use of Fred Moore Park, with a waiver of the fee and
the midnight curfew, for a Labor Day celebration on August 31,
September 1, and September 3, 1984.
This item had been previously discussed.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the use of the park with a
waiver of the fee and with a midnight curfew. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. The Council considered approval of the institution of
annexation proceedings on a tract of land consisting of approxi-
mately 11.2 acres of land located north of 1-35E and southeast of
Mayhill Road. Z-6
This item had been previously discussed.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 11.2
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE M.E.P. &
P.R.R. COMPANY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 950 AND THE G. WALKER
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1330, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY:
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to institute annexation
proceedings. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem
Chew "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
MARK R. TEM
o4o5
City Council Minutes
August 21, 1984
The Council convened into a budget Work Session at 8:30 a.m. on.
Tuesday, August 21, 1984 in the Training Room of the Service Center.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
The Council convened into the Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. in the
City Manager's Conference Room. No official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member McAdams was absent due to illness
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of April 10, 1984 and the Regular Meeting of April
17, 1984.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the Minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the Consent Agenda
as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9299 - Soil mixer stabilizer
2 Bid ~ 9302 - Circuit breaker conversion
3 Bid # 9306 - Automatic transfer apparatus
4 Bid # 9308 - Disposal of PCB capacitors
5 Bid ~ 9310 - Gasoline and diesel
6 Bid 9 9311 - Employee uniforms
7 Bid ~ 9314 - Audra Estates street participation
8 Bid ~ 9316 - Pressure sterilizer and trays
9 Bid ~ 9317 - Microfilming of City records
10, Purchase Order ~ 64522 - Municipal electric job
training to Texas A&M University in the amount of
$4,110.45.
11. Purchase Order ~ 64630 - Gene's Paint and Body
Shop in the amount of $3,205.83.
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of the preliminary replat of lot 29,
Section II, of the Solar Way Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Two
2. Approval of the preliminary plat of the
Hollyhills Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Osborne
Grocery Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
C. Agreements:
1. Consider approval of letter request by First
Southwest Company to submit a bid for the
$1,800,000 Certificates of Obligation.
3. The Council received bids on $1,800,000 City of Denton,
Texas Certificates of Obligation, Series 1984 A.
Mr. Frank Meda~ich, representing First Southwest Company, reported
that seven proposals for the Certificates of Obligation had been
received. The bids were as follows:
1. Rauscher, Pierce and Refnes with an effective interest rate
of 9,927098
2. Underwood Neuhaus with an effective interest rate of
9.918684
3. Prudential Bache with an effective interest rate of 9.8448
4. Republic Bank of Dallas with an effective interest rate of
9.9674
5, Master, Sandier, Koon, Ward and Holland with an effective
interest rate of 9.782884
6. Interfirst Bank, Dallas with an effective interest rate of
10.09554
7. Stifel Nickolaus with an effective interest rate of 9.898888
Mr. Medanich then retired to check the bids.
4, Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Delwin Morton ~equesting a change in zoning from the single family
(SF-7) and agricultural (A) classification to the planned develop-
ment (PD) classification on a 52 acre tract located at the northwest
corner of Lattimore Street and Audra Lane. If approved, the planned
development would permit the development of single family detached
land use with typical lot size of 6,000 square feet. Z-1677
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, representing Fields, Edwards and Associates,
spoke in favor of the petition stating that Mr. Morton was seeking
to develop single family dwellings on 52 acres. Watkins presented
an overhead projection of the current land uses contiguous to the
petitioned area. The single family houses would be on 6,000 square
feet lots which was compatible with the neighborhood. The developer
was proposing to take new Audra Lane into Mingo-Fish Trap Road. The
city thoroughfare plan showed Audra Lane to eventually connect with
Nottingham. If the street was taken through the proposed
development, it would line up with Nottingham, and the developer was
willing to donate 60 feet of right-of-way. It was felt that this
petition represented compatible land use for the area.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what kind of overpass would be
constructed over the railroad.
Watkins responded it would be one-half grade and would connect with
Mingo Road.
Council Member Hopkins asked if there would be one overpass.
Watkins responded yes.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Three
Rev. Terry Johnson, pastor of the Faith Tabernacle Assembly of God
Church at 1101 Audra, spoke in favor stating that he felt the
petition would be good for the church and the city. It was
difficult to find housing for lower ~ncome citizens and felt this
was a good plan.
Rev. L. L. Morris, pastor of the Maranatha Baptist Church at 1301.
Audra, spoke in favor stating that he was for the petition with the
exception of 4 acres of beautiful trees which would have to be
cleared.
Ms. Carol Williams, 1221 Audra Lane, spoke in opposition stating she
bought her property in th~s area five years ago because it was a
quiet, agricultural neighborhood. If Audra Lane was rerouted, ~t
would take 20 feet from the back of her property. After checking,
she had found many zoning cases which had been approved in this area
which would have SF-6 or smaller lot sizes, apartments, zero lot
lines, commercial and office uses. The neighbors wanted to see an.
$F-7 development approved next.
Council Member Hopkins asked if Ms, Williams was under the
impression that multi-family was in this area.
Ms. Williams responded no.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the neighbors would prefer
$F-7 instead of $F-6.
Ms. Will~ams responded yes.
Mr. Paul Blagg, 1224 Audra Lane, spoke in opposition stating that he
felt it was an infringement of his rights to be required to give 20
feet of land for the Audra Lane extension.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he must have misunderstood
because he thought the developer would give all of the right-of-way.
Rev, Morris responded that the developer would give 60 feet. There
were 4 to 6 acres of beautiful trees which would have to be
destroyed. The extension of Audra should be moved to the east so as
to not take the trees, Morris also added that he would rather have
SF-7 but single family dwellings of $F-6 were preferrable to other
land uses.
The Mayor Mr. Watkins to speak briefly in rebuttal.
Mr, Watkins reported that Audra Lane was a dedicated secondary
arterial and the city required 80 feet of right-of-way. Usually the
dedication of this right-of-way would be divided between the
developer and the landowners. The developer was willing to dedicate
60 feet. If, at a future date, the city needed the other 20 feet of
right-of-way it would come off the back of the property owners
land. I~ Audra was not extended, 80 feet of right-of-way would
still be needed which would come off the front of the property.
After technical review by the city staff, the developer had agreed
to move the extension of Audra to save as many trees as possible.
At current costs and interest rates, the 6,000 square lots in $F-6
zoning would make the constructed homes more affordable by reducing
the lot size. These homes would start in the $70,000 price range.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked how many lots would be lost if
the property was zoned SF-7.
Watkins responded approximately 30.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked how many total lots were there in
the proposed development.
Watkins responded approximately 250.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Four
Council Member Riddlesperger then asked how much trouble it would be
to use Regent Street.
Council Member Hopkins replied that the wrong map was included with
the back-up material.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council had been advised by the Legal
Department that they would be voting on the map which was attached
to the ordinance.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris reported that when the planned
development zoning was considered, the site plan attached to the
ordinance which was considered. The developer could go through the
platting procedure and bring the site plan back to Council.
Mayor Stewart asked if the petition should be referred back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 36 reply
forms had been mailed with 3 returned in favor and 7 returned in
opposition. The petition was for single family detached homes which
was consistent with the Denton Development Guide and intensity
guidelines. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended
approval of the site plan which Mr. Watkins had presented. There
had been an error in the site plan in the agenda back-up materials.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the site plan which was approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission should have gone to the Legal
Department.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the new drainage
system on Paisley was located south of this proposed development.
If the land falls to the noth, there would have to be adequate
provisions made for the drainage.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the recommendations made by the
Planning and Zoning Commission included one which the Council had
been told was 'illegal which amounted to back zoning. He also stated
that the petition appeared to be a good system to get Audra Lane
extended to Mingo Road. Due to the increase of traffic, residents
would have to go to McKinney or to Loop 288. This seemed to be a
good system.
Council Member Stephens asked if the developer dedicated 60 feet of
right-of-way and the additional 20 feet was required from the
property owners, would they be compensated.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded that this would be the same as
any other case. The right-of-way would be required during
platting. If additional right-of-way was required at a later date,
the property owners would be compensated if they did not voluntarily
dedicate the land.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked the developer would not be giving
any land if taking Regent Road was taken out of the site plan and 60
feet of right-of-way was dedicated for Audra Lane.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that the problem was with the 6,000 square
feet lot size.
Council Member Hopkins stated that if the developer used Regent
Street it would solve the problem of backing the development up on
the existing property owners. Hopkins then asked who owned the
property at the southeast corner of Audra and Lattimore.
Spivey responded the Faith Tabernacle Assembly of God Church owned
the property.
City Council Minutes '
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Five
Council Member Stephens stated that the city engineers should look
at the petition and give the Council some options for the rerouting
of Audra Lane.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the single family (SF-7) and
agricultural (A) classification to the planned development (PD)
classification on a 52 acre tra~t located at the northwest corner of
Lattimore Street and Audra Lane.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ~ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 52 ACRES OF LAND ~OCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LATTIMORE STREET AND AUDRA LANE,
AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; TO PROVIDE FOR
CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY "SF-7"
AND AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO PLANNED ,DEVELOPMENT "PD" CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to table the ordinance t0 be brought
back to Council at the earliest possible time. Motion to table
pas~ed unanimously.
B. The Council held a pu6iic hearing'on the 'petition of
Kenneth B. Riney requesting a change in zoning from office (O) to
the general retail (GR) classification on lots llA and 15A, block 1,
Northside Addition (115 West College Street). Lot llA has
approximnately 51 feet of frontage along the west side of North
Locust Street and approximately 43 feet of frontage along the south
side of College Street, Lot 15A is approximately 48' x 100' in size
and begins adjacent and south of College Street approximately 174
feet west of North Locust Street (lots llA and 15A are separated by
a north-south public alley). Z-1680
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr, Ken Riney, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that it was
his intension to move his jewelry operation to this location. He
would restore and landscape the property. His particular business
was fairly private and ~ewelry would be shown by appointment only.
This would not create a disturbance for the neighbors and there
would be no signs.
Mary Claude Gay, representing the present owner of the property,
spoke in favor stating that Dr, Sinclair had claimed bankruptcy.
Mr. Riney would restore the home to a show place.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 23 reply
forms had been mailed with 10 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. This petition was for rezoning of two lots in a
moderate intensity area. The staff had some concerns about Straight
retail zoning in this area due to the close proximity of single
family housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from office (O) to the general retail
(GR) classification on lots llA and 15A, block 1, Northside Addition
(115 West College Street).
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Six
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-102
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO LOT llA AND 15A, BLOCK
NORTHSIDE ADDITION, KNOWN AS ll5 WEST COLLEGE STREET,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM OFFICE "O" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO GENERAL RETAIL "GR"
CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR SAID PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
5. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the issuance of $1,800,000 City of Denton, Texas
Certificates of Obligation, Series 1984-A and all matters
incidential and pertaining to.
Mr. Frank Medanich, representing First Southwest Company, reported
that the bids had been checked and found to be in order. The
recommendation from First Southwest Company was to accept the
proposal by Master, Sandfer, Koon, Ward and Holland.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-103
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF DENTON
CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 1984-A, AND APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATED THERETO
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
directing t'be publication of notice of intent to issue City of
Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 1984-A in the maximum
principal amount of $20,000,000 and directing the issuance and
publication of notice of sale of said bonds.
City Manage!c Chris Hartung reported that this ordinance had been
prepared by the city's bond counsel and the sale would take place on
September 25.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-104
AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO ISSUE CITY OF DENTON UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE
BONDS, SERIES 1984-A, IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
$20,000,000, AND DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF SALE OF BONDS
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Seven
Council Member Stephens stated that he understood the need for the
bonds to f~nance capital ~mprovements projects and ~ for future
development: however, procedures for bond sales were outlined in the
charter and the ordinance canvassing the charter amendment election
shows that the proposition to hold a non-binding referendum for the
sale of bonds had been approved by the voters by a margin of 890 in
favor to 339 in opposition.
On roll call vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried 5 to 1 with Council Member Stephens casting the nay vote.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 2, Article II of the Code o~ Ordinances providing
feor the approval of City policies by resolution, authorizing the
City Manager or his designee to issue administrative procedures and
directives implementing approved policies and repealing Ordinance
No. 62-40 ~n its entirety.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that this item had
been discussed in a previous work session. Staff was now bringing
these policies to the City Council.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-105
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE II OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ENACTING A NEW
SECTION 2-18 PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF CITY POLICIES BY
RESOLUTION, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
ISSUE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND DIRECTIVES IMPLEMENTING
APPROVED POLICIES: REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 62-40 IN ITS
ENTIRETY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing a tract of land consisting of approximately
9.013 acres of land beginning approximately 700 feet east of Sherman
Drive. A-4
Steve Fanning, Planning and Community Development staff, reported
that this would be the final action on this annexation.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-106
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 9.013
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF A 152.542 ACRE
TRACT CONVEYED TO MASSEY AND WILSON BY DEED OF RECORD, IN
VOLUME 772, PAGE 903, IN THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS: CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT
PROPERTY: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Eight
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 13 of Appendix B - zoning of the Code oC Ordinances
of the City of Denton to provide for the use of lots with less than
the minimum area, width or depth requirements when such lots are
approved through the subdivision process: repealing all ordinances
in conClict therewith: and providing for an effective date.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that the intent of this
ordinance was to avoid duplication and would not take the Board of
Adjustment out of the picture.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-107
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF APPENDIX B-ZONING OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PROVIDE FOR
THE USE OF LOTS WITH LESS THAN THE MINIMUM AREA, WIDTH OR
DEPTH REQUIREMENTS WHEN SUCH LOTS ARE APPROVED THROUGH THE
SUBDIVISION PROCESS: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
THEREWITH: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion° Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
abandoning a portion of an existing 6" water line adjacent to the
Dave Krause automobile dealership on West University Boulevard
between Cornell Street and Malone Street.
Bob Nelon, Director of Utilities, reported that Mr. Krause had
requested this abandonment. He had purchased the property and
planned to construct another building over this existing water
line. If someone on Cornell wanted to develop, Mr. Krause had
agreed to put in another 6" water line.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-108
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID EASEMENT TO THE
OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT: AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
6. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a concurrent
resolution relinquishing all platting ~urisdiction and zoning
control over that portion of the Pecan Acres Addition situated
within the corporate limits of the City of Denton.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that a map of the area was
in the agenda back-up material. A portion of the area was within
the Denton city limits and the rest was in Argyle. The City of
Argyle would not approve b'uilding plans for the Pecan Acres Addition
because a 10 feet strip was in the Denton city limits. The legal
staf~ had advised that the Council must approve a resolution prior
to relinquishing platting ~urisdiction and zoning control. Staff
would like to retain the 10 feet strip for future control This
strip would be in the front yard area of the development.
SI1.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Nine
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that this would not change the
Denton city limits at all.
The following resolution was presented:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a final plat known as the Pecan Acres Addition to
the City of Argyle, Texas has been approved by the Planning and.
Zoning Commission of the City of Argyle, Texas: and
WHEREAS, the northern ten (10) feet of the proposed
addition abutting Hickory Hill Road is inside the corporate limits
of the City of Denton with the remainder of the addition being'
situated within the corporate limits of the City of Argyle: and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration, the Planning and
Zoning Co.mmission and the City Council of the City of Denton desire
to relinquish all platting jurisdiction and zoning control over that
portion of the Pecan Acres Addition situated within the corporate
limits of the City of Denton:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That platting jurisdiction and zoning control over the
following described portion of the Pecan Acres Addition to the City
of Argyle is hereby relinquished to the City of Argyle:
A ten (10') foot strip of land situated inside the
corporate limits of the City of Denton, Texas, immediately to the
south of Hickory Hill Road which is more particularly described as
follows:
Ail that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being
situated in the City and County of Denton, State of Texas, and being
part of the F. Ramsey Survey, Abstract No. 1102 and the J. Smith
Survey, Abstract No. 1180 and more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the northeast corner of the N. George Survey, Abstract
No. 477, said point lying in the south boundary line of the F.
Ramsey Survey, Abstract No. 1102 and the east boundary line of the
proposed Pecan Acres Addition to the City of Argyle, Texas:
THENCE north 4°50' east along the east boundary of the said Pecan
Acres Addition a distance of 1118 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING
said point lying on the corporate limits line of the City of Denton,
Texas, and 10 feet south of the south right of way line o4 Hickory
Hill Road:
THENCE south 88°50' west 10 feet south of the south right of way
line of Hickory Hill Road and along the Denton city limits line a
distance of 1518.7 feet to a point for a corner in the west boundary
line of the said Pecan Acres Addition:
THENCE north l°04' east along the west boundary line of said Pecan
Acres, a distance of 10 feet to a point for a corner, said point
being the south right of way line of Hickory Hill Road and located
10 feet inside the corporate limits line of the City of Denton,
Texas;
THENCE north 88°50' east along the north boundary-line of the Pecan
Acres Addition, same being the south right of way line of Hickory
Hill Road and within the corporate limits of the City of Denton,
Texas a distance of 1518.7 feet to a point for a corner;
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Ten
THENCE south 4°50' west a distance of 10 feet to the place of
beginning.
SECTION II.
That a copy of this Resolution be attached to the ~nal
plat of the Pecan Acres Addition to the City of Argyle and be
recorded therewith.
The above and foregoing Concurrent Resolution was duly
PASSED and APPROVED at a meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the City of Denton on . 1984.
ROBERT LAFORTE, CHAIRMAN
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
The above and foregoing Concurrent Resolution was duly
PASSED and APPROVED at a meeting of the City Council of the City
of Denton on August 21, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved, On
roll call vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
closing Windsor Drive from Old Orchard Trail to Dunes Street and
closing Old Orchard Trail from Windsor to Broken Arrow between the
hours o£ 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p,m. on August 24, 1984 for a
neighborhood block party.
This item had been previously discussed by the Council.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Kay Watk~.ns has requested that Windsor Drive from
Old Orchard Trail to Dunes Street and Old Orchard Tra~l from W~ndsor
Drive to Broken Arrow Street, public streets within the corporate
limits of the City of Denton, Texas be temporarily closed to public
vehicular traffic between the hours o~ 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on
August 24, 1984, for the purpose o~ having a neighborhood block
party; and
WHEREAS, Kay WatkP. ns has assured the City Council that all
residents in such block have agreed to the temporary closing of that
portion of Windsor Drive and Old Orchard Trail: and
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Eleven
WlqEREAS, Kay Watkins has further assured the City Council.
that no alcoholic beverages will be served at the above-mentioned
block party: NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That Windsor Drive and Old Orchard Trail, public streets in
the corporate limits of the City of Denton, Texas, be temporarily'
closed to vehicular traffic from the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00
p.m. on August 24, 1984, for the purpose of having a neighorhood
block party.
SECTION II.
That the City Manager shall direct the appropriate City
Department to erect barricades at both ends of Windsor Drive from
Old Orchard Trail to Dunes Street and Old Orchard Trail from Windsor
to Broken Arrow Street at 6:00 p.m. on August 24, 1984, and to have
the same removed at 10:00 p.m. on said date.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 21st day of August, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
adopting official policies of the City of Denton and rescinding the
Employees Rules and Regulations in conflict.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that this resolution
would adopt the first nine policies which had completed the policies
and procedures process. Approximately 7,000 hours had been spent on
this project and staff had been pleased with the results.
Mayor Stewart asked how long staff had worked on these policies.
Usrey responded approximately 19 months.
Mayor Stewart asked if various committees had worked with this
process.
Usrey replied that there were five task forces and a steering
committee. The task forces met two to three times per week and the
steering committee met each week.
Mayor Stewart asked if input had been received from City employees.
Usrey responded yes: the input was then reviewed and the policies
and procedures revised as practicable to reflect the views and needs
of all employees.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Twelve
Mayor Stewart then asked if any department was prohibited from
offering input to the policies and procedures.
Usrey responded no: all City employees could offer suggestions for
revisions to the draft policies and procedures.
Council Member Hopkins asked if any attempt had been made to put a
cost differential on the old and new policies.
Usrey replied that any change in an existing policy or procedure
which required additional funding also required a budget
recommendation from the task force.
Council Member Hopkins commended Ms. Usrey and the employees
involved with this process because staff had taken time to solicit
input from the employees.
Council Member Stephens asked who had the final approval on the
wording of the policies and procedures.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded that final approval was given
by the City Manager's office.
Usrey added that there had been compromises along the way in this
process.
Council Member Stephens asked if staff felt the attitude of the
employees was that the rewriting of these policies and procedures
had been done fairly.
Usrey responded that the employees had not seen the final form of
the policies and procedures.
The Council recognized Ken Gold of the Firefighters Association.
Mr. Gold stated that he realized that a lot of work had gone into
the preparation and revision of these policies and procedures but
they did directly affect him. The proposed policy on holiday pay
cut his holiday pay in half. He would like to be allowed to give
him input: not all employees had seen the draft policies. Mr. Gold
further stated that negative responses to the draft policies had
been met with "arm twisting."
Council Member Stephens asked what Mr. Gold meant.
Gold responded that negative responses to the draft policies had met
with resistance from "higher ups."
Council Member Stephens asked for clarification on the holiday time
issue.
Usrey replied 'that this was the very reason for the review of the
policies in the first place. Holiday pay varied from department to
department. Some employees were paid for 12 hours while others were
paid for 8 hours. The intent was to standardize procedures for all
City employees.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Director of the Personnel/Employee Relations
Department for the City of Denton has presented proposed policies
regarding employee rules and regulations for the Council's
consideration: and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt such policies as
official policies regarding employment with the City:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Thirteen
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The following policies, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hereby adopted as o~ficial policies of the City of
Denton. Texas:
Medical Examinations (Reference No. 102.10)
In-House Advancement (Reference No. 104.04)
Overtime (Reference No. 106.04)
Compensatory Time (Reference No. 106.05)
Holidays (Reference No. 107.02
Vacation Bonus Time (Reference No. 107.03)
Absenteeism/Tardiness (Reference No. 110.01)
Jury Duty (Reference No. 111.02)
Death in the Family (Reference No. 111.06)
SECTION II.
The foregoing policies are attached hereto and made a part
hereof and shall be filed in the official records with the City'
Secretary.
SECTION III.
The Employee Rules and Regulations of 1976 adopted by
Resolution of the City Council on February 1o 1977o are hereby
rescinded to the extent they conflict with the foregoing policies
and any administrative procedures and directives issued under the
authority of the City Manager implementing the policies hereby
adopted.
SECTION IV.
This Resolution shall be effective from and after its date
of passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 21st day of August, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
- Riddlesperger motion, Alford second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried 5 to 1 with Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting the nay vote.
7. The Council considered approval of a financial advisory
contract for the sale of bonds and certificates of obligation.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was an agreement with
First Southwest Company to provide for their employment by the City
to assist in future bond issues.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Fourteen
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the financial advisory
contract with First Southwest. Motion carried 5 to 1 with Council
Member Stephens casting the nay vote.
8. The Council considered providing water/sewer service to
Tri-Steel Structures Corpo£ation development, west on Highway 380
and Marsh Branch Road and approval of associated oversizing and pro
rata agreements.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that Tri-Steel had
requested this service. The Public Utilities Board and the Planning
and Zoning Commission had reviewed the request and recommended
approval. The location was in the extra-territorial ~urisdiction of
Denton and was a certificated area. A 12" line was recommended for
the oversizing and Tri-Steel would be responsible for the 8" portion.
Council Member Hopkins asked if there would likely be more
development in this area.
Nelson responded that staff was hoping to get the 12" line extended
to connect with the 12" line at the airport.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to approve providing
water/sewer service to Tri-Steel and to approve the associated
oversizing and pro rata agreements. Motion carried unanimously.
9. The Council considered providing water/sewer service to
Storer Homes, Inc. south of Highway 377 and Brush Creek Road, and
approval of associated oversizing and pro rata agreements.
Council Member Stephens stated that he had been leasing a pasture
since 1979 where this particular water/sewer line would be going and
asked the City Attorney for clarification regarding a conflict of
interest. He was presently leasing the property and wanted to
continue the lease until the property was developed.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris asked if Council Member Stephens had
a financial interest in Storer Homes, Inc.
Council Member Stephens responded no.
Morris asked if there was anything about the lease agreement which
Council Member Stephens considered would affect his ~udgement.
Council Member Stephens responded no.
Morris then stated that he did not believe there was any conflict of
interest.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that staff had been
working for two or three months to get all of the parties involved
together. Ms. Storer had requested water and sewer service to the
property, The long range master plan showed a 16" line in this
particular area. The proposed Loop would come,around the area and a
ma]or transmission line would be in the area. The City of Argyle
had asked if Denton would sell water to the Argyle Water supply
Corporation. At the present time, the Argyle Water Supply
Corporation was building to City of Denton standards. Ms. Storer
would be required to run at least a 10" water line down to the
property to service it. The City of Denton would pay the oversizing
between a 10" line and a 16" line from Hobson Lane to the railroad
tracks. The Argyle Water Supply Corporation would be willing to
take up there and extend the water line past the Storer property.
The sewer line would be required from the existing Hickory Creek
line to Country Club Road. Staff was trying to enlarge this line to
be able to serve other properties in the area. One problem that
staff had with this was that the City of Denton bought water from
Dallas.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of August 21, 1984
Page Fifteen
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what was the source of water in
Argyle.
Nelson responded wells.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to provide water and sewer:
service to Storer Homes, Inc. south of Highway 377 and Brush Creek
Road and to approve the associated oversizing and pro rata
agreements.
Council Member Stephens asked about the status of annexation in this
area.
Steve Fanning, Community Development and Planning staff, reported
that staff would be bringing a study for proposed annexation to the
Council. The annexation would not affect this request.
Nelson reported that the City of Argyle had refused to serve the
Storer development.
Motion carried unanimously.
10. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
11. No items of new business were suggested for future agendas.
The Council then reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CH~RLOT~E ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY/--~
o4o i
City Council Minutes
September 4, 1984
The Council convened into a Work Session at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday,
September 4, 1984 in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal
Building.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council held a discussion on funding of Flow Hospital.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this item was placed on the
agenda at the request of the City Council and the Flow Hospital
Board of Directors.
Ms. Mary Williams, Chairperson of the Flow Hospital Board of
Directors, reported that as of July 31, the hospital was operating
in the black and expressed thanks from the board for the support
which had been received from the City Council. Ms. Williams further
reported that the proposed budget would contain a list of capital
items. The executive medical committee had been reviewing the list
and making revisions.
A meeting had been held earlier in the day with Integrated Health
Resources in Dallas. One of the plans discussed would provide a
vehicle by which the new office building could be financed. Flow
Hospital could borrow the funds necessary by p~edging the real
property as security. These particular funds would only be
available until December 31 and application for the program had to
be made within the next 14 days. The monies could be borrowed at
55% of the prime interest rate and the funds could be invested until
they were required for the building program.
Je~ Hausler, Administrator of Flow Hospital, stated that Integrated
Health Resources was selling bonds and the hospital needed to let
them know as quickly as possible if Flow wanted to participate.
Ms. Williams added that the physician's office building was
necessary for the success of the hospital. Flow would also require
financial support in an approximate amount of $250,000 from the
Council to assist in replacing the old capital equipment.
Dr. Don Holt, Board member, stated that the doctors were confused
and needed a vote of confidence from the owners of the hospital.
The doctors wanted to know if the Council wanted them to be at Flow:
many were concerned about the negative attitude between the City and
the County. There was much at stake and Denton could lose the only
non-profit hospital in town. Dr. Holt stated that he felt the
entire issue hinged on the owners, the City and County, getting
together.
Mr. Ralph Hawkins, representing Harwood K. Smith and Partners
architects, reported that his firm was involved with the master
planning for Flow and stated that there was a concern regarding
First Texas Medical's certificate being granted in Austin and what
that would mean to Flow Hospital. The impact would be felt in
recruiting physicians. Flow was in dire need of a professional
office building for doctors.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the basic issue was the office
building.
Mr. Hawkins responded that during the master plan process aspects of
the hospital were being reviewed, such as who came to Flow, who goes
out of the County for medical services, etc. The office building
was only ()ne aspect of the overall master plan. Also being
considered were psychiatric and nursing home services.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if part of the report would
address how much public support for Flow would be required.
Mr. Hawkins replied that this would be addressed if it became a
program.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if a report was available on the
different hospitals in the area and their amount of community
support.
Mr. Hawkins stated that there were many small hospitals in the
area. His firm hoped to get more community support and be ~n a
position to offer total health care services. His firm had worked
with many City/County hospitals and ~t seemed there was always
friction. Some of these hospitals had gone to management contracts.
Mr. William Parisi, Integrated Health Resources, stated that his
firm had a regional financial pool program which would allow the
amortization of loans over 8 to 30 years. Integrated Health
Resources had asked Flow to furnish them with a total of the
hospital's cumulative needs.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked how much money did Mr. Parisl
feel could be obtained for Flow.
Mr. Par[s~ responded that the bottom of the well was called credit.
The bonds would be rated by Moody or Standard and Poors and might
also require a letter of credit. The land on which the hospital was
located would be subordinated. His firm needed acknowledgement from
the Council and would come back to the Council with a resolution
authorizing Flow hospital to enter into the pool.
Council Member Stephens asked when could the doctor's off[ce
building be operational.
Mr. Parisi responded that the money would be in the pool in November.
Mr. Hawk[ns added that, with the funding available in November, tl%e
office building could be occupied by October or November of 1985.
Councll Member Stephens asked who would recruit,the physicians.
Mr. Hawkins replied that the recruitment would be a joint effort
between his firm and the hospital administration.
Council Member Stephens asked which would be accomplished first -
the construction of the building or the recruitment of the
physic[ans.
Hawkins responded that the doctors would be recruited first as much
as possible.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the $250,000 commitment from
the City would be only for the current year or an on-going need.
Ms. Williams replied that it took capital to run Flow and the
present need was for $250,000 or more. The hospital wanted to
become self-suffic~ent.
Dr. Holt added that the hospital had gotten into a hole over the
last few years and was trying to dig out.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that Flow was seeking a commitment from
the City for $250,000 th~s year. Regardless o~ what the County did,
the City Council was willing to do whatever it took to make Flow
Hospital a viable institution.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council needed to send out
signals to the community that the City budget was not final[zed.
There was a commitment to the hospital and that commitment should be
considered as part of the budget process.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Three
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council needed to set another budget
hearing.
It was the consensus of the Council to encourage the construction of
the doctors building and to explore all avenues for funding.
2. The Council held a discussion on a proposed 112.7 acre
mobile home subdivision in the extraterritorial jurisdiction
(approximately 9700 feet east of Loop 288 on Highway 426) for the
purpose of determining whether or not to begin the annexation
process.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that this item had changed. The Planning and Community Development
Department had been approached by developers who wanted to pay for
water and sewer line extensions. Staff was now looking at a very
large annexation in the future and this particular area would be a
portion of that larger area. There was a possibility of an
annexation of approximately 2,000 acres and 5,000 people.
Representatives from the developer were present and stated to the
Council that this parcel was presently under contract for sale and
wanted some type of indication of the Council's thoughts regarding
annexation proceedings.
It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with the annexation
of the 112.7 acre tract and the larger parcel if and when
development was proposed.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to consider legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular meeting of May 1, 1984; the Regular meeting of May 22, 1984:
the Regular meeting of June 5, 1984: the Special Called meeting of
June 8, 1984: and the Regular meeting of June 19, 1984.
Council Member Stephens stated that on page 7 of the Minutes of the
June 19 meeting, most of the discussion had dealt with whether or
not to approve 240 apartments in the Dimension Development petition
as was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission or to
approve 390 units as was presented in the original petition for the
planned development. The major discussion had related to the
density.
Stephens mot!ion, Chew second to approve the Minutes with the
exception of the Minutes of June 19, 1984 which should be expanded
and brought back for approval. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
McAdams motion, Alford second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Four
Consent Agenda:
A, Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9315 - Bentonite slurry cutoff wall
2. Bid ~ 9318 - Traffic poles, signal lights, etc.
3. Bid ~ 9319 - Meter maintenance
4. Bid ~ 9320 - Hydraulic auger
5. Bid # 9321 - Padlocks
6. Bid ~ 9322 - Infrared viewer
7. Bid ~ 9324 - Vacuum pump
8. Bid ~ 9325 - Soft drinks and vending machines
9. Bid ~ 9326 - Sale of transformer - damaged in
fire
10. Bid ~ 9327 - Transformer ratiometer
11. Bid # 9329 - Janitorial services
12. Bid ~ 9331 - Utility poles
13. Purchase Order ~ 63913 to General Electric
Company, Apparatus Service Division in the amount
of $13,111.63.
14. Purchase Order ~ 64685 to Denton Electric Shop,
Inc. in the amount of $3,583.26.
15. Purchase Order ~ 64726 to Newman Engineering
Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $3,512.17.
16. Purchase Order ~ 64753 to ONEAC Corporation in
the amount of $4,143.00.
B. Contracts:
1. Consider approval of a contract with
Padgett-Thompson for presentation of seminar
regarding the legal aspects of hiring and firing;,
seminar to be given to all City supervisory
personnel. Cost will be approximately $6,000
depending upon number of participants.
C, Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of the final replat of lot 29,
Section II, of the Solar Way Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
2 Consider approval of the preliminary and final
replat of the Krause Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Frame Street Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Jay-Mar
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Five
5. Consider approval of the preliminary replat of
the Westridge Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
6. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of
block 1 of the Woodcreek Addition. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
7. Consider aapproval of a site plan for unit 2,
block 2, of the Fallmeadow Addition (PD-8). (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
8. Consider approval of the final replat of the
Denton Retirement Center Addition. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. The Council recognized a representatives of the Young
People in Action appearing to express appreciation to the City
Council for their support.
Mr, Donald Cox, sponsor of the Young People in Action, appeared and
thanked the Council for the proclamation which had been issued to
the group and for the support which had been given to the
organization, The members had gained a lot from the proclamation
and were pleased to receive it.
4. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Curtis D. Hodgson, representing RWGP, Inc., requesting a change in
zoning from the agricultural (A) classification to the planned
development (PD) classification on a 66.5 acre tract located at the
southwest corner of Paige Road and Swisher Road. If approved, the
planned development would permit a 413 lot manufactured housing
subdivision, Z-1672
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Ms. Connie Cole, from Lakewood Estates, spoke in ~avor of the
petition stating that she believed the mobile home industry was
changing. When in-place and landscaped, manufactured housing
offered a nice alternative and she would like to see the request
approved, There was a need for affordable housing for young people
and older retired citizens.
Mr. Curtis Hogsdon, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that
Rollingwood Estates was his idea. It was a 66.5 acre tract which
would be highly restrictive. There would be 6.2 lots per acre and
deed restrictions would prohibit any mobile homes with metal
siding. The units would have to be owner occupied and tied down.
Wheels and axels would be removed. The lots would be priced at
approximately $10,000. Mr. Hogsdon then stated that he had chosen
Denton as the location because it was near to his own home and felt
there was a demand for this type development in this area.
Curbs and gutters would be included as well as any drainage
improvements where required. Mr. Hogsdon would extend the water and
sewer lines to the development. This would be a subdivision and not
a park because there would be no rentals. All rules and
restrictions would be enforced by a neighborhood association. All
units would have attached concrete foundations. The neighborhood
association would elect 3 people to serve 2 year terms on a member
board. Articles and by-laws would make it clearly the responsi-
bility of this board to enforce the rules.
The development would be a low density, residential area with city
water and sewer service. The perimeter roads would be paved and
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Six
natural gas from Lone Star Gas would be available. The only problem
with the development seemed to stem from the fact that it was
manufactured housing which had a "trailer park" stigma, Rollingwood
Estates would be a tightly controlled development inside the City
limits. Mr. Hodgson then stated that he would be happy to provide
screening and buffering between his development and the adjacent
land use; however, this did imply that the adjacent area was a
higher land use. He had spent hours in other mobile home parks in
-- the area and had seen the residents working in yards which they
rented. In the Rollingwood development, the residents would own the
property. It would offer alternative housing for the less affluent
who needed a place for their children.
Ms. Kathleen Goldstein spoke in favor stated that she and her
husband would soon be purchasing a home but believed that some
manufactured housing units were better constructed than some site
built homes. She concluded by stating that she believed there was a
real need for this type development.
Mr. Harold Stafford, resident of Denton West mobile home park, spoke
in favor stating that he had lived in a mobile home for 10 years and
that the Lakewood Estates and Twin Lakes parks were examples of what
was possible. The idea of the subdivision was that the residents
could say that this was their home and they were proud of it. ]it
would not become a slum area as stated in a recent newspaper article.
Ms. Charlotte Zimmerman, Vice-President of the Texas Manufactured
Housing Association, spoke in favor stating that manufactured
housing had come into its own. The industry was the most highly
regulated in the country. She reminded the Council that they
represented all segments of the population in the community.
_ Mr. W. P. Phillips, attorney for the applicant, spoke in favor
stating that the site was a very insulated area. Deed restrictions
which would be placed on the development included:
1. each resident would receive the deed to their lot
2. any dwelling must have 9,000 square feet of living
space
3. the total area covered by the dwelling would not
exceed 40% of the lot
4. the lot must be landscaped
5. there would be no renting
6, all dwellings would be kept in good repair
Mr. Phillips stated that these were very restrictive and would be
enforced by a neighborhood association with officers who were
elected for 2 year terms and were paid for their services.
Mr. Brian Burke, engineer for the petitioner, spoke in favor stating
that areas had been set aside for drainage and the developer was
willing to work with all guidelines.
Mr. Chuck Helton spoke in favor stating that he was in the
manufactured housing business and knew this would be a quality
development. The manufactured housing industry had been upgraded
over the last few years.
Mr, Mike Ballas, representing a manufactured housing firm, spoke in
favor stating that he felt the indication of the regulation of
manufactured housing should be expanded as it was very restrictive.
Eighteen months ago manufactured housing was financed on installment
payments. Now it was not low cost, but rather, affordable housing
through conventional financing which was amortized and not just
shadow loans.
Mr. Burr Singleton, mobile home consultant, spoke in favor stating
that he had recently developed 200 mobile home spaces in Lewisville
and had experienced approximately a 2 1/2 time faster fill rate than
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Seven
was expected. Another 200 spaces was developed at the same time and
the fill rate was 25 per month, or also 2 1/2 times faste~ than was
expected. Approximately 750 new mobile homes had been placed in
Denton County during the last year.
Mr. B. Whitney, resident of Denton West mobile home park, spoke in
favor stating that the rent for lots at the park had been increased
17% during the last year amd he did not know any other housing which
had appreciated that much. He would like to own his own land so
that these large increases in land rent would not affect him.
Mr. John Russell, resident of Chaparrel Estates, spoke in opposition
stating that letters had been mailed to the City Council regarding
the concerns residents had about this development. The Planning and
Zoning Commission had seemingly disregarded their arguments but the
issues were still there and deserved the attention of the Council.
Mr. Russell stated that he lived across the street from the proposed
development and had watched problems with drainage during heavy
rains. Mr. Burke had said that his engineering firm had looked at
the 25 year flood plain: Mr. Russell stated they should have looked
at the 100 year flood plain. The creeks should be left alone and
not concreted in. The developer was proposing to build too close to
the railroad tracks. In the future if there was rapid transit, the
railroad tracks would be the logical route. Mr. Russell further
stated that he would not address the issue of density and impact on
traffic or the schools, but problems did exist.
Mr. Russell then stated that he did not understand what type of
government would not listen to citizens who objected. The Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Planning staff did not pay attention
to the concerns and objections of the residents of Chaparrel
Estates. He believed this would be creating a future slum area and
as land would appreciate in value, the owners would let leases
expire and then sell. The Council needed to consider if another
mobile home park was needed. Representatives from the mobile home
industry in Dallas had appeared at this meeting which would indicate
that other cities were refusing these developments. Mr. Russell
then gave a list of all of the mobile home parks in the southeast
Denton area and.asked the Council to declare a moratorium on any
more manufactured housing parks in southeast Denton so as to
encourage other types of development. Mr. Russell concluded by
stating that he had spoken with members of the Chaparral Estates
neighborhood and the residents would be willing to disannex from
Shady Shores and be annexed by the City of Denton.
Ms. Judith Grimes spoke in opposition stating that she had recently
moved ~rom Lewisville primarily due to the mobile home situation
there. Her only objections were density related problems, such as
traffic, and the potential for crowded schools. Ms. Grimes also
questioned how deed restrictions could effectively be enforced and
asked if the issue of repossession had been considered. She
concluded by stating that her objections were increased traffic, the
possibility of creating a burden on the schools due to the large
influx of residents in the mobile home park,
Mr. Neil Sneider spoke in opposition stating that he lived at the
pig farm across the street and felt the density of a mobile home
park would pose a problem.
Mr. Richard Green spoke in opposition stating that he had lived in
Shady Shores for a year and felt this particular development would
remove the country atmosphere. Mr. Green further stated that the
Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association could not control the
standards established by Mr. Hogsdon and the tendency would be for
the development to degrade.
Mr. Morris Pearson of Chaparral Estates spoke in opposition stating
that the major problem he had with the development was the location
and the incompatibility with the neighborhood. There were four
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Eight
criteria for zoning changes which had been established by the
Sup£eme Court, one of which stated that zoning could not negatively
affect surrounding neighborhoods. Another concern was the traffic.
Mr. Hogsdon was proposing a 1,000 slot parking lot: did this mean
there would be 1,000 more vehicles? Mr, Pearson stated that he did
not believe this was low density. He was also concerned about a
decline in the neighborhood and property values. There already
existed traffic congestion at the Shady Shores exit from IH-35. Mr.
Pearson also felt the development would be detrimental to the
environment as trees would have to be destroyed, He stated tl%e
approval of this zoning would set a precedent for the £emaiging
vacant area and would encourage more mobile home parks. Mr. Pearson
stated that if this petition had been submitted for land across from
Township II or Southridge, it would be denied and asked the Council
for the same consideration. He believed there were long range
effects to be considered. There was, however, room for compromise
and was not naive enough to believe that this property would not be
developed. He would work with Mr. Hogsdon and the neighborhood was
willing to consider single family, duplexes or triplexes.
Council Member Hopkins asked Mr. Pearson to locate his home on the
aerial photograph provided.
Council Member Stephens asked Mr. Pearson to elaborate on the
compromise.
Mr. Pearson stated that he could only speak for himself but a buffer
of compatible single family housing on Swisher Road would be
acceptable.
Council Member Stephens asked how many rows of single family houses
was Mr. Pearson suggesting.
Mr. Pearson stated one row would be sufficient.
Ms. Joy Powell spoke in opposition stating that several residents on
Swisher and Paige Road, not just Chaparral Estates, were against the
mobile home park. She then asked the City Council to think of the
community and the citizens first and not the developer from out of
town.
Mr. Devon Kruger spoke in opposition stating that Shady Shores an.d
Chaparral Estates realized that the property would be developed but
did not want a mobile home park. The residents were not opposed to
condominiums, etc. but mobile homes had no resale value. You could
not give them away.
Ms, Della Robinson spoke in opposition stating that she had moved to
this area three weeks ago and would not have bought a home at this
location if she had been aware of the petition for the mobile home
park.
Mr, Morrie Kitchen of Hidden Valley spoke in opposition stating that
the surrounding neighborhoods supported the Chaparral Estates
position. The overall objection was density. Most residents had
moved to this particular area for the rural atmosphere and had a
vested financial interest in their homes.
Ms, Lynn Snyder appeared in opposition and asked those people in the
audience in opposition to stand.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Hogsdon time for rebuttal.
Mr, Hogsdon stated that the statement that mobile homes would
decrease the property value was not true and asked if anyone had
seen a decrease in value of property between Denton and Lewisville.
This development would increase the value. On the issue of over-
crowding of schools, the pressure was always on the schools and if
the property were developed at all, it would add students. The
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Nine
potential traffic problem always came up. If a problem did develop,
he would widen Shady Shores Road. Addressing the concern over the
integrity of the development, Mr. Hogsdon stated that he was basing
his reputation on this development and felt that the control by the
neighborhood association was the best that could be done.
Maintaining a country life style was a dilemma but he would retain
every tree that he could. On the issue of density, Mr. Hogsdon
stated that Lakewood Estates had not experienced any problems.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that one question had been that,
if developed as a mobile home park, the land would be worth $80,000
per acre and asked why Mr. Hogsdon did not develop single family
housing.
Mr. Hogsdon responded that he was a businessman. No one had been
able to make a profit and follow the City of Denton Subdivision
Rules and Regulations.
Council Member Hopkins asked if Mr. Hogsdon was familiar with the
amount of development and construction in this particular area
during the last year.
Mr. Hogsdon replied that he could count on one hand the number of
houses which had been constructed near his property in the last
year. He did not feel he could develop single family housing on the
property and make a profit.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 15 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned in favor and 10 returned in
opposition, This was outside the criteria area for the Denton
Development Guide and was a mobile home subdivision with lots which
would be owner occupied. The development would fall under the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations with lot sizes to be a minimum of
5,000 square feet and a density of 6 to 7 per acre. Mobile homes
were considered a form of diversified housing. The staff's primary
concern was the overwhelming majority of mobile homes being
concentrated in this quadrant of the city. The Planning and Zoning
Commission had recommended approval of the petition by a vote of 4
to 3 with 3 conditions.
Mayor Stewart asked if steps were being taken to alleviate flooding.
Spivey replied that all drainage and run-off problems created by the
development would be handled during the platting process.
Mayor Stewart asked if it was true that there was a proliferation of
mobile homes in this area.
Spivey responded yes.
Council Member Stephens stated that it had been suggested that a
compromise might be reached between the petitioner and the
neighborhood if some type of buffering was included in the plan. In
the past, some adjustments to the original petition had been made
from the floor and asked the City Attorney if the Council could vote
on an ordinance with the understanding that these adjustments would
be included.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris stated that the zoning ordinance
provided a method for the creation of a planned development
ordinance. The zoning ordinance requires that any planned
development ordinance shall have a site plan which is approved with
the ordinance. The same procedures in creating a planned
development district were followed in any other zoning change. On
the question of changing the conditions in the planned development
ordinance, the Council could change the conditions as recommended by
the P&Z as long as they are not substantial. This should be done on
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Ten
a case by case basis. The purpose of giving notice of public
hearings was to allow citizens to voice support or opposition to tke
petition before P&Z and the Council. If the Council made a
substantial change after the P&Z has made its recommendation, t~ke
citizens who have attended the P&Z public hearing may not know of
that change and may not have an opportunity to voice their
opposition to the Council. If the land use was not being changed,
minor changes such as' fencing, etc., could be made by the Council
from the floor without the petition being referred back through the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member Stephens asked if the buffer zone of single family
housing could be added.
Morris responded that a change in the type of housing was a
substantial change.
Mayor Stewart asked if 6 affirmative votes were required to approve
the ordinance.
Spivey responded no; the property contained in the zoning change
itself and the property within 200 feet did not constitute 20% and
did not require 6 votes.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 66.5128 ACRES OF [,AND
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PAIGE ROAD AND SWISHER
ROAD, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: TO PROVIDE
FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A"
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT "PD" CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION: AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Stephens stated that he believed if the ordinance
were approved it should provide for the buffer zone from the
adjoining property. He would prefer to send the petition back
through the Planning and Zoning Commission and allow the buffer
aspect to be worked out.
Mayor Stewart stated that he had difficulty with allowing 5,000
square feet lots in the city: the Council had refused zoning
petitions with 6,000 square feet lots.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he believed he was correct in
that the developer under a planned development zoning could agree
himself to offer a buffer of single family housing.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he did not thi~k the
Council had been very successful in dealing with developers in the
past who had made informal commitments. It would be very foolish to
grant the zoning when the property could then be sold. There are
too many "ifs and buts".
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated the Council could approve the concept and
pass the revised ordinance at a later time.
Council Member Stephens asked the City Attorney if it would be in
order to table the ordinance or to refer the petition back to the
P&Z.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he thought there would be a
problem even with the buffer. Would someone build a home on Swisher
with a mobile home park in their backyard.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Eleven
Council Member McAdams stated that the present petition would have
homes across the street while the buffer row of single family homes
would be immediately adjacent to the park. To make the buffer would
create a problem.
Council Member Stephens stated that there were natural boundaries on
Swisher and Paige Road.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew withdrew the motion. Council Member McAdams
withdrew the second.
Acting City Attorney Morris stated that, in fairness to the
developer, specifics should be spelled out for a compromise.
Council Member Stephens stated that the topography of the property
offered natural buffer zones.
Chew motion to table and refer back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission with specific instructions on establishing buffer zones.
Council Membe~ Hopkins asked if Mayor Pro Tem Chew meant the P&Z
should determine if a buffer zone was possible, This would not be
appropriate if a natural buffer did not exist.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to reject.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that Mr. Hogsdon had stated that
he would withdraw his petition. This motion would allow him to
proceed in that direction.
On roll call vote, McAdams "nay," Hopkins "nay," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion to reject passed 4 to 3 with Council Members McAdams,
Hopkins and Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting the nay votes.
Council Members Riddlesperger and Stephens out.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Jo Storer requesting an amendment to planned development (PD-6) on a
58.2 acre tract located on the south side of Colorado Boulevard
approximately 1,500 feet northwest of Loop 288. If approved, the PD
amendment would permit the following land uses: Z-1674
Single family detached - 22 lots on 3.8 acres (typical lot
size 120' x 45')
Single family detached - 106 lots on 34.1 acres (typical
lot size 120' x 80')
Cluster housing - 215 units on 18 acres (12 units per acre)
Two family - 16 units on 2.3 acres
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Edwards, of Fields, Edwards and Associates, spoke in favor
of the petition stating that his firm had completed a land plan for
the area and had met with the neighbors regarding the proposed
development and had gone through the plan with them.
Council Members Stephens and Riddlesperger ~oined the meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew ~oined the meeting.
Mr. Edwards stated that his firm felt the current land plan was not
extremely good and this amendment would address several concerns
which the neighborhood had. When the Golden Triangle Mall was
opened, one of the ma~or complaints of the Township II and Hopkins
Hill residents was the traffic passing through their addition to
access the mall. The proposed plan would address this issue much
better. Another concern of the homeowners was the amount of single
family buffer areas adjacent to them. The amended plan would include
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twelve
fairly large areas of comparable lot s~ze single family residential
housing. The greenbelt area had been increased. The neighborhood
association would allow some higher density uses adjacent to the
mall, adjacent to the apartments across Colorado Boulevard and
adjacent to the light industrial zoning to the north of the tract.
The overall density had been slightly increased but was placed in a
more appropriate area and was buffered from the existing neighbor-
hood. The Homeowners Association had been very frank regarding
their concerns.
Mr. Herb Shockey, representing the Township II/Hopkins Hills
Homeowners Association, spoke in favor of the petition stating the
association was giving cautious approval. There was not unanimity
in the neighborhood. Some residents were against the petition,
primarily due to the significant increase in density and the impact
this would have on the neighborhood. One of the problems with tile
density increase was the loss of trees which presently provided
screening from adjoining land uses. Other opposition stemmed from
the fact that a rezoning was just granted in 1981 and there was the
opinion among residents that that rezoning'should stand. Those in
favor concurred that the amendment would provide a significant
improvement in traffic in the neighborhood and would at last put an
end to the illegal use of Piney Creek Boulevard. In agreeing, the
homeowners had asked that 6 items be included in the ordinance:
1. the location of the Hickory Creek behind Phase I be
left to provide trees for screening
2. at least 25% of the single family lots be developed
within 2 years
3. simultaneous development of both single family and
higher density usage
4. that San Gabriel Drive is not turned into a
_ thoroughfare through Township II connecting to Piney
Creek
5. landscaping be accomplished on the green belt area
6. deed restrictions required to make development
compatible with existing neighborhood
The Neighborhood Association found the plan acceptable: the only
concern was the density, but the residents were willing to accept
this to get the improvement in the traffic situation. The primary
concern was that this be the last rezoning.
Council Member Stephens congratulated Mr. Shockey and the other
members of the association for working out the problems.
Mr. Tom Moser, with Henry S, Miller Company representing the ~oint
venture which owns the shopping center site at northeast corner of
IH-35 and San Jacinto, spoke in opposition stating that the City
Council had voted to abandon Piney Creek Boulevard. His company was
told that Piney Creek would be quit claimed back to Henry S.
Miller. His company had been trying for several years to get a
reputable soft line department store for this site and had relied
upon the fact that Piney Creek would be quit claimed back to them.
His organization had chosen not to involve their attorneys as they
did want to work with the City of Denton. The city had been very
cooperative in working with Henry S. Miller on the site plan for
Mervyns department store. Six months ago, his organization proposed
the Piney Creek abandonment to the P&Z. At that time Henry S.
Miller, the staff and the homeowners group all spoke in favor of the
request. At the hearing, Ms. Storer requested that Piney Creek be
considered with her zoning request. On,that basis, the P&Z tabled
the abandonment request so that Piney Creek could be considered in
conjunction with Ms. Storer's zoning request. · Henry S. Miller had
proceeded on that basis. The proposed Miller development would
include $10 million worth of improvements and generate approximately
$15 million in annual sales. This should mean something to the City
of Denton. Mervyns has committed to having the Denton store open in
September of 1985. The zoning case before~the Council had been to
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Thirteen
Planning and Zoning and there had been no mention of Piney Creek
Boulevard. Mr, Moser stated that his firm was very close to actual
development and he did not know which way to go with his plans as
they related to Piney Creek. He had been told that if info~mation
could be generated for P&Z and Council to make a decision,
irregardless of what happened to the planned development behind
their property, it would be beneficial. A consulting firm had
prepared numerous traffic studies of Piney Creek Boulevard. Henry
S. Miller would prefer that Piney Creek be abandoned back to them.
The original idea was to close off access through the planned
development being proposed before the Council. It was not their
~ntent to block access into the residential development. His
organization was not proposing that there not be access from San
Jacinto by way of Piney Creek into the residential development.
What they proposed was abandonment and they would work with the
developer behind them to dedicate a private easement from Piney
Creek to Ms. Storer's property, The primary access p0int was off of
Colorado Boulevard and the secondary would be from San Jacinto.
When the issue of a 100 feet right-of-way was conceived, a total
development was behind their area. With the green belt now
splitting across San Gabriel, there was now only 3/4 to 1/2 of'what
was originally conceived. A 30 to 31 feet road would be more than
adequate for any type of multi-family development of the highest
density. The first preference would be for abandonment and Miller
Company would agree to dedicate a private drive for ~oint access
through the Storer development. At the Planning and Zoning
Commission, Ms. Storer had stated that she wanted to keep a 100 foot
boulevard through the area because she felt it would be a good
gateway to her development, Mr. Moser stated that he would like to
see the standards applied equally to his property and Ms. Storer's
development. Henry S. Mille~ was not in the business of dedicating
land to make adjacent property owners developments more attractive.
They would dedicate land when it was required for traffic access to -
benefit the public. Piney Creek was not being considered with this
petition. If the zoning was approved, Henry S. Miller would like to
have a condition attached which would insure that the standards for
Piney Creek were consistent.
Mr. Mark Goode, representing Shazo, Ster~ick and Tun, spoke in
opposition stating that his firm had conducted a number of
transportation studies in this area, Henry S. Miller Company had
asked his firm to look particularly at Piney Creek Boulevard which
was still on the books as a 100 foot right-of-way, four lane divided
boulevard connecting San Jacinto to the cluster home portion of the
planned development request before the Council. A planned develop-
ment should show things like access, and access to the cluster home
area of the proposed development was not defined. He could only
assume that in addition to access on Colorado Ms. Storer was
counting on maintaining some type of access to P~ney Creek
Boulevard. His firm had studied this and a four lane divided
boulevard could handle approximately 24,000 cars per day. The small
portion of cluster homes would only generate several hundred car
trips per day. Henry $, Miller Company would like, as a part of
this planned development if approved, for the Council to reaffirm
that 100 feet of right-of-way and a four lane divided boulevard Ss
not appropriate at this location. They would like either a reduced
right-of-way on Piney Creek Boulevard, which would permit a two lane
roadway which would be more than adequate to handle the needs of
Henry $. Miller Company and the cluster homes: or preferable, a 30
or 31 foot wide access easement which would preserve the access to
the cluster homes but allow Miller to develop their property as had
been committed several years ago by a previous Council. The Henry
S. Miller Company would like for this Council to reaffirm as part of
the planned development approval that Piney Creek was not
appropriate as a 100 foot right-of-way and to make a decision one
way or the other so that they could proceed with their plans.
The Mayor allowed Ms. Storer time for rebuttal.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Fourteen
Ms. Storer stated that she felt the 30 foot easement would not be a
street but an alley and did not feel that an alley into the
subdivision would be appropriate. On a 30 foot easement, Henry S.
Miller,could build right up to it, where as on a 100 foot easement
construction would have to be set back 25 feet. She saw no
difference in leaving some green space between the commercial
development and felt it would add to the overall Miller
development. Her development would have an entry from Colorado to
cluster housing and would save all of the trees and a 100 foot
street would be ridiculous.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the back-up material read th.at
"Henry S. Miller Company requested that Piney Creek Boulevard remain
closed: however, they had offered to grant to Ms. Storer a 30 foot
private access easement through the street. Both Ms. Storer and the
Township II/Hopkins Hills Homeowners Association feel that the 30
foot access easement would be an acceptable solution to the problem."
Ms. Storer responded no; that was a misprint and she did not feel
the 30 foot easement would be satisfactory.
Council Member Hopkins asked how wide was Piney Creek.
Ms. Storer responded she believed it was 30 feet; half of it.
Council Member McAdams asked where Piney Creek could go.
Ms. Storer responded that it would go into the subdivision and from
the subdivision into the shopping center.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 58 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 3 in opposition.
This planned development was within a low intensity designation
area. As a general policy, the low intensity areas represented the
primary housing areas with an emphasis on low density residential
development. Diversified housing was strongly encouraged in all
areas of the city. The proposed amendment to the planned
development was not objectionable from a technical point of view.
The average proposed density was approximately 6.1 units per acre,
which was within a moderate density/intensity level. The mixture of
the residential uses appeared to be well balanced and the cluster
and single family detached typical lot size was proposed as a buffer
between abutting commercial and light industrial zoning. Duplex and
the cluster land use along Colorado Boulevard was practical and more
restrictive than the commercial, retail and multi-family uses which
were typically proposed along such ma~or thoroughfares. The changes
in street patterns and the related containment approach to traffic
was considered to be an improvement to the existing plan. ]in
addition to improved buffering in the transition, a substantial
green belt would separate existing Township II from Phase III of the
proposed development. The lot sizes for proposed single family
detached portion was comparable to existing development in the
area. The typical lot size for the single family detached, 45 x
120, compared favorably with similar garden or patio home
development approved in other areas of the city. The proposed
duplex lot sizes exceeded normal zoning ordinance standards
considerably. Staff had strongly encouraged the petitioner and the
neighbors to work together. This area had seen many plans submitted
and rejected or many plans that could not be worked out. This
proposal seemed to have a consensus between residents and the
petitioner. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended the
approval with 9 conditions. Condition 5 stated that Piney Creek
Boulevard shall be reopened for public use.
Council Member Alford asked what had been promised to Henry S.
Miller by the Council in 1981.
Mayor Stewart stated that Piney Creek had been closed upon a
petition submitted by the Township II/Hopkins Hills residents.
Henry S. Miller was now asking that Piney Creek be abandoned.
33 ,
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Fifteen
Council Member Hopkins asked if Piney Creek would be a street with
curbing and guttering and normal set-backs.
Mr. Moser responded that Piney Creek would not be an alley but
rather lust like the streets Ms. Storer was putting through her
residential development.
Council Member McAdams asked if the objection was only to the 100
feet.
Moser replied yes: Henry S. Miller would put in as good a street as
Ms. Storer.
Council Member McAdams asked if the P&Z had discussed the width of
Piney Creek in adding the condition that it be reopened for public
use.
Spivey responded that the intent for Piney Creek to be used as a
public street but no specific width was mentioned. The present
width was 30 to 31 feet: the present right-of-way width on the map
was 100 feet.
Council Member Stephens congratulated Ms. Storer for working with
the neighbors and for her plan.
Council Member McAdams asked if the other half of the street should
be the same width. It hardly made sense for a street through a
residential area to be 30 feet on one end and 100 feet at the other.
Council Member Stephens said to leave the boulevard as it exists.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the general scheme
with 30 feet right-of-way.
Stephens motion to approve with the recommendation of the Planning
and zoning Commission. Died for lack of a second.
Council Member Hopkins called the questions.
Council Member Stephens asked for clarification.
Mayor Stewart responded that the motion on the floor would mean that
Piney Creek would remain essentially as it was.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked the City Attorney if this proviso would be
a substantial change.
Acting City Attorney Morris responded no.
Council Member Stephens asked the engineer for the pro~ect how this
would impact the area if the Council did not follow the P&Z
recommendation on Piney Creek .
Mr. Greg Edwards reported that his firm was representing both Ms.
Storer and the Henry S. Miller Company. This would constitute a
conflict of interest to answer any questions.
Motion to accept passed unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Jo Storer requesting a change in zoning from the single family
(SF-10 and SF-16) zoning classifications to the planned development
(PD) classification on a 83.2 acre tract located on the east and
west sides of Lillian Miller Parkway (Ridgeway Drive) beginning
approximately 1,000 feet south of Interstate Highway 35E. If
approved, the planned development would permit the following land
uses:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Sixteen
38.2 acres of single family (SF-IO) detached land use
(105 lots with a density of 2.7 units per acre)
18.0 acres of single family (SF-16) detached land use
(32 lots with a density of 1.8 units per acre)
17.6 acres of single family detached land use
(106 units with a density of 6 units per acre)
9.4 acres of single family attached land use
(40 units with a density of 4.3 units per acre)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Ms. Jo Storer, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that she would
like to explain the kind of zoning that had been arranged for this
property, There would be $F-16 at the top (referring to the
overhead projection of the plan) with a cul-de-sac street through
it. This portion would be called The Ridge of Southridge. There
were 25 lots in excess of 16,000 square feet. Across the top there
would be another section that will back up to the existing 16,000
square lot lots in the existing Southridge area. Below that, there
would be some SF-IO. Along Ridgeway was planned two single family
separate individual houses to be on individual lots but attached
with garages and gates and fences, etc, The houses would not be
attached. Across the way would be the portion called Southridge
Place, which would be a very high security area with single family
houses on separate lots and a lot a green space around it. Included
would be jogging trails, possibly tennis court, swimming pool. A
masonary wall would be constructed around the outside. Ms. Storer
then presented photographs of projects in Fort Worth and Dallas with
similar architecture. This would leave many trees and landscaping
in front of the houses. There would be cul-de sacs and a prviate,
20 foot street in front of the houses.
Charles Watkins, with Fields, Edwards and Associates, spoke in favor
of the petition stating that he was representing Ms. Storer in
connection with this case. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval, it had come to their attention that there wats
some confusion or some misunderstanding with respect to this
particular case. His firm had made application to the City for
zoning on the entire 83 acre tract as a planned development because
it was one unified development being developed by one developer.
The area being shown on the overhead projection as SF-iO and then
the band of SF-16 was currently zoned SF-IO. The area to the upper
right that was shown as SF-16 was currently zoned $F-16. Because
typically the staff liked a planned development type of zoning
classification because it is all one unified development, his firm
had asked for planned development zoning on the entire tract. The
purpose for the band of SF-16 zoning to the north was existing SF-16
housing and the developer agreed to put in SF-16 zoning as a buffer
for the existing SF-16 to the north. The SF-IO area predominantly
would be developed as zoned. When the request for zoning was made
it had been the intent to zone this area SF-16 and SF-IO in
accordance with all the City of Denton zoning regulations. In order
to clear up any misunderstanding, the developer would request to add
a condition to this planned development that all areas designated
for single family $F-16 and single family SF-IO would be developed
in accordance with all requirements of the Zoning ordinance. The
petitioner also was. requesting that the 9.4 acres be labeled single
family attached. The developer had in mind that the houses, the
living units at a density level of only 4.3 units per acre, would be
built such that they would be detached but the garages or fencing
areas would be attached. Mr. Watkins stated that he felt this was
consistent with some of the photographs presented earlier. To clear
any misunderstanding with respect to this particular area, the
petitioner requested that the Council add a condition that all
dwellings in the single family attached area would be detached
except for accessory uses such as garages, storage space and
fences. Mr, Watkins then stated that he believed the staff was of
the opinion that the area designated single family detached, on
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Seventeen
the right side of Ridgeway Drive, exceeded the intensity standard
for that area. He then presented a bar graph of an analysis which
he had completed with respect to the intensity on the right hand
side of Ridgeway Drive, an area consisting of 326 acres. The graph
included the Dimension Development Company proposal and some area to
the south and to the north. The graph showed the intensity standard
for the 326 acre area. The graph also displayed the intensity of
the Dimension Development Company proposal, which was in excess of
15,000 trips per day as well as the intensity of all existing zoning
in this particular intensity area. Also depicted was the intensity
reserved for this area and the intensity of this request, which was
1,060 trips per day. If the zoning was approved, the entire
intensity for the area would slightly exceed the intensity
standard. The 326 acre intensity area was approximately one-half
the size of a normal intensity area as the prototype was a square
mile, 640 acres. If the Council chose to expound the boundaries of
the intensity area, this development would fall within the
standards. Mr. Watkins concluded by stating that he felt this
particular land plan was an excellent one for this area. It was an
entirely single family development and would be an asset. It would
resolve future zoning issues. There were 38.2 acres of SF-10 lots
proposed and 18 acres of SF-16 lots proposed. This would be an
asset to this area and to Southridge.
Dr. Roland Vela spoke in favor of the petition stating that he was
cautiously in favor of this zoning change for this planned
development. He had been a homeowner since 1953 and had seen, one
neighborhood after another despoiled in that time. He was in favor
of this development because he thought it would help to keep the
neighborhood as it was. He was cautious about the eventuality of
what might happen in 3 years. He further stated that Mr. Watkins
was worried that it would be difficult to sell SF-16 lots but he was
worried that next year another proposal would be requested to change
the SF-16 to a SF-6 or commercial. The residents of Southridge were
very fortunate and he had respect for Mr. Watkins inviting the City
Council to put a condition on this proposal. Vela asked that the
Council write into the proposal that these would be single family
houses and not anything else and further urged the Council to set
the zoning and not change it again. The residents had seen changes
over and over again and in most cases, cases in zoning were
detrimental to a neighborhood. This case would augment the nature
of the neighborhood and Mr. Vela stated that he would like to see
the Council approve it with the second condition that there would be
no more changes. The neighbors wanted the development of the land
to be in character with what was in place. They would hate to see
another motorcycle shop or a shopping center that would destroy the
nature of the homes. Dr. Vela then asked about the 9.4 acres with
four units wanting to know if the four units were single dwellings
or would be going up 8 stories.
Mayor Stewart asked Dr. Vela not to ask questions and guaranteed
that the Council would ask that question during the staff
presentation.
Vela responded that he would give hearty approval to the proposal if
the four units were four single family dwellings: not four duplexes,
or four quadruplexes, or four condominiums per acre. The same was
true of the portion of the petition requesting six units per acre.
He hoped that this was not simply a scheme by which to introduce
high density housing a little bit at a time and next year the SF-16
would go into higher density units because some were already in
place due to this petition. He again urged the Council to place
another condition on the petition stating that this would be the
last zoning change.
Mayor Stewart stated that this Council could not bind future
Councils. It would be illegal to say that no other Council could
look at the zoning in this area.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Eighteen
Mr. Vela urged the Council to protect the neighborhoods in Denton.
Mr. W. P, Phillips, attorney for the petitioner, spoke in favor and
responded to Dr. Vela's question stating that the four units per
acre were single family units. He further stated that he was
representing Jo Storer and that he had confidence in her plan and
what she planned to do. He was particularly interested in seeing
the completion of Southridge Drive to Lillian Miller Parkway which
would provide another outlet from Southridge. He knew of no one who
opposed the plan because it was single family dwellings and SF-16
and SF-10 in conjunction with the other projects as outlined.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the development plan would
entail the developer building the other half of Lillian Miller
Parkway.
Phillips responded that he had not heard anybody talk about widening
that particular parkway at this time.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 75 reply
forms had been mailed to property owners within 200 feet with 5
returned in favor and 15 in opposition. The 83.2 acre tract was
located in a low intensity area as designated by the Denton
Development Guide. These low intensity areas represented the city's
primary housing areas and should emphasize residential use. All of
the land uses included in this proposal were for single family
uses. Mr. Watkins's presentation addressed the intensity issue: the
staff's position before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the
intensity issue was that the intensity analysis prepared for the
Dimension Development zoning case indicated that the zoning approved
on that tract utilized all of the available intensity on the east
side of Ridgeway Drive, The staff report to the P&Z had indicated
that and suggested that the intensity standard for that area east of
Ridgeway, or Lillian Miller Parkway, was filled to capacity by the
Dimension Development proposal and that additional high intensity
and higher density land uses should not be recommended for
approval. The minimum reserved development rights would permit low
density SF-10 type of residential land use if the intensity was
strictly enforced on the east side of Lillian Miller Parkway. Th].s
was the staff's position. It was true that with the addition of
this development, the intensity standard was slightly exceeded. The
Planning Commission felt that the difference over the standard was
not enough to make a significant impact in this case and recommend
approval of this request by a vote of 4 to 2. Another issue that
staff was concerned about was that the Dimension Development request
was approved by altering a boundary line of the intensity study
developed by the staff. The staff had prepared an intensity study
showing one line and the Dimension Development Company had done a
separate intensity study which was indicated as Intensity Study 40A
in the back-up materials. They had adjusted the line so that their
development would fit the numbers. This second boundary line had
never been formally adopted. Staff asked that either this line
should be adopted or the original line adopted as the intensity
study.
Mayor Stewart asked Spivey to answer Council Member Riddlesperger's
question on Ridgeway Drive.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that his question had to do with
the development of Ridgeway Drive which was supposed to be a four
lane road. Was the developer supposed to develop the other two
lanes?
Spivey responded that, as she understood it, the two lanes that were
currently in or currently being finished were on the side next to
the single family attached section. The developer would not be
required to put that in as it was already there.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Nineteen
Council Member Riddlespergec stated that he was referring to the
other two lanes.
Spivey responded that the city's platting regulations normally held
developers responsible for perimeter street paving, that is areas
that are along the frontage of the property. The single family
detached section on the other side of this petition would fall under
the normal platting regulations
Mayor Stewart stated that it was his understanding that when the
City paved Ridgeway, as the developers came through and developed,
they would pay their portion of the street and asked if this was
being ignored.
City Manager Hartung responded no: there was a street assessment for
the whole length of Lillian Miller Parkway and as those properties
changed hands or were being developed, that paving assessment was
being retired. In effect, the developer paid for the two lanes that
were in now. The City didn't put that in.
Council Member Hopkins asked if what was going to occur was that the
state would be paying for the other two lanes?
Hartung responded that the plan was to approach the state to have
this included on the state system as an addition to the farm to
market system as ask them to add the two lanes.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the total right-of-way had been
dedicated.
Hartung responded that it was already there.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if it was 80 or 90 feet?
Hartung responded that it was not 100 feet.
Council Member Alford asked, in the event that the state did not do
this, what would the circumstances be then.
Hartung responded it would then be like any other street and would
be the city's responsibility.
Council Member Alford asked if this was any different from Mr.
Bancroft's petition when the Council required him to pave.
Council Member McAdams responded that this was slightly different in
that the Council had asked Mr. Bancroft to pave both sides of the
street even though his property was on just one side.
Council Member Riddlesperger added that Mr. Bancroft had been
required to pave in front of a lot that wasn't his.
Council Member McAdams then stated that Mr, Bancroft's paving was an
entrance to commercial zoning.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the Council should go ahead and have
the developer pave now and reimburse the cost?
Council Member Alford responded no: the point was if the Council
required one petition to pave, what was the difference with another.
Mayor Stewart stated that City required the paving for the minimum
street width. The minimum width on Ridgeway was already in and as
developers constructed, they paid. This portion had been paid for.
If the state approved Ridgeway as a farm to market road instead of
Teasley, then the City would request that state continue the road
and the state would pay for the paving.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty
Council Member Stephens stated that at the June 5th meeting the
Council had asked staff to look into a new ordinance that would
reimburse Mr. Bancroft, or other developers in similar situations,
when the area they improved developed. The idea was not to penalize
Mr. Bancroft but to get reimbursement from the property adjacent 'to
that development and this was exactly the same situation.
Council Member Stephens stated that he appreciated the concerns that
had been mentioned by some of the citizens at the public hearing.
In conversations with the developer, her representative and the City
Attorney, an agreement had been reached that the petition for PD
would certainly apply to those areas where a change was to occu~[.
Dr. Stephens then stated that he did not see any reason to change
the SF-16 to PD or SF-IO to PD if it was going to remain as SF-16 or
SF-IO. He further stated that he had very strong reservations that
he had shared with the developer regarding the single family
attached portion. In all areas of town there were single family
units attached by fences which would tend to make that the standard
detached. He would like to see the single family attached portion
be changed to single family detached but did not feel that would
constitute a substantial change which would require the petition
being referred back to the P&Z.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve Z-1682 with the conditions
attached that the only planned development portion would be lust as
a land use change occurred and that the Council change the west side
of Lillian Miller Parkway to single family detached. It would still
be zero lot line, for example in a clustered arrangement but tile
neighborhood would be better protected by having the single family
detached read so on the plan.
Mayor Stewart asked Council Member Stephens if he was involved in
any negotiations on this petition.
Council Member Stephens responded that he did not negotiate. He d~d
visit with the petitioner and with some of the neighbors. The
petitioner wanted to show the plan to the residents. He had visited
with this petitioner as he had with most of the petitioners that had
come before the Council.
Mayor Stewart asked Council Member Stephens if he had called a
meeting on this petition.
Council Member Stephens responded that the petition has stated that
she would like to speak to the residents and wanted him, as the
elected representative for that district, to share with them her
concern. The number had grown beyond what would fit into a living
room. He had introduced her to the group. He had asked the group
to come for her address and had merely convened the meeting. He had
stepped out at that point. No agreement, arrangement or any thing
else was reached. This had been a general discussion.
Mayor Stewart asked if any of the City staff was at the meeting.
Council Member Stephens stated that he did not recall any of the
City staff being present.
Mayor Stewart responded that it was his understanding that one or
two were.
Council Member Stephens then stated that Ms. Jarmon had left some
density/intensity figures on the desk in the management area, but he
did not recall any staff being present.
City Manager Hartung asked Mr. Watkins if the field notes reflected
the entire area or if new field notes would be required if the
motion was passed.
Watkins said the field notes reflected the entire area.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty One
Hartung stated that he would like to have clarification. The motion
was to direct the Attorney to modify the ordinance with Council
Member Stephens revisions and bring back another ordinance.
Council Member Stephens stated that he did not know of any
disagreement with the revisions. The only items under the planned
development zoning would be lust where the land use changed and the
attached on the west side of Ridgeway would be detached.
Hartung restated that the ordinance would have to be revised and
placed on the next agenda for Council approval.
City Attorney Morris stated that the Council could approve the
petition with the new conditions and bring it back and approve the
ordinance.
Council Member McAdams stated that she observed that this particular
request gave some credence to the one which the Council had looked
at earlier. This one provided for 6 units per acre which had been
discussed earlier as being so objectionable in an area of large
homes. This would suggest that perhaps it is not difficult with
large lots for somebody other than Mr. Hodgson to develop. Six
units for acre was acceptable and failed.
Motion carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Hopkins and Mayor Stewart
casting the nay votes.
D, The Council held a public hearing regarding the use of
Federal Revenue funds for the fiscal year 1984-85.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
E, The Council held a public hearing on the fiscal year
1984-85 budget.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, reported that it was a charter
requirement to hold a public hearing on the proposed budget.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Taylor, First Vice-President of the Denton Firefighters
Association, spoke in opposition stating that the firefighters did
not feel that the proposed 7% raise was enough, The Council had
recently approved an ordinance which in effect had cut the
firefighters salaries by 3%. A 7% salary would, in effect, be a 4%
raise. The same ordinance had cut the vacation/bonus pay in half.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that Mr. Taylor was saying that
the Council had cut the pay and this was only a proposed budget.
The Council had not taken any formal action on the budget.
Mr. Taylor responded that the ordinance which had been approved
regarding policies on holiday pay had cut the Firefighters pay by
approximately, 3%, This would affect the proposed budget 7% pay
raise. In the past the management, staff and Council had been
opposed to giving the Firefighters additional pay because the turn-
over rate had not been great enough. In 1979 the Fire Department
did not lose anyone: in 1980 they had lost 1 Firefighter: in 1981
they lost 3: in 1982 they lost 1: in 1983 they lost 7: in 1984 they
had lost 2 already and would probably lose another 2. Mr. Taylor
then asked what percentage of turn-over would the Fire Department
have to have to get the same consideration as the Police
Department. Four paramedics had left in 1983-84, which was a loss
of a substantial investment by the City to train these employees.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty Two
The Firefighters had eliminated the possibility of receiving parity
pay with the Police. Council Members had spoken of comparative pay
stating that the Denton Firefighters should be paid approximately
the same as other area Fire Departments. A report had been taken
from the Texas State Association o~ Firefighers state-wide survey of
salaries done in May of 1984. Out of the twelve cities on the
survey, Denton was the last in pay. The average pay of the twelw~
cities in the metroplex cities was $1615 while Denton's starting pay
was $1407 per month. Seven percent would not raise the salarles
even to the average of this pay and was no where near competitive..
It would take between a 15% and 25% pay increase to get Denton to an
average salary, throughout the ranks. The Firefighters realized
that this would be a burden to the taxpayers but felt to become
salary competitive, this would be a starting point. Statements had
been made to the press by the staff that the C1ty was not going to
try to be competitive. The city was growing and each year that
salaries were not competitive, the Fire Department lost that much
more. The city limits were expanding and the Fire Department had to
grow and be competitive or there would be a loss of quality
personnel. The Firefighters felt that the proposed 7% increase was
not enough for the type job being done. The recent citizens survey
showed a response from Dentonites that the Fire Department was the
best department in the city. Mr. Taylor then asked if the
Firefighters were being penalized because they did a good ~ob and
did not quit.
Council Member McAdams stated that she wanted to clarify the
newspaper article which had read that Denton was not trying to meet
the area salaries. That statement had been made regarding salaries
for personnel for the City of Denton and not regarding the Fire
Department. The article was in response to Council's discussion of
the total budget and total salaries for all city employees. It was
no reflection at all on the Fire Department. It had been pointed
out to the Council that salaries for virtually every city employee
was under the area, ranging from 11% to 26%. McAdams stated that
she wanted to make it clear that staff did not say to Council that
they were not going to try to improve salaries. Staff was only
recommending salaries in an attempt to improve the situation.
Council Member Stephens asked Mr. Taylor about the current staffing
in the Fire Department.
Mr. Taylor responded that the City of Dallas recently completed a
study which found it to be cost effective to staff a m~nimum of 4
Firefighters on a truck 24 hours per day. In order to accomplish
this, 5 to 6 Firefighters would have to be assigned to each truck to
cover for vacation and holidays. There were times in the Denton
Fire Department when they could not maintain 3 Firefighters on a
truck.
Mayor Stewart asked about the possibility of the Firefighters
working an 8 hour day.
Taylor responded that he believed this would require the hiring of a
complete shift of approximately 28 people.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
5. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from planned development (PD-19) and
single family (SF-10) to a revised planned development
classification on 161.7 acres beginning at the intersection of
Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller Parkway (Ridgeway Drive). Z-1660
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that staff had nothing to
add.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty Three
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-109
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT ORDINANCE AND ENACTING A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED:
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AS
SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1 TO PROVIDE FOR
A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATED FROM
SINGLE FAMILY "SF-IO" TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE AS SAID PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP APPLIES TO 161.7 ACRES OF [,AND
LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN
MILLER PARKWAY AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN:
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Council Member Stephens stated that PD-19 was established in 1974
and this particular request had been discussed at the June 19, 1984
Council meeting. He then asked the City Attorney about procedures
to limit the apartment units to the amount that the Planning and
Zoning Commission had recommended, which was 250, instead of the 390
units in this ordinance. Stephens felt this would set the balance
for the total program.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris suggested that the Council could
follow the same procedure as in the previous planned development
ordinance, A motion could be made to amend the ordinance as
presented and, if approved, the ordinance would be revised and
brought back to the Council for final approval.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the original plan as
submitted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The company
planning to develop was not involved with the original PD-19. The
idea was to keep what P&Z had recommended: the only change would be
to reduce the density from 390 to 250.
Council Member McAdams stated that zoning went with the property and
not the person. The property was properly zoned and allowed for 390
multi-family units. The buyer who purchased the property had every
right to believe that the zoning went with the property. The only
reason the petition had to come back before P&Z or Council at all
was because the City had realigned Ridgeway Drive.
Council Member Stephens responded that the Planning and Zoning
Commission had spent considerable time trying to work out a balance
of various housing types.
Council Member McAdams stated that she believed that a granted
zoning request should not be changed unless there was a dire need:
this would set a poor precedent.
Council Member Stephens stated that the P&Z had reviewed the plans
under 1984 conditions on what would go where and had looked long and
hard at the present situation.
Council Member Hopkins stated that in a previous zoning ~equest
before the Council at this meeting, the intensity did not matter and
now intensity was a big problem. He asked what was the difference.
The intensity was important and it was a 1984 problem but he did not
feel the Council should take away something from a developer who had
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in good faith.
Motion to approve with 250 multi-family units per acre failed 5 to 2
with Council Members McAdams, Hopkins, Alfo~d, Riddlespe~ge~ and
Mayor Stewart casting the nay votes.
City council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty Four
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance as presented.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay.,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Stephens and Mayor
Pro Tem Chew casting the nay votes.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Appendix A to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton,
Texas, known and cited as the Denton Development Code, by amending
Article III, Chapter IV, Article 4.16, Paragraph (A) relating to lot
size, width and depth requirements for proposed subdivisions and
declaring an effective date.
Steve Fanning, Planning and Community Development, reported that
this amendment regarded imposing a minimum lot size in the
extraterritorial ju£isdiction. In a previous Council action, which
amended the regulations to require the same requirements in the
extraterritorial jurisdiction as in the city, staff failed to ame~d
the lot size category. This ordinance made the lot size
requirements the same. This was not an attempt to control land use
in the ETJ but only to set lot size. The lot size would be set on
what was proposed at the platting stage. This would not guarantee
that that would be what was actually developed. A developer could
propose one time and actually construct another without zoning.
Staff did not see that as a major problem.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-110
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, KNOWN AND CITED AS THE DENTON
DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER IV,
ARTICLE 4.16, PARAGRAPH (A) RELATING TO LOT SIZE, WIDTH AND
DEPTH REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS AND DECLARING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing a tract of land consisting of approximately
31,335 acres of land located on the east side of FM 2164 (North
Locust Street) and west of the Twin Lakes Mobile Home Park, A-5
Council Member Hopkins stated that this item had been previously
discussed.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-111
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 31.335
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE V. E. GAILOR
SURVEY, .ABSTRACT NO. 452, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS: CLASSIFYING
THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY: AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty Five
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
adopting the 1982 Uniform Fire Code and Amendment: to provide for
fire safety inspections of building, fire extinguishing, sprinkler
and standpipe systems, and flammable storage facilities: providing
for inspection and permit ~ees and repealing all ordinances in
conflict.
City Manager Hartung reported that periodically the city adopted
updated versions of various codes. The Fire Chief and Fire Marshal
were recommending that Council adopt the 1982 Code to replace the
1976 edition 'which was currently in effect.
Council Member Stephens asked for an overview of the substantat~ve
changes.
Jack Gentry, 'F~re Chief, responded that there were no drastic
changes in the !982 code. Th~s code would set forth penalties for
violations of the fire code. Staff had added fees to the 1982 code
for various installations and f~re inspections.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-112
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 10 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: ENACTING A NEW
ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 10 TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1982 EDITION AND AMENDMENTS THERETO: TO
PROVIDE FOR FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF BUILDINGS, FIRE
EXTINGUISHING, SPRINKLER AND STANDPIPE SYSTEMS, AND
FLAMMABLE STORAGE FACILITIES: PROVIDING FOR INSPECTION AND
PERMIT FEES: PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TWO HUNDRED
DOLLARS FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens abstained, Alford
"aye," Rlddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried 5 to 1 with Council Member Stephens abstaining unt%l
he could obtain more information on the fees and Mayor Pro Tem Chew
casting the nay vote.
E. The Council considered an ordinance abandoning an
easement to the Greater Denton Arts Council, et al tract.
Bob Nelson, 'Director of Utilities, reported that the owners o~ the
property had requested the abandonment of the easement in order to
obtain a clear title.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-113
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF
A TRACT OF LAND DEDICATED FOR UTILITY AND STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALI. RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID LAND TO THE OWNER OF
THE ADJACENT TRACT OF LAND: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.,
Alford motion, Riddlesperge~ second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," R~ddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
establishing a Minority Business Enterprise Program for the Denton
Municipal Airport.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty Six
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that the resolution would establish the Minority Business Enterprise
Program for the airport. This particular program was a requirement
by the FAA which would be tied to a grant offer which the city hoped
to receive. The program had been reviewed in content by the City
Attorney's office and the FAA and met their approval.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Airport Manager of the City of Denton
Municipal Airport has developed and prepared a Minority Business
Enterprise Program for submittal to the United States Department of
Transportaton in satisfaction of the Department's Regulations for
the receipt of federal assistance for the airport as set forth in
the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Part 23: and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
desires to ensure that minority business enterprises as defined in
49 CFR Part 23 have the maximum opportunity to participate in the
performance of contracts or subcontracts relating to airport
improvements financed in whole or in part with federal funds
provided under such minority business enterprise agreement:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
_ That the Denton Municipal Airport's Minority Business
Enterprise Plan, including a policy statement and agreement,
consisting of eight pages, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference, be and the same is hereby adopted
and approved.
SECTION II.
That the City Manager of the City of Denton, Texas, or his
designee, shall administer the Minority Business Enterprise Program
in compliance with its terms and conditions and those set forth in
the United States Department of Transportation's Regulations
pertaining thereto.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 4th day of September, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
City Council ]Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty Seven
Chew motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution to
readopt the 1984 update to the Denton Development Guide.
Steve Fanning, Planning and Community Development, reported that the
Denton Development Guide provided a number of different ways for
update: one was a yearly formal update procedure. The Council would
be considering a draft taken ~rom the July work session regarding
the tentative recommendations for updating and clarifying the Guide.
Council Member Stephens asked about the portion regarding the 3 year
time limit on planned development to have made substantial
development (15% be started).
Fanning stated that he had included the intent of the Council but
had not worked out the wording in the Guide to make it consistent
with state law.
Council Member Stephens then asked how staff would deal with an
owner who objected to the unilateral action to roll back the
zoning. Did this imply that when a petitioner had appeared before
the P&Z and Council, and had received the financing, would they
accept what the Council had done; did that become a contract that
they would breach with the 15% stipulation.
Fanning responded that all questions could not be answered at this
point. Staff[ was requesting Council to make clear thei~ intent to
see development and then let staff work with the legal aspects and
come back with specific procedures.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has and expects to continue to
enjoy a pattern of growth and development throughout the 1980's and
beyond: and
WHEREAS, the community in response to such growth and
development has instituted a process to address questions of land
use planning, development and control: and
WHEREAS, as a result of such process a document titled
Denton Development Guide (1981) was produced: and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
believes that such document is a useful tool to be used to aid
the day-to-day decisions concerning growth and development of the
City and adopted the Guide for such use: and
WHEREAS, the policies contained in the 1981 Guide are
reviewed annually by the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
recommendation to the City Council as to amendments and
modifications to be made to the 1981 Guide: and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has completed
its 1983-84 annual review of the 1981 ~uide and hereby makes its
recommendation that the 1981 Guide be amended, to provide for
incorporation of the attached policies and procedures:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty Eight
SECTION I.
That the Denton Development Guide (1981), is hereby
amended, to provide for the incorporation of the attached policies
and procedures therein, and said Guide., as amended, is hereby
adopted as the official land use and development guide for the City
to be used in future planning, development and land use decisions
the manner and for the purposes therein stated until such time it is
repealed or hereafter amended.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of September, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council then considered approval of tentative award of
Bid ~ 9238 for improvements at the Denton Municipal Airport.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that the city had received 3 bids on this project. The lowest bid
was submitted by Atkins Brothers Equipment Company in an amount of
$480,127.80. Staff had reviewed the bid and the city engineering
staff had worked with this particular firm and felt they were
capable of performing the lob. This was only a tentative award of
bid. When the grant offer was received from the FAA, staff would
appear before Council requesting acceptance of the FAA bid and the
final award of this bid.
Council Member Hopkins asked what would be the city's portion of the
payment.
Angelo responded that the city had approximately $45,000 left in the
airport improvement fund remaining from previous grant monies. This
money was committed to airport improvements and would be used
towards the city's portion of the matching funds.
Council Member Alford asked if that was the total expenditure.
Angelo stated that this was 90% to 10% money match project. Th,e
total project, including the engineering, would be in the
neighborhood of $499,000. The city would have to pay approximately
$49,000 and presently had $45,000 in the airport improvement fund.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the tentative award of
Bid # 9238. Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered taking a record vote on the proposed
tax increase for fiscal year 1984-85.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Twenty Nine
John McGrane, Director of Finance, reported that the proposed budget
was based on an ad valorem tax increase of 29 over the last year's
adopted rate. This represented an increase over the effective rate
of 4,679. State law required when the increase was over 3% that
certain procedures must take place. The procedure was that a record
vote had to be taken on the proposed increase, then a public hearing
on the proposed tax increase be held prior to the ~in&l adoption.
The public hearing was set for September 13 and the final vote would
be taken on September 18.
Hartung stated that this was not a binding vote: however, it was
required to meet time deadlines for the public hearing.
Council Member McAdams asked if the Council were to set the increase
at 39, what would be the procedure.
McGrane responded that the increase would have to be readvertised.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he did not believe he was ready to
advertise for the tax increase as several issue were still
unresolved in the budget process.
City Manager Hartung stated that this was strictly for the tax rate
under the truth in taxation law: it would not affect any other
portions of the budget. It was strictly the levying of the tax rate.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew suggested that the Council set the proposed tax
increase highe£ and could then cut back after the budget review was
completed.
McG£ane added a caution that if the increase went over 8%, it would
be subject to referendum. Two cents would amount of 4.67% increase
and much more would be getting very close to 8%.
Council Member McAdams expressed concern over the Council locking
themselves in to an amount prior to the completion of the budget
hearings.
City Manager Hartung reported that if a higher increase was
warranted, it would not delay the adoption of the budget. Staff
could readvertise the public hearing and pass the tax levy after the
budget was approved. This would only result in a delay in mailing
the tax statements.
McGrane reported that Council could advertise for the maximum amount
not requiring a referendum.
The Council delayed this item until later in the agenda to allow the
Finance Director to calculate the increase to be advertised.
10. The Council considered removing zoning case Z-1677 from the
table.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to remove Z-1677 from the table.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a
change in zoning from the single family (SF-7) and agricultural (A)
classification to the planned develoment (PD) classification on a 52
acre tract ].ocated at the northwest corner of Lattimore Street and
Audra Lane. Z-1677
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the Council 'had
requested staf~ to look at two alternatives for street placement in
this zoning case. The developer had proposed an eastern alignment
on their property with 60 feet of right-of-way, The problem had
been a large amount of trees would be lost and the landowners who
abutted on the east would have to give 20 feet of right-of-way. The
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Thirty
other proposal was a western alignment. In either case the road
would take some of the trees. The western alignment saved more
trees except when the developer began construction of the houses.
The eastern alignment would have some of the trees on the west and
also the trees next to the right-of-way line on each side might
stay. The alignment would work either way. The western alignment
would go across the church property to the south. The problem would
be who would buy the right-of-way and build the road across the
church property. The problem with the western alignment was that
many of the lots would front on Audra Lane which was a secondary
arterial. The subdivision rules and regulations state there should
be a minimum of 200 feet spacing between drive ways and that would
not be possible. The eastern alignment also aligned better with
Nottingham to the north. Staff ~elt the eastern alignment of the
road was the best choice. It might take more trees but it would
allow for better traffic alignment, better alignment of the lots
with existing Audra Lane and would eliminate all of the frontage of
the lots on Audra Lane.
Council Member Stephens asked how many trees would be lost.
Svehla responded that was difficult to say but it appeared it would
be approximately the same for either the western or eastern
alignment.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-114
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 52 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LATTIMORE STREET AND AUDRA LANE,
AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN: TO PROVIDE FOR A
CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY "SF-7"
AND AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DE~LOPMENT 'IPD" CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance with the
eastern alignment of the street.
Council Member Stephens stated that at the previous public hearing
the pastor of the church had asked how far the western alignment
would be from the church.
Svehla replied with the western alignment it would be over 100 feet
from the church; it would be further away from the church with the
eastern alignment. The developer had stated that he would work with
the church.
Ms. Carolyn Williams stated that she was concerned about the 20 feet
that would be taken off of her property.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
11. The Council considered aproval of proposed authorization to
perform professional services for design of approximately 7000 feet
of sanitary sewerline in conjunction with John Pass Investments from
property on Dallas Drive to Pecan Creek/Woodrow Lane twin outfall
interceptors.
Bob Nelso~o Director of Utilities, reported that on July 24 the
Council had approved the concept of the City of Denton participating
in a sewerline from the corner of Dallas Drive and Teasley Lane to
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Thirty One
the outfall lane near Woodrow Lane. At that time, staff proposed to
pay 50% of the engineering costs. John Pass Investments had
proposed to use an engineering firm at an anticipated cost of
$30,000 and 'the city would participate in the amount of $15,000.
The contract would be on a time and cost basis and would be limited
to $15,000.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the authorization.
Motion carried unanimously.
12. Th~ Council considered approval of an agreement for
sanitary pro rata participation for Hickory Creek Limited and the
City of Denton to serve a 61 acre mobile home park on South Teasley
Lane.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the city was
requiring this development to install approximately 1 mile of 15
inch sewer line south of their property. This would curve around
the Corp property and then into the Hickory Creek lift station.
There were approximately 360 units in this development.
Council Member Stephens asked how this would affect the wastewater
treatment plant.
Nelson responded that the plant had the capability of handling
approximately 90,000 population.
Council Member Hopkins asked if this was the same mobile home
subdivision which had put in the water line along Teasley Lane.
Nelson responded that that 8 inch line was finished. It was outside
the city limits and would be charged 150% of city rates.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to approve the agreement. Motion
carried unanimously.
13. The Council considered approval of an oversizing agreement
for Loop 288 Plaza Joint Venture.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that Plaza Joint Venture
planned to develop this property south of Audra Lane. This was an
area in which the city planned to run a 20 inch line which would
ultimately come from the water plant to Highway 380. It was
appropriate to oversize this line now from 8 inches to 20 inches.
The cost to the city would be approximately $21,700.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to approve the oversizing agreement.
The Council then considered the record vote on the proposed tax
increase for fiscal year 1984-85 which had been deferred earlier in
the agenda.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, reported that the Council could
set the tax rate at 59.59 per $100 evaluation which would place the
tax increase at 7,168% increase: 59,759 per $100 evaluation would
place the tax increase at 7,618%: 609 would place the increase over
the 8% level.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to set the proposed tax increase at
59.759 per $100 evaluation. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye,"
Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye,"
Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "nay." Motion carried 5 to 2 with
Council Member Stephens and Mayor Stewart casting the nay votes.
14. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
15. No items of new business were suggested for future agendas.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 4, 1984
Page Thirty Two
The Council then reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
o~fi¢ial action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
o46sj
City Council Minutes
September 18, 1984
The Council convened into the Work Session at 12:00 noon in the
Training Room of the Service Center.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
The Council held a work session on the proposed 1984-85 budget.
The Council convened into the joint Work Session with the Historic
Landmark Commission at 5:30 p.m, in the Civil Defense Room of the
Municipal Building.
COUNCIL
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
COUNCIL
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
HLC
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mary Hardin, Chairperson: Bullitt Lowry, Randall Boyd,
Sam Marino, Tom Miller and Sam Kingsbury
HLC
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Sandy Matthews, Michael Lawrence
1. The Council held a discussion of the criteria for historic
landmark designations.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he believed this designa-
tion was important but a distinction should be made between the
house and the resident. A house which had been added on to the
front and the back did not do for him what he thought a historic
landmark should even if the house had been owned by a prominent or
famous Denton family.
Bullitt Lowry, member of the Historic Landmark Commission, responded
that this was a judgement call; how famous was famous. The present
criteria used by the commission allowed for historic designation to
homes owned by prominent families.
Council Member Hopkins suggested that an expansion on the present
criteria for designation would be pertinent to the discussion.
Randall Boyd, member of the Historic Landmark Commission, stated
that the commission did take into consideration the people who had
lived in the houses. The contribution that the person had made to
the history of Denton was reviewed as a part of the decision process.
Mayor Stewart stated that it was his opinion that the historical or
fame value of a home or family should be measured by whether or not
someone from outside the city would come to Denton to see the home.
Boyd responded that designating the home as historic should not only
be done to bring in tourists but to preserve the history of Denton.
City Council, Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that there were so many houses
that would fit the present criteria, he questioned the motive of the
owner in requesting the historic zoning classification.
Boyd replied that there were many homes in Denton which should be
designated as landmarks. However, the commission did not seek
applications for the zoning: the petitioners came to them.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that if the commission members
knew of houses in Denton that should have the historic landmark
designation, perhaps the commission could speak with the owners and
show them the advantages of this zoning. It was not, of course, the
intention of the commission or the Council to influence landowners
on their decision to apply or not to apply for the designation.
Bullitt Lowry reported that the commission was working on a
preservation plan with the downtown merchants. The commission saw
the square as an historical district. The City had applied for a
Main Street grant but did not receive funding as the population for
Denton was 'too great. The grant would have paid one-half the salary
for a Main Street Coordinator. The commission would be recommending
to the Council to proceed with hiring a Main Street Coordinator even
though the City would be responsible for the entire salary.
Tom Miller, member of the Historic Landmark Commission, asked for
clarification on the commission approaching landowners regarding
petitioning for the designation. Mr. Miller expressed the concern
that the commission might recruit petitions for the designation and
the Council might deny the zoning. He felt this would place the
commission in an awkward position.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council would look at only
the property and not what was adjacent to the property or who owned
the property.
The Council then convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor stewart: Mayor Pro Tem Chew: Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of June 19, 1984 and the Special Called Meeting of
June 26, 1984.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second to approve the Consent Agenda
as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9323 - Long Term Disability Insurance
coverage
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Three
2. Bid # 9330 - Carpeting for Parks and Recreation
3. Bid % 9333 - Pad mount switchgear
4. Bid ~ 9335 - Painting at Recreation Centers/
Municipal Building
5. Bid # 9337 - Install fans at Library
6, Bid % 9338 - Wire and cable
7. Bid % 9340 - Mobile hydraulic hammer
8. Purchase Order # 64795 to Wang Laboratories in
the amount of $3,792.00
9. Purchase Order # 64973 to Rone Engineers in the
amount of $23,765.00
10. Purchase Order # 63465-A to Marley Cooling Tower
in the amount of $11,500.00
11. Purchase Order # 65059 to Advanced Control System
in the amount of $68,438.00
B. Plats, Replats and Site Plans:
1. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Ali
A1-Khafa~i Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of the site plan of the Carpet Max
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
3. Approval of the site plan of the proposed
Autostop Building. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of the preliminary plat of Cooper's
Landing, Section II. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
5. Approval of the preliminary plat of the English
Village Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
6. Approval of the preliminary plat of the 1-35W
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval,)
7. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Meadow
Ridge Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
8. Approval of the preliminary replat of Solar Way
Addition, Section I & II, (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
9. Approval of the preliminary replat of the Guy
Laney Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
C. Contracts:
1. Approval of youth sports contracts for the Parks
and Recreation Department. (The Parks and
Recreation Board recommends approval.)
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Four
2. Approval of personal services contracts with
Rhonda Gattis, Tennis Instructor, and Betty
Norstrud, Aerobics Instructor.
The Mayor presented a Proclamation for Constitution Week on
September 17 through 23, 1984. The Proclamation was accepted by Ms.
Nina Macklin representing the Benjamin Lyon Chapter of the Daughters
of the American Revolution.
3. The Council considered approval of the final replat of
Township II, Phase II (San Jacinto Plaza Shopping Center). (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that this was a
12.1 acre tract between San Jacinto Boulevard, Piney Creek
Boulevard, Township II Phase I and 1-35E service road and was
currently zoned planned development for commercial land use. The
site plan and preliminary replat were approved by Council on August
7. The reopening of Piney Creek as a public road was approved' in
con~unction with the approved amendment to the planned development.
Staff had been under the impression that Piney Creek Boulevard was
30 to 31 feet wide. It had subsequently been learned that the
street was currently only 24 feet wide. The Council recommendation
had been to leave the street as it currently existed, The
petitioner, Henry S. Miller. had a proposal they wished to present
in light of the new information regarding the actual width of Piney
Creek. The petitioners, at their own expense, were requesting to
move the current street to another location, rebuild the street, put
in a new water line. They would, maintain the street as a public
access easement into the new area of Township II. Many factors were
considered by the Miller Company prior to making the request. One
factor was that the current street was only 24 feet wide and they
believe moving the street would allow for a better alignment with
the entrance and exits for the mall as well as allowing for a better
situation for the utilities.
Council Member Stephens asked if this new information had been found
after the Planning and Zoning Commission had met on this petition.
Spivey responded yes.
Council Member Stephens asked if there were major changes to the
final replat which should be referred back to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Stephens asked the City Attorney if the design
which had been approved were being changed, should the replat be
referred back to P&Z.
Joe Morris, Acting City Attorney, asked if this was a planned
development.
Spivey responded yes.
Morris reported that, as the petition was a planned development, the
changes on the replat did not have to go back to P&Z.
Council Member Stephens asked, if the street were moved, how much
more land would this give the petitioner on which to build.
Spivey replied that if Piney Creek Boulevard were moved 25 feet to
the north, it would allow for more development land, would allow for
better traffic patterns, and would line up more with the entrance to
the mall.
Morris asked, as this was the final replat, if the site plan been
approved°
Spivey responded yes.
Morris stated that the site plan would have to be changed.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Five
Council Member McAdams asked if the drawing which had been provided
of Piney Creek was the existing location or the proposed relocation.
Spivey responded that the overhead projection map was what the
petitioners were proposing. They were proposing to supply a 40 feet
public access easement where Piney Creek would be located if the
center line were moved 25 feet to the north.
Mayor Stewart asked if the relocation would line up with the
existing street.
Spivey responded yes.
Mayor Stewart then asked if this had not been the original complaint
from the res[dents of Township II.
Spivey responded the realigned street would only extend to the
cluster housing portion of the new Storer development.
Council Member McAdams asked if moving the center line 25 feet would
line up the street with the Storer development%
Spivey responded yes: the relocation would provide access into the
Storer subdivision.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the final replat of
Township II, Phase II with the requested change for public access.
Spivey reported that the staff only wanted to make the Council aware
of the existing 24 feet width of Piney Creek Boulevard and had no
recommendation. Henry S. Miller Company was proposing to have Piney
Creek for public access.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla stated that staff was
recommending the portion of street in the Storer subdivision be a
private street as it would not meet City standards.
Council Member McAdams asked if the City was being asked to abandon
the existing Piney Creek Boulevard.
Joe Morris, Acting City Attorney, asked if the dedicated portion of
Piney Creek was shown on the plat. Once dedicated, the City Council
had to abandon that portion. The petitioner had no control of the
street. There was 50 feet of right-of-way and the pavement was 24
feet. The Council could approve the request and then abandon the
easement.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the developer owned the land
on both sides of the street and would they dedicate the public
access easement to the City.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that Henry S. Miller had
stated that they would maintain the street.
Morris stated that the City could not control the street if it was
abandoned.
Council Member Hopkins withdrew the motion.
Tom Moser, representing Henry S. Miller, stated that Piney Creek
Boulevard only had 50 feet of right-of-way dedicated, not 100 feet.
Henry S. Miller was proposing that Piney Creek be abandoned and the
company would then dedicate right-of-way and easements for
utilities. The street would remain open forever and Henry S. Miller
Company would maintain it.
Chew motion to table the item for one week, due to the confusion.
Motion died for lack of a second.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of'September 18, 1984
Page Six
Moser then stated that his firm would prefer that the Council
approve the original plat rather than to table the item as they
needed to get the pro~ect moving.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the plat with the existing
Piney Creek Boulevard as presented on the agenda. Motion carried
unanimously.
4. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and service
plan annexing a tract of land consisting of approximately 11.2 acres
of land located north if 1-35E and southeast of Mayhill Road. A-6
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that this was
the final action on this annexation. The owner was requesting
voluntary annexation. Light industrial and commercial zoning would
be requested.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-115
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 11.2
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE M.E.P. &
P.R.R. COMPANY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 950 AND THE G. WALKER
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1330. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS:
CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY:
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
5. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Robert J. Button requesting a change in zoning from the general
retail (GR) and agricultural (A) classifications to the commercial
(C) and light industrial (LI) classifications on an 18.2 acre tract
at the northeast corner of 1-35E and Mayhill Road. If approved, the
proposed development would have 13.7 acres of commercial zoning and
4.5 acres of light industrial zoning. Z-1669
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. R. J. Button, the owner, spoke in favor stating that the
surrounding property was currently zoned light industrial or
commercial. To the north of the property was the railroad track, to
the east was Andrew Corporation. Several easements adversely
affected the property for apartment development. There were Texas
Power and 'Light and sewer easements on the property. A 12 inch
water main with easements was in place on Mayhill Road and an 8 inch
water main on 1-35. A petition had been before the City Council on
June 8 to have the area designated as an eligible blighted area.
Button was proposing to build a motel on 1-35 and a mini-mall on
Mayhill at 1-35. Mr. Button showed a slide presentation of the
property and concluded by stating that the area had already dictated
what it should be.
Mr. Curt Simmons. representing Andrew Corporation, spoke in
opposition stating that his corporation did not oppose the zoning
but asked the Council to consider the current water supply to
Andrew. Another concern was drainage. Water now drained through
this 18 acres and if the land were developed, retention ponds would
be needed. If the flow rate was not properly handled it would cause
problems for Andrew Corporation.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Seven
Mayor Stewart stated that the developer would have to take care of
any drainage problems.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 8 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor, 0 returned in
opposition, and 1 returned undecided. The site was located in a
moderate intensity center. The commercial and light industrial
zoning would provide the potential for jobs and the land use was
reasonable. The requesting commercial zoning abutted with other
commercial zoning and the tract was in close proximity to the mall.
Mayor Stewart asked if the tract was close to the proposed extension
of the loop; was it out of the new loop corridor.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded that he believed the loop would
follow 1-35 and Mayhill Road. The proposed development was
approximately 200 feet away.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the general retail (GR) and
agricultural (A) classifications to the commercial (C) and light
industrial (LI) classifications on an 18.2 acre tract at the
northeast corner of 1-35E and Mayhill Road.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-116
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND' AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 18.2 ACRES OF LAND
SITUATED IN THE M.E.P. & P.R.R. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 950
AND GIDEON WALKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1330, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 1-35E AND
MAYHILL ROAD: TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL RETAIL "GR"
AND AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO
COMMERCIAL "C" AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL "LI" CLASSIFICATION AND
USE FOR SAID PROPERTY: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Ed Wolski requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the light industrial (LI) classification on a
130.6 acre tract located at the southeast corner of Jim Christal
Road and Masch Branch Road. Z-1685
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Larry Frank, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor stating
that this tract was located in an industrial park area as it was
near Brik-Pak, Peterbilt, and Victor Equipment. The tract would not
be developed for residential use. A 16 inch water line was in play
on the southern portion of the property and the sewer line was also
in. Street improvements would be made and utilities would be
extended. An easement for the utilities would be dedicated.
Mayor Stewart asked if the petitioner would develop this property
himself.
Frank responded this would be a joint venture.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Eight
Mayor Stewart asked if apartments would be built under the light
industrial Zoning classification.
Frank responded there would be no residential land use in the area:
no dwellings would be constructed.
Council Member Hopkins asked the City Attorney to address the issue
of light industrial uses at the airport.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris reported that in 1983 the state had
amended the airport zoning regulations to allow cities to establish
zoning regulations for airport uses and to specify inhabitable land
use area. If cities chose to do this, they could create Airport
Zoning Commissions. The regulations did not have to allow for
cumulative type zoning.
Council Member Hopkins asked Mr. Frank why the petitioner had not
requested planned development zoning.
Frank responded they had requested light industrial zoning due to
the employment based land use.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the developer could put in
housing and the city could not do anything about it.
Frank replied that the petitioner would be glad to draw up any
documents required stating that no housing would be constructed.
Council Member Hopkins stated that would not be binding.
Council Member Stephens stated that he believed the Council would
feel more comfortable with planned development zoning.
Frank responded that his client had proceeded with the request for
light industrial zoning based on that recommendation from staff.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Planning and Zoning
Commission minutes referred to preferring this petition as a planned
development.
Council Member McAdams asked Mr. Frank if the owner would be willing
to be zoned planned development for light industrial use.
Frank replied that he would have to speak with the owner.
Council Member McAdams then asked if the Council could act on this
petit.ion at. this meeting.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris reported that the Council did not
have a planned development ordinance or site plan before them.
Council Member Joe Alford stated that it did not seem fair to
penalize the petitioner as they were acting on a recommendation from
staff.
Council Member Hopkins asked if it was appropriate to refer the
petition back to the Planning and Zoning Commission at thei£ next
meeting to be considered as a planned development and to waive
additional fees.
Council Member Stephens stated that off-site improvements should be
considered for Jim Christal Road.
Frank responded that the Razor family owned all of the property from
the parcel to 1-35. To ask his client to improve the entire length
of Jim Christal-Road was unfair. The Razor's should be required to
pay when they petitioned for rezoning.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Nine
Mayor Stewart asked the City Attorney if the Council should continue
the public hearing.
Morris responded that was at the discretion of the Council.
Frank asked the City Attorney if the zoning could be granted and the
owner deed restrict the property to light industrial uses.
Morris responded yes, but the City could not enforce deed
restrictions.
Mr. John Davis spoke in favor of the petition stating that he was a
property owner in the area.
The Mayor then cancelled the remainder of the public hearing.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to refer the petition back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission to allow the owner to request planned
development zoning and to waive the fee. Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Weston Homes, Inc. requesting a change in zoning from the
agricultural (A) classification to the planned development (PD)
classification on a 15.8 acre tract located on the south side of
Audra Lane approximately 1,050 feet west of Loop 288. If approved
the planned development would permit the following land uses:
8.0 acres of single family detached land use
- minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet with a
density of 5.4 units per acre
3.9 acres of duplex or two family land use
- 42 units with a density of 10.7 units per acre
3.9 acres of multi-family land use
- with a density of 20 units per acre Z-1686
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charles Natkins, Fields, Edwards and Associates, spoke in favor
of the petition stating that his company represented Weston Homes.
His client was petitioning for planned development and presented
photographs of the type of single family dwelling which would be
constructed on the tract. The single family homes would be in the
$50,000 to $60,000 price range and the duplexes in the $85,000 to
$90,000 range.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 10 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned. One telephone call had been
received from staff opposing the petition. The tract was located in
an area which was designated as low intensity and was a mixed
residential planned development. It does not violate the area
intensity/density standard. The proposed transition from the high
intensity and high density zoning on the adjacent tract to the east,
to the single family area on this request along the west border
appeared to staff to be reasonable. Approximately 254 potential
multi-family units were approved in the adjacent PD-27.
Approximately 70 multi-family were requested in this proposal. The
Denton Development Guide had previously listed the recommended
multi-family concentrations in one continuous low intensity cluster
at from 200 to 500 units. The revised Guide recommended the
concentration now be limited to 200 units. Approximately 21
two-family lots were proposed with 42 units, as well as
approximately 51 single family detached lots. These single family
lots were 6,000 square feet in size and the overall proposed density
was in the neighborhood of 10 units per acre. A horseshoe shaped
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Ten
internal public street with 50 feet of proposed right-of-way on
Audra Lane was presented on the zoning concept plan. Audra Lane was
an unimproved road designated as a 'collector street on the
thoroughfare plan and 60 feet of right-of-way was required. If
approved, the developer would be responsible for all internal road
improvements, as well as improvements to one-half of Audra Lane for
a distance of approximately 511 feet. Additional off-site road
improvements could be imposed when planned development zoning was
requested. Former Denton Development Guide policies required access
by a collector street or larger to multi-family areas in low
intensity areas. The revised Guide policies specified that high
density housing have access by secondary arterial or greater in low
intensity areas. The P&Z had recommended approval with 4 conditions.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change ~n zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on a
15.8 acre tract located on the south side of Audra Lane
approximately 1,050 feet west of Loop 288.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-117
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 15.8 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AUDRA LANE APPROXIMATELY 1,050 FEET
WEST OF LOOP 288, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN: TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION
FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance with the
conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the proposed 1984-85 fiscal year budget.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the city charter provided
that the Council must approve the appropriations ordinance no less
than 10 days prior to the end of the fiscal year. The Council had
presented to them a budget which provided for continuing operations
of the City of Denton with no tax increase with the exception of a
proposed additional 2~ levy for the purposes of increasing the
Street Department operating budget. The ordinance before the
Council had been prepared after the budget session earlier in the
day and incorporated the changes which Council had directed.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, reported that the ordinance
presented had incorporated the requested changes. The front page of
the ordinance incorporated $216o000 in revenues which represented a
5% increase in sales tax. It also incorporated in the General Fund
public works area an increase of $216,000 on the expenditure side.
Also incorporated in the contributions to other agencies was
$250,000 for Flow Hospital, Under the Miscellaneous category, a
tranposition in numbers had occurred. The number should be
$1,240,235. The budget was not in balance. The taxes should either
be increased or decrease the line items tO offset the $250,000 for
Flow.
C[ty Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Eleven
Mayor Stewart asked staff to come back with a recommendation.
Hartung asked direction from the Council on a target number. The
Council had discussed three different numbers.
Council Member RXddlesperger asked [f the Council had to approve
agenda item B, the tax levy ordinance, before they could approve the
budget.
Council Membe~ McAdams stated that the Council should at least have
in mlnd what they were willing to approve.
Council Member Stephens asked the Finance Director to review the
changes.
McGrane reported that under Section 2 (Revenues) the General Fund
revenues was increased by $216,000 due to the sales tax increase.
On page 2 (Expenditures) under General Fund public works, there was
an increase of $216,000. Previous amendments to the budget in the
area of the Library, Word Processing Center, and Public Works
Department had been incorporated. Revenues had also been increased
according to the new assessed evalution and the interest incomewhich
had been received from the Appraisal Tax District.
The following ordinance was presented:
· NO. 84-118
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING ON OCTOBER l, 1984,
AND ENDING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1985: AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to approve the budget as submitted
with the changes.
McGrane reported that it would require going over the 59.75% tax
levy and would be submitted to referendum. If the Council approved
a tax rate of 58~, the remainder of the budget would have to be
adjusted by $250,000. If the Council approved a tax rate of 59.75~,
the remainder of the budget would have to be adjusted by $57,500.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that it appeared that the
Council should approve the tax levy prior to adoption of the
budget. His motion would have to include an adjustment of $57,500
with the City Manager being given the power to make the adjustment.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to amend the motion to approve
the tax levy at 59.75~ with the instruction to the City Manager to
adjust the expenditures by subtracting $57,500 where he thought best.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the Council would be
looking at the budget through the year. They should let the people
of the City of Denton know that the Council was putting 2~ in for
streets, and approximately 2~ in for the hospital. The budget and
the tax levy should be adopted with one motion.
Stephens motion to amend the motion to approve the budget with the
present 56~ tax rate.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that the Council still had to have
$250,000 for Flow Hospital.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Joe Morris, Acting City Attorney, reported that the ordinance
adopting the budget and the ordinance approving the tax levy had to
be considered separately.
City Council. Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Twelve
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the Council could not do
anything with the budget until the tax rate was set.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to amend the motion to adopt a budget
that would limit the tax increase to 29, staff be directed to
postpone funds and to hold additional budget hearings in February to
review projects which had been delayed.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that this would include funds for Flow
Hospital.
Morris reported that this would be a problem. A particular
appropriation could be completely deleted from this budget prior to
passage; however, there was a charter provision that the budget
could not be amended at a future date unless there was a public
emergency, ,an event .which could not be foreseen. The budget was
meant to set the appropriations for the entire year. If the Council
were to decide that it did not want to fund all of a particular
year, funding could be provided for one-half year.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to amend the motion so that $250,000 be
deleted from the construction and renovation in the West Wing, Phase
II pro~ect.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the purpose of Council Member
Hopkins's amendment was to eliminate 1.75~ of the tax and the
$250,000 would include that d'ifference.
Council Member Hopkins responded yes.
Morris suggested that the Council instruct the Finance Director to
make the changes and the Legal Department would prepare an ordinance
to insure that there was no misunderstanding on the figures that
were being voted on. A motion could be made to amend the budget
ordinance as presented and the ordinance would be prepared and
submitted for approval later in the agenda.
Council Member Hopkins asked, if the Council could not defer
projects, what would happen if funds were encumbered and transferred
at a later date.
John McGrane reported that the appropriation did not encumbec the
funds: it simply made the budget allocation for projects. For
example, in. the sales tax increase for the street projects, the
staff would appropriate that money but would not encumber the funds
until the time the staff felt comfortable that the revenue was in
fact coming to the City.
Mayor Stewart stated that the transfer would have to be for an
emergency.
Morris stated that the charter provision regarding emergencies was
also contained in state law. The intent was to restrict Councils
from coming back several times during the year and going through the
entire budget procedure.
A vote was taken on Council Member Hopkins's amendment. On roll
call vote, McAdams "nay," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford
"nay," Riddlesperger "nay," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "nay."
Motion failed 5 to 2 with Council Members McAdams, Stephens, Alford,
Riddlesperger and Mayor Stewart casting the nay votes.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that his original motion was
trying to have the Council face up to problem areas. Problems were
arising in the voting process but he believed the Council needed to
face up to their responsibilities.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Thirteen
A vote was taken on Council Member Riddlesperger's motion. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "nay," Stephens "nay," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "nay."
Motion failed 4 to 3 with Council Members Hopkins, Stephens. Chew
and Mayor Stewart casting the nay votes.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that it was obvious there would
have to be compromises.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he would support a 2~ tax increase
which he felt would fund Flow Hospital and do other projects also.
The additional $250,000 could be found to make up the difference in
the budget if the Council delayed or postponed Phase III and the
addition of the West Wing.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to raise the tax base to 58~ per
$100 evaluation with Flow and staff directed to cut as appropriate.
Council Member McAdams stated that since the Council was determined
to give $250,000 to Flow and had earmarked the entire 2~ tax
increase to streets, they really were talking about getting $250,000
plus any increases in these items with these funds. If the public
really did support Flow Hospital, they would be willing to pay the
additional taxes. She did not like the prospect of citizens either
£eceiving the services which they had become accustomed to or having
Flow. A 1.75~ increase would not cover the $250,000:$57,500 would
still have to be found in the budget. The renovations to the West
Wing had been planned for and she felt the project should be
funded. The public had voted no to adding a second story but had
not said no to the City trying to utilize the space which it had.
She was in favor of a 3.75~ tax increase.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that expenditures during the last budget
year had exceeded the amount appropriated by the bonds loc the
renovations to City Hall.
City Manager Chris Hartung made a clarification comment regarding
the renovation project. Since the addition to the West Wing of the
building involved principally- the Customer Service Division. the
$110,000 in the budget was basically carried by the Utility Fund.
If eliminated, it would not help the General Fund as it was in the
utility transfer. Staff felt that all of the recommendations in the
budget were needed and required. In an attempt to compromise, there
was funding in the Utility Fund for the mapping system in addition
to the funds in the General Fund. Staff would propose to delete the
$100,000 from the General Project Fund for the mapping program with
the understanding that the project would proceed with the money
available from the Utility Fund this year to begin the mapping.
This would be resubmitted next year to fund the General Fund portion
of the mapping program. Also, funds for street improvements are
being increased approximately $432,000 over the current level. A
10% reduction could be made from this project and staff would then
recommend a 59~ tax rate.
John McGrane reported that the specific change to the ordinance
would be to reduce the Revenues on the General Project Fund by
$100,000 which would make it $512,580; on the second page under
Expenditures, the General Fund public works would be reduced by
$40,000 which would make it $3,289,459; and reduce the General Fund
Miscellaneous to 1,440,235. Total expenditures would now be
$96,805,165.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the budget with the
changes as specified by the Finance Director. On roll call vote,
McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "nay." Motion
carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Stephens and Mayor Stewart
casting the nay votes.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Fourteen
B, The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the proposed 1984-85 fiscal year tax rate levy.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, reported that in conjunction with
the budget appropriation ordinance which had been approved, the tax
rate would be set at 59~ per $100 evaluation.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-119
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING THE AD VALOREM TAX OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, FOR THE YEAR 1984, AT THE RATE OF $.59 PER
$100.00 ASSESSED EVALUATION ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN
THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY ON JANUARY 1, 1984, NOT
EXEMPT BY LAW: PROVIDING REVENUES FOR PAYMENT OF CURRENT
MUNICIPAL EXPENSES, AND FOR INTEREST AND SINKING FUND ON
OUTSTANDING CITY OF DENTON BONDS; PROVIDING FOR LIMITED
EXEMPTIONS OF CERTAIN HOMESTEADS: PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF COLLECTIONS: PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "nay."
Motion carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Stephens and Mayor Stewart
casting the nay votes.
C, The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
increasing the residential solid waste collection fee.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that this ordinance was
requesting the residential solid waste collection fee be increased
from $6.75 per month to $8.00 and was based on revenues approved in
the new fiscal year budget.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-120
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER !2, ARTICLE II, SECTION
12-19(b) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON
RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL SANITATION RATES, REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
transferring unencumbered appropriation balances between funds.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was a routine end of
fiscal year clean up item.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-121
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1983-84 BUDGET OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS BY INCREASING THE GENERAL PROJECT FUND
ACCOUNT BY THE SUM OF THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($13,500): AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Fifteen
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
regarding 1269M which would allow assignment pay to be paid to
training officers in the Police Department.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported this would authorize
the City to pay assignment pay of $50.00 to officers who train other
police officers.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-122
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT PAY FOR POLICE OFFICERS
ASSIGNED TO THE FIELD TRAINING OFFICERS PROGRAM IN THE CITY
OF DENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT: SETTING FORTH THE AMOUNT OF
ASSIGNMENT PAY AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT IS
PAYABLE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, MeAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval 'of a resolution to
amend the personnel policies concerning medical examinations,
overtime, compensatory time, holidays, vacation/bonus time, death-
in-the-family leave.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that it had been
discovered that one of the policies included in the resolution on
the agenda needed further discussion. Usrey then distributed copies
of the revised resolution which excluded the vacation/bonus time
policy. The changes which were proposed to the policies, with one
exception, were predominatly for clarification. The resolution
dealt with 5 of the 9 policies which had already been approved.
During training with supervisors, areas which needed more
clarification were found. The one policy which included a change
was the holiday policy. The vacation/bonus time policy would come
before Council at a later date.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Director of the Personnel/Employee Relations
Department for the City. of Denton has presented proposed policies
regarding employee rules and regulations for the Council's
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt such policies as
official policies regarding employment with the City:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The following policies, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hereby adopted as official policies of the City of
Denton, Texas:
Medical Examinations (Reference No. 102.10)
Overtime (Reference No. 106.04)
Compensatory Time (Reference No. 106.05)
Holidays (Re£erence No. 107.02)
Death in the Family (Reference No. 111.06)
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18o 1984
Page Sixteen
SECTION II.
The foregoing policies are attached hereto and made a part
hereof and shall be filed in the official records with the City
Secretary.
SECTION III.
The previous policies relating to Medical Examinations
(Reference No. 102.10), Overtime (Reference No. 106.04),
Compensatory Time (Reference No. 106.05), Holidays (Reference No.
107.02), and Death in the Family (Reference No. 111.06) adopted by
Resolution of this Council on August 21, 1984 are hereby rescinded.
SECTION IV.
This Resolution shall be effective from and after its date of
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 18th day of September, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
regarding 1269M which would allow the Fire Chief to appoint
individuals to the position which ranks lust below the chief.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that there had been
changes in the state statutes which would allow the Fire Chief to
make an appointment to the Assistant Chief level. He may appoint
only one position.
Mayo= Stewart stated that he had been appointed to, and had served
on, this committee and had travelled the state trying to get the
legislation passed. He wished to be allowed to make the motion.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, more than four ranks exist below that of the
position of Fire Chief in the City of Denton Fire Department as
classified positions under Article 1269m, V.T.C.S.; and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 1983, one person was serving in the
permanent classification of Assistant Chief immediately below that
of Fire Chief; and
',7
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Seventeen
WHEREAS, Section 8A of Article 1269m, V.T.C.S., as amended
effective September 1, 1983, authorizes the Chief of the Fire
Department to appoint one position to the classification immediately
below him to serve at his pleasure without civil service protection
if such authority is conferred by resolution of the City Council: and
WHEREAS, it is determined to be in the best interests of
the City to confer such authority upon the Chief of the Fire
Department:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the Chief .of the Fire Department of the City of
Denton, Texas, be and is hereby authorized to appoint one person to
the classification immediately below him when and if a vacancy
occurs in such classification now existing or as may be hereafter
created by ordinance of the City Council.
SECTION II.
That such person appointed by the Fire Chief pursuant to
Section I hereof shall meet th~ minimum qualifications for such
appointment as established by Article lZ69m, V.T.C.S. and shall
serve at the pleasure of the Fire Chief without civil service
protection.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 1Sth day of September, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stewart motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew presided.
Council Member Stephens asked if this would address the issue of
promotion by coming up through the ranks.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded that the issue was whether or
not the testing and eligibility list requirements would have to be
used as in all other positions or whether a different type of
selection process could be used, which might include bringing in
someone from outside the department. It would allow the Chief to
appoint an individual to a position lust below him.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew called for the vote. On roll call vote, McAdams
"aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried 5 to 2
with Council Member Stephens and Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting the nay
votes.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Eighteen
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
regarding 1269M which would allow the Police Chief to appoint
individuals to the position which ranks ~ust below the chief.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was the same issue as
the previous resolution.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the ranks of Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant and
Police Officer exist below that of the position of Chief of Police
in the City of Denton Police Department as classified positions
under Article 1269m, V.T.C.S.: and
~IEREAS, on January 1, 1983, three persons were serving in
the permanent classification of Captain immediately below that of
Chief of Police: and
WHEREAS, Section 8A of Article 1269m, V.T.C.S., as amended
effective September 1, 1983, authorizes the Chief of Police to
appoint up to four persons to the classification immediately below
him to serve at his pleasure without civil service protection if
such authority is conferred by resolution of the City Council: and
~IEREAS, it is determined to be in the best interests of
the City to confer such authori-ty upon the Chief of Police:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the Chief of Police of tke Police Department of the
City of Denton, Texas, be and is hereby authorized to appoint up to
four persons to the classification immediately below him when and if
a vacancy occurs in such classification now existing or as may be
hereafter created by ordinance of the City Council.
SECTION II.
That such person or persons appointed by the Chief of
Police pursuant to Section I hereof shall meet the minimum
qualifications for such appointment as established by Article 1269m,
V.T.C.S. and shall serve at the pleasure of the Chief of Police
without civil service protection.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 18th day of September, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Nineteen
Stewart motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Stephens and Mayor Pro Tem
Chew casting the nay votes.
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution to
transfer unencumbered appropriate balances between departments.
City Manager Nartung reported that this was another end of the
fiscal year clean up item.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Section 8.07 of the Charter of the City of Denton
authorizes the City Council to transfer unencumbered appropriations
between general classifications of expenditures within an office,
department or agency: and
WHEREAS, the City Manager deems it necessary to transfer
the funds as specified below: NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
These funds shall be transferred as follows:
FROM ACCOUNT NO. T__qO ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT
Data Processing 100-004-0017 Word Processing 100-003-0006 $ 36,311
Public Works/ 100-002-0010 Finance Admin./ 100-004-020M 100,000
Engineering Miscellaneous
Police/CID 100-007-0041 Finance Admin./ 100-004-020M 25,000
Miscellaneous
Data Processing 100-004-0017 Finance/Customer 100-004-0022 $ 58,000
Service
TOTAL TRANSFER $219,311
SECTION II.
This Resolution shall become effective from and after its date
of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 18th day of September, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Twenty
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered approval of a resolution for a
proposed easement/license, Tract F-554, Lewisville Lake, Texas ~rom
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was a routine
resolution accepting an easement license from the Corps of Engineers
accepting the sewer line which ran from the Hickory Creek Mobile
Home Park to the Hickory Creek Lift Station. The Corps required a
resolution to accept the easement.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas wishes to acquire a
license and easement for t~e installation and maintenance of a
sanitary sewer line in, along and across property owned by the
United States: and
WHEREAS, the United States has agreed to grant a license
and easement for such use pursuant to the provisions of the license
and easement agreements copies of which are attached hereto:-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Manager of the City of Denton, Texas is
hereby authorized to execute the necessary license and easement
agreements, copies of which are attached hereto, with the Department
of Army on behalf of the City of Denton, to allow the City to
install and maintain a sanitary sewer line in accordance with the
terms and provisions therein contained on, in and along the property
therein described.
SECTION II.
This Resolution shall be effective from and after its date
of passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 18th day of September, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye,:~ and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Twenty-One
F. The Council considered approval of a resolution
accepting a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration in the
amount of $468,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
grant agreements.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that the FAA had offered the City the money and the City was ready
to take it.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has submitted to the Federal
Aviation Administration an application for Federal Assistance dated
September 5, 1984, for a grant of Federal funds for a project for
development of the Denton Municipal Airport: and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration has approved a
project for development of the Airport consisting of the
construction of approximately 18,000 square yards of aircraft
parking apron, construction and marking of a connecting taxiway:
improvements of drainage system, and the installation of two lighted
supplemental wind cones; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration has submitted to
the City of Denton a Grant Offer in the amount of $468,500 for the
construction of such improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City of Denton hereby accepts the Grant Offer and
agrees to comply with all of the assurances and conditions contained
in the Grant Application and the Grant Offer, and the City Manager
of the City of Denton or his designee is hereby authorized to
execute such agreements.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 18th day of September, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Hopkins motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered the final award of Bid # 9328 to
Atkins Brothers Construction Company in the amount of $480,127.80.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 18, 1984
Page Twenty-Two
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that now that the City had the money, we were ready to spend it and
recommended to award the bid.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the final award of Bid #9328
to Atkins Brothers Construction Company. Motion carried unanimously.
There was no official action on Executive Session of legal
matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
10. No items of new business for future agendas were suggested.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
City Council Minutes
September 25, 1984
The Council convened into a Special Called Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, September 25, 1984 in the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, McAdams, Riddlesper§er and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: Council Member Hopkins was absent due to an illness in
his family
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of July 2, 1984 and the Special Called Meeting of
July 10, 1984.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council considered authorizing First Southwest Company
to submit a proposal for purchase of City of Denton, Texas Utility
System Revenue Bonds, Series 1984-A.
City Manager Chris Nartung reported that because First Southwest
Company was tile financial advisor to the city, the Council would
need to authorize their bidding on bonds.
Mr. Frank Medanich, representing First Southwest Company, stated
that his firm had submitted for Council approval a letter which
would authorize First Southwest to submit a bid on these bonds.
They were a member of one of the groups which would be bidding. The
authorization was to fulfill a requirement of state statutes.
Council Member Stephens stated that the bonds were being authorized
to raise revenues for the utilities. He was in favor of raising
revenues but not in this fashion. He believed this was contrary to
the City Charter and felt an election should be called.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to authorize First Southwest
Company to submit a proposal for purchase of City of Denton, Texas
Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 1984-A. Motion carried 5 to 1
with Council Member Stephens casting the nay vote.
3. The Council received and tabulated bids for the purchase of
City of Denton, Texas Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 1984-A.
Mr. Frank Medanich, First Southwest Company, opened the bids. The
Tabulation Sheet is attached to and made a part of these :qinutes.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments while the
bids were being tabulated. No official action was taken.
The Council then reconvened into the Special Called Meeting.
Mr. Frank Medanich reported that all bids were correct and First
Southwest Company recommended awarding the bid to Rauscher, Pierce
and Refsnes.
Mr. Paul Horton, representing the bond counsel McCall, Parkhurst and
Horton, reported that ti)e bond counsel had reviewed and checked the
bids and would also recommend Rauscher, Pierce and Refsnes. The
approval of the ordinance would accomplish the entire transaction.
4. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing
the issuance of City of Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series
1984-A, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures
relating thereto.
Prepared By= F'u-st Southwest Company, 800 Me~'cantUe Dallas Boilclin$, D.~I!=~ Texas 7~201
TABULATION OF BIDS
RECEIVED AT SALE OF
$20,000,000
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
(Denton County)
UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES
Selling Tuesday, September 25, Igg~, at 7:00 PM, CDT
GROSS I. ESS NET EFFECT I VE
ACCOUNT MANAGER INTEREST COST PRE~'41UI~I INTEREST COST INTEREST RATI
City Council [4inures
~eeting of September 25, 1984
Page Two
,4r. Roland Laney, Chairperson of the Public Utilities Board, stated
that the bids had been reviewed and the board would also recommend
the award to Rauscher, Pierce and Refsnes.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-122A
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF DENTON
UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1984-A, AND APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO
Council Member Stephens asked if this procedure were illegal, would
the bond counsel assume the liability.
Mr. Paul Horton, representing McCall, Parkhurst, and Horton,
responded that his firm had an opinion from the Attorney General's
office which stated that the City Charter was in conflict with state
statutes.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "nay," A1 ford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried 5 to 1 with Council ~ember Stephens casting the nay vote.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLOVTE 'ALLEN~,"CITY SECRETARY
1584C
City Council Minutes
October 2, 1984
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
The Council moved item #4 forward in the agenda order.
4. The Council received a report on the water treatment plant
expansion study.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the project had
begun approximately 18 months ago. The results of the study hadl
been presented to the Public Utilities Board in May and staff had
asked Freese and Nichols engineering firm to look at where the city
would need to go next. Capacity was being reached on raw water.
Freese and Nichols recommended that 1 of the 4 pumps at the raw
water station be replaced with a larger one. Also recommended was
the installation of a new high pressure pump. This would upgrade
the capacity to 30,000 gallons per day. Another question which had
been research was the location of a future water treatment plant.
If constructed near Lake Ray Roberts, the pipeline would be very
expensive. Hogan and Rasor had coordinated with Freese and Nichols
in providing cost projections. The staff felt the consumption
projections were unrealistically high. Due to the cost of water,
more residents were conserving. Also the current housing trend
toward apartment living resulted in less use per capita as there
were less lawns to be watered.
Nelson then gave a slide presentation of the possible location
options and the routes for pipelines. Nelson concluded by stating
that a water treatment plant located to the northeast would also
allow service to other cities such as Sanger, Pilot Point, Aubrey,
Krum and Krugerville.
The Council then returned to the agenda order.
1. The Council then took a tour of the renovated west wing,
both Phase I and II.
2. The Council held a discussion of the proposed sign
ordinance.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that if staff did not receive further input from the Council, the
proposed sign ordinance would be placed on the next Council agenda
for passage.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he felt the Council should
either consider approving the ordinance as it was or drop the issue
entirely.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he agreed with Mr. Cliff Reding's
comments regarding the portion of the ordinance regulating non-
- conforming signs. Mr. Reding felt that all non-conforming signs
should not have to be removed. Chew further stated that if a sign
was conforming when it was erected, the fee had been paid and if the
sign were maintained, it should not have to be removed.
Council Member McAdams stated that the removal of that portion would
severely weaken the intent of the ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that no provision had been made for
historical signs and that criteria should be established on what
would constitute an historical sign.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council had not been able to
agree on a criteria for historical structures and did not feel they
could for signs.
Council Member McAdams stated that the historical viewpoint should
be addressed in the historical zoning ordinance and not the sign
ordinance.
Council Member Hopkins stated he felt some of the provisions in the
proposed ordinance should be changed. The requirement that
political signs not exceed 25 square feet was not realistic as the
sheets of plywood used to construct the signs did not come in that
size.
Meyer stated that the Council could amend any provision of the
proposed ordinance that they wished.
Council Member Stephens referred to the section which stated that a
portable sign could not be located within 400 feet of another and
asked if this meant it would just be who got there first.
Meyer responded yes.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he felt the city should have a
sign ordinance but it should not be too restrictive.
The consensus of the Council was to hold a work session on the
proposed sign ordinance at the October 16 meeting.
3. The Council was to hold a discussion on the realignment of
Bell Avenue.
The item was not covered due to lack of time.
5. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of July 17, 1984.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
Mayor Stewart asked that item 2.B.4 be removed from the Consent
Agenda.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the Consent Agenda with the
exception of item 2.Bo4. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9342 - Street and water line improvements
for landfill
2. Bid # 9346 - Mobile radios
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Three
3. Purchase Order # 64764 to P. A. Ross Machinery in
the amount of $3,551.73
4. Purchase Order # 64930 to Bolain Equipment Inc.
in the amount of $3,187.04
5. Purchase Order ~ 64985 to Calvert Motor Co. in
the amount of $3.217.77
6. Purchase Order ~ 65064 to Arthur Andersen and Co.
in the amount of $4,000.00
7. Purchase Order # 65208 to Consolidated Traffic
Control in the amount of $10,780.00
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of the final replat of the Bent
Oaks Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
2. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of lot
1, block 1, Calvert Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of the preliminary replat of
lot 2A, block 20, College Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
REMOVED FROM
THE
CONSENT
AGENDA 4. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of
North Texas Industrial Park, Phase II. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
5. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of lots
1 and 2, block 1, Rayner SuDdivision. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
6. Consider approval of the final replat of the
Solar Way Addition, Sections I and II. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
C. Tax Refunds:
1. Consider approval of a tax refund to Edith B.
Tucker in the amount of $641.10.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, representing Tom Fouts, spoke for his client
regarding item 2.B.4. The subdivision was located on the east side
of Woodrow Lane, would extend Morse Street and would ultimately
connect with Loop 288. The drainage channel would go down to Shady
Oaks. A bridge at Morse Street had been discussed at the Develop-
ment Review Committee meeting and the recommendation from the DRC to
the Planning and Zoning Commission was to have the petitioner build
the bridge now. Mr. Fouts was asking the Council for relief from
building the bridge at this time as it was not consistent with the
proposed land use.
Mayor Stewart asked if the petitioner would post a bond.
Watkins responded that Mr. Fouts would be willing to post a bond or
put the funds for the bridge into an escrow account.
Mayor Stewart stated that Mr. Fouts could sell the property before
the bridge was built.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Four
Council Member Stephens stated that the Council needed a staff
recommendation as there was none in the agenda back-up material.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that the question of the
bridge should be addressed by someone from Public Works.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported the staff would
recommend that the bridge be built now. Other improvements to the
property had been required. The entire channel had been platted and
staff beliew~d the petitioner should build the bridge.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked how the property was zoned.
Svehla replied light industrial.
Council Member McAdams asked if putting the funds in escrow would
not be sufficient.
Svehla responded that if the funds could be put in escrow, the
petitioner might as well build the bridge.
Mr. Tom Fouts, the petitioner, stated that the city owned the land
to the east .Df the parcel. The design called for Morse Street to go
through to Loop 288. When the city built the street, he would build
the bridge. Mr. Fouts concluded by stating there was no reason to
build a bridge which would just sit there. He only planned to put
in mini-warehouses at this time. There were only 3 owners of
adjacent property - himself, the city and one other individual.
Mayor Stewart stated that he wanted Mr. Fouts to realize his
responsibility to construct the bridge was not contingent upon the
city building the street.
Mr. Fouts responded that he would bond the funds with a 10 year bond.
Council Member Stephens asked the Acting City Attorney if this was a
substantial change which should go before the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris responded that a petitioner could
ask for a variance and appeal a P&Z decision to the City Council.
Certain standards must be met before a variance could be granted.
The P&Z could grant the option to the petitioner for a bond or
variance. If the P&Z denied the request for a variance, the
petitioner could then make an appeal to the Council.
Council Member McAdams stated that the Council needed a ruling on
whether they could or could not grant this variance.
Morris responded that the change would require notification of
adjoining property owners.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council was to approve only
the preliminary plat. Any variance would have to go to the P&Z. He
then asked staff to provide the Council with further information.
This item was deferred until later in the agenda.
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Harvey A. Thompson requesting a change in zoning from the single
family (SF-10) classification to the planned development (PD)
classification on an 18.1 acre tract located at the northeast corner
of University Drive (U.S. Highway 380) and Old North Road. If
approved, the planned development would permit the following land
uses:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Five
1.4 acres - neighborhood service land use
2.0 acres - proposed park
6.5 acres - office/warehouse use
5.4 acres - condo/cluster housing, 65 units with a
density of 12 units per acre
2.8 acres - zero lot line land use, 22 units with a
density of 7.9 units per acre Z-1687
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Harvey Thompson, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that he
had acquired a 3 acre tract last spring and had had the property
surveyed. He had asked Fields and Edwards to prepare a petition for
the highest and best land use for the land. Because of the elevated
highway at 380 and the railroad track, a buffer had been suggested
between the railroad track and University Drive. The proposed plan
would include offices which would front on an internal street and
warehouses on Mingo Road. There would be condos, cluster and zero
lot line housing to buffer this use from the single family homes.
The P&Z had recommended denial of the petition. The area was
currently zoned SF-10 which was not compatible with development due
to Old North Road being elevated. This was a sound plan and should
not be denied without consideration.
Ms. Heather White, 2757 Mill Pond, spoke in opposition stating that
the area to the north was newly developed and residents had not been
notified. She had gone from house to house with a petition and had
obtained approximately 100 signatures in opposition. Some of the
city reply forms had been returned with signatures of people who did
not live within 200 feet of the proposed development. Ms. White
presented the petition to the Council.
Mr. Michael O'Leary, 2508 Liberty Lane, spoke in opposition stating
that he lived in the neighborhood and did not feel the neighborhood
service portion of the plan would do the residents any good as there
were already 2 in the area. This was a dangerous intersection now
and with the addition of offices and condominiums it would become
even more dangerous.
Mr. Tom Collins, 2808 Mistywood Lane, spoke in opposition stating
that he had moved into the area approximately 3 weeks ago. There
was an alarming trend in Denton towards growth that was not
carefully checked and he felt that could be harmful. He did not
feel that the quality of life could be served by this particular
development. A traffic signal would have to be placed at this
intersection. Density would be a problem with the addition of
condos, mini-warehouses and office use. If the empty fields in the
area continued to be developed, he felt it would negatively affect
the quality of life for the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Sam Rossen, 2516 Freedom Lane, spoke in opposition stating that.
the traffic was already congested on Old North Road. To get to the
proposed park from the houses in the north, the residents would have
to use Old North Road. He was most opposed to the mini-warehouses
and did not want them in his neighborhood. The office use in the
front and the warehouse use in the back could mean more truck.
traffic. He had purchased in this area as it was single family and
he would like for it to remain so. The city had no moral obligation
to Mr. Thompson to upgrade the zoning.
Mr. Tony Lewis, 2516 Foxcroft, spoke in opposition stating that Mr.
Thompson had agreed to build; however, Mr. Thompson had been
previously granted zoning for apartments and it had taken him 10
years to construct the project.
Mr. Lawrence Kelly, 2608 Emerson, spoke in opposition and asked
those present who were opposed to stand. When the notification an~
reply forms had been mailed, the current tax roll did not show
several owners who lived in the zero lot line homes. He felt the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Six
development would exceed the acceptable density in the office area.
The park land might not be developed into a park. There was the
possibiity that the property would be sold and another zoning
petition would come before the Council.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Thompson 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Thompson stated that when the land plan had been drawn, the park
area had not been put in as a sham. Regarding traffic impact, he
felt the staff and not the opposition should address that issue.
The staff analysis showed the proposed density to be only slightly
over standard. The area where the Fox and Jacobs homes had been
built had been in his family since the early 1900's. The property
had always been used agriculturally and was improperly zoned as
SF-10.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 12 reply
forms had been mailed with 8 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. This area was designated for low intensity and should
be used for single family housing although the Denton Development
Guide encouraged diversification of housing. The Guide recommended
4.0 acres of office use and this particular proposal was requesting
7.0 acres. The petition had been submitted prior to the recent
update of the Guide. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
recommended denial. If the Council did approve the request, the P&Z
had attached 3 conditions. Six affirmative votes would be required
to overturn the P&Z recommendation for denial. The traffic at Old
North Road and 380 was currently a problem and this, or any other
development, would add to the problem.
Alford motion, Chew motion to deny. Motion to deny carried
unanimously.
The Council then considered item 2.B.4 from the Consent Agenda.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that the regulations had
been examined and the proper course of action for the Council would
be to approve the plat including the bridge. The applicant could
then go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and request a
variance.
Hopkins motion,~ Chew second to approve the plat. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
W. H. Smith requesting' a change in zoning from agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on a
52.9 acre parcel located at the southwest corner of Bonnie Brae
Street and Payne Drive. If approved, the planned development (PD)
would permit the following land uses:
6.3 acres - neighborhood service land use
10.0 acres - single family detached land use with a
minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet
11.6 acres - zero lot line land use with a density of 7.2
units per acre
10.0 acres - multi-family land use with a density of 12
units per acre
14.9 acres - multi-family land use with a density of 22
units per acre Z-1688
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Larry Frank, representing Mr. W. H. Smith, spoke in favor
stating that his client had reduced the density of the proposed
development during the petition process. The proposal had been
submitted prior to the recent update of the Denton Development Guide
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Seven
which would have further reduced the density. The development would
have approximately 17 units per acre of total multi-family. His
client had attempted to work with the neighborhood and had an.
agreement with adjacent property owers. No on-premises consumption
of alcohol or gasoline service stations would be allowed in the
neighborhood services portion of the development.
Reverend Haygood spoke in favor of the petition stating that he had
worked very closely with Mr. Franks and Mr. Smith because the
proposed development was adjacent to the future site of his church
building. His congregation had been kept informed of changes in the
proposal and had been asked to provide feedback to the petitioner.
As his church had begun the clear the lot they had discovered how
isolated the location was and would welcome a convenience store in
the area. His church was unanimously behind the petition.
Council Member Stephens asked Reverend Haygood if many of his
congregation lived in the neighborhood.
Reverend Haygood responded not at the present time but he felt they
would move into the area after the church was constructed.
Mr. Jim Engelbrecht, 2305 North Lake Trail, spoke in opposition
stating that a major concern was the impact the neighborhood
services portion of the proposed would have on the park area which
was to northeast of this planned development. The residents felt a
convenience store which sold alcoholic beverages could go into the
neighborhood service portion and that would be inappropriate so
close to the park. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
recommended there be no on-premises consumption of alcoholic
beverages but the residents were asking the Council to remove all
sales of such beverages (both on and off-premises consumption) from
the planned development. In addition, a convenience store would
increase the traffic in the area. The residents would prefer that
the neighborhood services be replaced with office use. Mr.
Engelbrecht stated that he found it strange that the church did not
oppose the sale of alcoholic beverages. If this and the sale of
gasoline were removed from the petition the North Lakes citizens
would not oppose the density of the development.
Council Member Stephens asked when the verbal agreement had been
reached regarding the removal of the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Engelbrecht responded approximately 3 weeks ago.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Franks 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Larry Franks reported that a verbal commitment had been made to
the North Lakes residents and he had assured them that he would
check with the developer. The developer was willing to do whatever
it took to proceed.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 7 reply
forms nad been mailed with 3 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. This particular zoning request had been in process for
several months. Changes had been made in the density of the multi-
family portion. While the proposal did not comply with the upgraded
Development Guide density policies, it had been submitted prior to
the Guide revisions. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
recommended approval with 3 conditions which were specified in the
agenda back-up materials.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve the zoning request
with the additional condition that there would be no sale of
alcoholic Deverages in the neighborhood services portion and no sale
of gasoline; an additional condition would be added that there would
be no convenience stores in the neighborhood services area.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Eight
Council Member Hopkins asked if the water line would tie in to the
development at the west.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, responded yes.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris asked for direction in the
preparation of the amended ordinance. Morris asked what the Council
considered to be a "convenience store."
Council Member Riddlesperger clarified that the neighborhood
services should be limited to office use.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Joe Evans requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on a
20.3 acre tract located on the east side of Masch Branch Road
approximately 583 feet south of U. S. Highway 380. If approved, the
planned development would permit light industrial (LI) land use.
Z-1689
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, representing Joe Evans, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that his client was requesting a planned
development for light industrial use. Warehouses would be
constructed now and the light idustrial uses would be developed in
the future. There was only one house on the parcel. Mr. Evans had
agreed to a lengthly list of exceptions and restrictions on the
proposed development.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 6 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. This was a moderate intensity area with adjoining land
uses of estate type housing, a steel company and some small
businesses. There currently were 12 residences, 6 businesses and a
significant amount of agricultural use in the area as well as
undeveloped property. Future industrial development was being
discouraged due to the proximity of this parcel to the municipal
airport. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended
approval with 5 conditions.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on a
20.3 acre tract located on the east side of Masch Branch Road
approximately 583 feet south of U. S. Highway 380.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-123
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 20.366 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MASCH BRANCH ROAD APPROXIMATELY
583 FEET SOUTH OF U. S. HIGHWAY 380, AND IS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN
ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
"PD" CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Nine
Chew motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call.
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Sigma Tau Gamma Fraternity requesting a specific use permit to
operate a fraternity in an office (0) zoning district at the
northwest corner of West Oak Street and Fry Street. The property
was more particularly described as 1302 West Oak Street. S-181
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Scott Rizenski, Executive Vice-President of Sigma Tau Gamma,
spoke in favor of the petition stating that the fraternity had only
been active at NTSU since 1983 and currently had 35 members.
Fraternity projects had included a canned food drive, the planting
of shrubs, assistance to the Cumberland Presbyterian Home, and a fun
run to raise funds for the Olympics. The fraternity was petitioning
for a specific use permit so as to be allowed to display their Greek
letters on the exterior of the house. Fraternity meetings would be
held on Sunday and would not create any traffic problems. The house
itself was being leased on a lease/purchase plan and was not located
in a residentially zoned area.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that, due to the traffic on Fry
and Oak Street, it appeared that this was a terrible location for a
frat house.
Rizenski responded that the fraternity was trying to locate out of a
residential area.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the puDlic hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 14 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned in favor and 2 returned in
opposition. The Denton Development Guide designated this area for
low intensity uses and called out 5 criteria for this particular
area. The proposal would exceed the intensity criteria. The
Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval with 2
conditions.
Council Member McAdams stated that she applauded the group's
activities but the Council could only look at the land use. Parking
had been removed 1 block away for a bicycle path and she felt the
granting of this specific use permit would in fact create a traffic
problem. The area already was traffic congested due to the retail
businesses and the other fraternity house which was across the
street.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to deny the request. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "nay."
Motion to deny carried 6 to 1 with Mayor Stewart casting the "nay"
vote.
4. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a request for a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification for
light industrial (LI) uses on a 130.6 acre tract located at the
southeast corner of Jim Christal Road and Masch Branch Road.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that the case
was before the Council at their last meeting as straight Light
Industrial zoning. The Council had referred the case back to the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Ten
Planning and Zoning Commission as a planned development. The P&Z
had recommended approval with 3 conditions.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-124
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 130.6898 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JIM CHRISTAL ROAD AND
MASCH BRANCH ROAD, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN~ TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION
FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "?D" CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an Independent Contractor's Agreement with Jerry Wright,
Space Planner, for Phase III of the Renovation Project.
Ann Bingman, Project Administrator, reported that staff was
proposing the contract to have Mr. Wright to continue as the space
planner.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-125
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SPACE PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE
RENOVATION PROJECTS OF THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an Independent Contractor's Agreement with Jerry
Frederick, Construction Superintendent, for Phase III of the
Renovation Project.
Ann Bingman, Project Administrator, reported that Mr. Frederick had
made significant contributions in keeping the cost of the over-all
project at a minimum.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-126
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN
AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR THE
RENOVATION PROJECTS OF THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Eleven
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an Independent Contractor's Agreement with Richard Cooper,
Mechanical Engineer, for Phase III of the Renovation Project.
Ann Bingman, Project Administrator, reported that Mr. Cooper was the
same engineer that the city had used in Phase I and II of the
Renovation Project.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-127
AN ORDINANCE OF HHE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN
AGREEMENT FOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CONSULTING
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE RENOVATION PROJECTS OF THE
MUNICIPAL BUILDING; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting inspection and permit fees as provided for by Article 1,
Chapter 10 of the ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas; repealing
all ordinances in conflict.
Bob Hagemann, Fire Marshal, reported that the ordinance would
establish the fees that would be set on the new fire code which the
Council adopted in September.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris reported that the new uniform fire
code which had been previously adopted allowed the procedure to
charge fees. This particular ordinance simply set the amount of the
fees.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he was in favor of the fire code but
was opposed to the fee charged for fire inspections.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "nay," Stephens "nay," Alford
"nay," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion failed 4 to 3 with Council Members Hopkins, Stephens, Alford
and Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting the "nay" votes.
City Manager Chris Hartung asked for direction from the Council as
the revenues from these fees had been included in the budget.
The consensus of the Council was to have a discussion of the fees
placed on the work session agenda for October 16.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
abandoning and quit claiming an unused easement on property
northeast of 1-35 and Prairie Street (near the proposed Mill ,Run
apartments).
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilties, reported that the city did not
need this particular easement.
Council Member McAdams asked why the easement was being abandoned.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris responded that the recommendation
was to abandon the easement as it had never been formally dedicated.
The following ordinance was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Twelve
NO. 84-128
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A UTILITY
EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SAID EASEMENT TO THE
OWNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY SAID EASEMENT; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc. for master plan
update for the sewer collection system.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that it had been over 10
years since the master plan had been completed for the sewer
collection system. Ideally, the plan should be updated every 5
years.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-129
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MASTER
PLAN FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY'S WASTEWATER
COLLECTION SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc. for Denton water
treatment plant expansion site study.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this item had been
discussed at the work session. Two potential new sites would be
identified.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-130
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. FOR ENGINEERING
CONSULTING SERVICES IN REGARD TO THE LOCATION OF A NEW
WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
5. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
estaDlishing out-of-city Library fees.
Assistant City Manager Betty McKean reported that this was a
revision of a previously approved resolution setting fees for
library use by out-of-city patrons.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Thirteen
Council Member Stephens stated that he did not believe the Library
Board had recommended a fee of $11.
McKean responded the Library Board had recommended an annual fee of
$35; however, during the recently completed budget hearings, the fee
had been revised to $11.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the Policies of the Emily Fowler Public Library as
approved by the City Council on December 7, 1976 are amended to
provide for fees for noncity residents. The policy provision of
"Registration of Borrowers" providing for the eligibility of persons
for library cards which presently reads as follows:
1. Residence: An adult applicant who states that he is a
permanent resident of Denton and/or Denton County and gives
an address in either is eligible for a library card free of
charge upon making application and presenting proper
identification,
is hereby amended to read as follows:
1. Residence: An adult applicant who submits reasonable
documentation or information that the person permanently
resides within the city limits is eligible for a library card
free of charge upon making proper application.
An applicant who is not a permanent resident of the City of
Denton, but who is a resident of Denton County, may upon
proper application and payment of an annual fee of eleven
dollars ($11.00) be issued a library card which is valid for
a period of one year.
SECTION II.
This Resolution shall become effective from and after its date
of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 2nd day of October, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Council Member Stephens stated that he believed the fee was too low
and would not cover the cost of the service.
Council Member McAdams stated that $11 would be the cost of service
if every out-of-city citizen used the Library.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Fourteen
Council Member Hopkins stated that all persons could use the
Library; they would only need to pay the fee if they chose to check
out Library materials.
On roll call vote, McAdams "nay," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"nay." Motion carried 4 to 3 with Council Members McAdams, Stephens
and Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" votes.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris stated that an ordinance would be
presented to the Council at a later date to formally set the fees
and allow for collection.
6. The Council received a report on proposed 1984 electric,
water/wastewater rate changes.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, gave a slide presentation of the
1983-84 expected rates, the 1984-85 current rates and the 1984-85
proposed rates. The Public Utilities Board had asked staff to look
at reducing the rates across the board as well as the summer rates.
The utility system would required $1.9 million additional working
capital this year. When considering changes the rates, the staff
had looked at the entire TMPA costs, which represented an
approximate $21 million to TMPA. Staff had removed 4 1/2~ from the
rates and put in 3 1/2~ TMPA cost. There might be some months with
a 1.5~ fuel adjustment charge and some at 5~. Staff was proposing a
two tier fuel adjustment charge. Denton would be buying electricity
from TMPA and then reselling. The cost for the energy was divided
to get the summer and winter fuel adjustment charges. This resulted
in a 19% increase in the base residential rates which the Public
Utilities Board felt was too high. Staff was recommending an
increased demand charge to large customers. Facility charges would
not change.
Council Member Hopkins asked what the rates seemed to penalize
people in the category R-2 who were all electric.
Nelson responded they were not being penalized. The rate would go
down; however, the facility charge was greater than those persons in
the R-1 category because the R-1 user consumed only 700 KWH per
month during the summer.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the staff planned on looking at the
rates during the year.
Nelson responded that staff would look at the fuel adjustment charge
but not the base rate. There was a risk involved in setting a rigid
fuel adjustment cost. If TMPA rates were to decrease, Denton would
need flexibility to reduce the charge also.
On the water utilities, the anticipated increase would allow a
$65,000 surplus.
Charles Cryan~, Utility Budget/Rate Administrator, presented a
comparison of rates for various cities and stated that all cities
were changing their rates and Denton wanted to stay competitive.
Denton did haw~ a higher facility charge but this would level out in
the larger consumer classes.
Nelson reported that staff was recommending a 2 level fuel
adjustment charge - one for summer and one for winter.
Council Member Hopkins stated t~at he was concerned about what a 17%
increase would do to the larger industrial customers and would
affect industrial development and growth. He was also concerned
about the small businessman.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 2, 1984
Page Fifteen
7. The Council considered approval of a request for water/
sewer service outside the Denton city limits by Jay-Mar Addition,
Lot 1, Block 1.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this request had
been discussed previously.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the request by Jay-Mar
Addition for water/sewer service outside the city limits. Motion
carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered approval to provide water/sewer
service to Denton County North Mobile Subdivision and Denton County
South Mobile Subdivision on East McKinney Street adjacent to
Vacation Village Estates.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported this was a 552 lot
development which was requesting water and sewer service. The
developer would be required to extend a 12 inch water line and a new
lift station would also be required. There would be no cost to the
city.
Chew motion, Stephens second to approve the water/sewer service.
Motion carried unanimously.
9. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
10. No items of new business were suggested by Council Members
for future agendas.
Tae Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLO~2E A~LEN,-C~TY-SECRETAR~
0959g
City Council Minutes
October 16, 1984
The Council was to depart for a tour of the Lake Ray
Roberts construction site at 2:00 p.m.
The tour was rained out and was to be rescheduled for a later date.
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council held a discussion of a proposed five (5) acre
office development and general development plan for a 70 acre site
located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (adjacent and north of
Highway 380 West and west of Masch Branch Road) for the purpose of
determining whether to begin the annexation process.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that the proposed Tri-Steel
Headquarters Addition was a 5 acre site located 50 feet south of the
present city limits extending along Highway 380 West. The
development of a construction office facility was the immediate
proposed land use; however, Tri-Steel owned approximately 70 acres
beginning at the northwest corner of Highway 380 West and Masch
Branch Road. A general development plan had been submitted for the
entire parcel at the request of the Development Review Committee.
Information concerning future development was limited but Tri-Steel
had indicated the possibility of some light industrial uses at some
future date. Tri-Steel did emphasize that there were no immediate
plans for development except for the 5 acre office site. The Denton
Development Guide designated this as a low intensity area.
Permission had been granted for the extension of city utilities. A
preliminary plat had been submitted for the proposed office site.
Tri-Steel Structures, Inc. had considered locating their office
facility on a portion of the tract which was currently within the
city limits but had opted not to do so when they discovered that a
zoning change would be required.
The consensus of the Council was to proceed with annexation pro-
cedures on the 70 acre tract.
2. The Co~]ncil held a discussion of the ordinance setting fire
inspection and permit fees.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was a new program.
Many cities were looking at the same type of system but Denton had
been one of the first to adopt the program which was implemented the
first of February.
Bob Hagemann, Fire Marshal, reported that the fire inspection
program had been on-going for approximately 50 years. The Fire
Department tried to inspect each business twice a year and the
schools and hospitals three times a year. Some inspections were
done on sprinkler systems, LP gas, etc. but these did take more
staff time. It also took staff time to inspect for rubbish, bon
fires and tree fire permits. Under state law, developers could burn
trees which they uprooted during the clearing of lots. The Fire
Department would like to be able to charge a fee for these
inspections as they did take considerable time.
Council Member Stephens asked if a fee was charged to individuals
for inspection of storage or handling permits for liquid petroleum
products.
Hagemann responded no; inspections were conducted for gas stations
with underground tanks and the owners were only charged at the time
of the installation.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Hopkins asked if the fire inspection fee was an'
on-going program each year.
Hagemann responded yes. He then reported that the total number of
fire inspections billed as of September 30 was 640. Total amount of
the inspection fees billed was $14,440 with $10,960 already
collected.
Council Member Stephens stated that he had no argument with most of
the inspection fees being charged; however, he did object to the $15
fee charged to businessmen for inspections.
City Manager Hartung stated that Council would have to go back to
the reason for the fees and charges. The original purpose was to
tie the cost of service to the user and not the general taxpayer.
The change which had been previously approved was to add an
additional fire inspector and to charge for the inspection.
Presently, staff was completing approximately 30 inspections per
month. In 1982, the city was looking at a very tight economic
situation and the fees were reviewed in that context. This program
had increased the city's fire inspection program and had taken care
of the Fire Marshal's Office money situation. This basically was a
policy question - should this service be paid for from the General
Revenue Fund or by a special fee.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the difference between a
tax paid service and a fee seemed to be whether the person paying
felt that they got their money's worth. Many complaints had been
that the inspectors walked through the business in 2 minutes and
collected the fee. The inspectors were not selling themselves or
the importance of the service they were providing.
Hagemann replied that the staff was properly trained and were all
certified inspectors.
Council Member Riddlesperger responded that perhaps the inspectors
were not doing a good public relations job.
Hagemann responded that he could speak with the inspectors about
that.
Council Member McAdams stated that the policy question was important.
What was going to be the Council's policy about charging for the
services which were rendered? A charge was assessed for children
using parks and recreation facilities and associated programs. The
City/County Health Department charged for inspections of restaurants
and that fee was based on the entire facility plus so much per table.
McAdams then stated that she wanted to know that when she went into
a business that she would not be trapped by a fire hazard. Not all
businessmen who had been inspected had complained and she felt that
some of the problems were because the program was new and different.
Perhaps staff should concentrate on public relations and selling the
program at first. If this fee were removed, the Council should look
at the whole policy of fees. A differentiation should be made
between those services which the city was responsible to provide and
those which should be charged back to the user.
Mayor Stewart stated that he agreed with Council Member McAdams.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he did not think the inspections
should be stopped but a different view should be taken. He felt the
inspectors should work with the business community and convince the
businessmen that the service was to their advantage. If the
inspectors were paired with fire fighters, the fire fighter could
gain insight on where flammables were stored, etc. in case of a fire
at the business at a later date.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Three
Council Member Alford stated that he had been inspected. The
inspectors had looked in every corner and through his entire
business but had been very quick. Perhaps they should explain to
the businessman what they were doing.
Council Member Stephens stated that perhaps the fire inspectors
should leave a copy of the inspection report with the businessmen so
that they would know what had been checked.
Council Member Stephens stated that there was no question on the
need for the inspections; the question was on whether or not to
charge the fee. He agreed with Council Member Hopkins that a fire
fighter should accompany the inspector so as to get acquainted with
the business and the contents. He also agreed with Council Member
Riddlesperger that the program needed some positive public relations
work done. It seemed that this was part of the Fire Department job
to give this service to the public.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he had no problem with
charging the fee but felt the inspectors needed to explain and sell
the program when they performed the inspections.
Council Member Hopkins asked if a problem was found and
re-inspection was done, was another fee charged.
Hagemann responded no; if a problem was found, the inspectors did
re-inspect. If the problem was still not corrected on the third
re-inspection, a warning was issued. If still not abated, a
citation was given.
Council Member McAdams suggested the fee program be continued for
one year on trial basis.
Council Member Stephens stated that the only portion of the fee
ordinance which he opposed to was the $15.00 fire inspection charge
for businessmen.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that businessmen had the same rights to
free inspections as did homeowners.
Council Member McAdams stated that businesses generate a profit
while homes did not.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council should consider if
the revenues generated by the fire inspection fee outweighed the
hard feelings of the business community.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that it was the same as citizens
who pay taxes but also have to pay for garbage collection.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the fee ordinance with the
exception of the fire inspection fee.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to amend the motion to approve
all of the fees in the ordinance. Motion carried 4 to 3 with
Council Members Stephens, Hopkins, and Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting
the "nay" votes.
3. The Council held a discussion of a street bond election.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that as the budget was now out
of the way, the Council could hold this first discussion on the
proposed street bond election.
Council Member Stephens asked for a dollar figure for the election.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Four
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla responded that staff was awaiting
direction from the Council. The first street bond election, held iii
1981, was for approximately $10 million. Material costs were not
escalating as rapidly as before but were still expensive.
Council Member Stephens stated that he felt the proper direction was
to hold the election strictly for street improvements and the
drainage projects which would be associated with the road work. He
then asked what would be the earliest date the election could be
held.
Hartung responded that the Council should consider the upcoming
holiday season but should decide as quickly as possible on calling
the election and get the ball rolling.
4. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Special Called Meeting of July 24, 1984; the Special Called Meeting
of July 31, 1984; the Regular Meeting of August 7, 1984; and the
Special Called Meeting of August 13, 1984.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Purchase Orders:
1. Purchase Order # 65181A to George Stracener in
the amount of $5,600.00
2. Purchase Order # 65197 to Mahanay International
in the amount of $3,658.95
3. Purchase Order # 65263 to J. S. Equipment Company
in the amount of $6,320.97
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Dallas Drive Mini Storage Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
2. Consider approval of the preliminary replat of
the Milton Court Addition, lot 1 block 1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
3. Consider approval of the preliminary replat of
the Sun Valley Addition, lot 13, block A. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
4. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of
Southridge III. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Five
5. Consider approval of the final replat of the Guy
Laney Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Com-
mission recommends approval.)
6. Consider approval of the preliminary plat of the
Hartman Acres Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. The Council was to receive a report from the Committee on
Employment of the Handicapped.
No one was present to present the report.
4. The Council considered approval of the request by the
Miller girls of Denton to paint the wall on Bonnie Brae and
Scripture.
Mr. Jeff Raleigh, representing the Miller girls, reported that all
of the residents in the area by the wall had been contacted and had
signed a petition requesting approval by the Council to have the
wall painted. Mr. Raleigh presented a sketch of the proposed wall
painting. If approved, the painting would take place on November 3.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the request to paint the
wall on Bonnie Brae and Scripture. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Public Hearings
A. The Council considered the petition of W. S. Nash
requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on a
44.1 acre tract located on the east side of FM 2164 (North Locust
Street) approximately 5,600 feet north of Hercules Street. The
tract is more particularly described as immediately adjacent and
west of Twin Lakes Mobile Home Park. If approved, the planned
.development would permit the construction of a 198 lot mobile home
subdivision. Z--1684
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. W. S. Nash~ the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that staff
had stated this proposal did not meet the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations due to the adjacent 300 mobile home park. Twin Lakes
Mobile Home Park was not within the city limits and this development
was. This would be a first class development. He had agreed to put
in special lighting so as not to interfere with telescopes used in
the area. The project would be occupant-owned and not rental
property. City water and sewer would be extended to the proposed
development. ~[r. Nash concluded by stating that the Twin Lakes
Mobile Home Park did not meet city codes and asked the Council not
to judge his development by what was next door.
Mr. John Overstreet, representing a group of home owners and land
owners in the neighborhood, spoke in opposition and presented the
Council with a petition stating several objections to the development
and a copy of a traffic study which had been done by staff for North
Locust Street. The neighbors had met on this proposed development
and were concerned that the petition would violate the Planning and
Zoning Commission policy regarding diversification of housing. It
was felt that, if approved, .~his project would devaluate the property
values of the ~.xist~ng ~s~dents as well as increase the traffic on
North Locust. Traffic~as already being increased by the Joe Belew
development, the Snyder development, Evers park and the school.
The alignment of Bell Avenue north of Sherman had not been settled
and the residents did not want another situation like the one which
existed on Teasley Lane. It had been stated that city water and
sewer service would De extended to the development. Mr. Overstreet
stated that he had checked with the city Utility Department and the
developer did not have a firm plan on extending these services.
There would also be problems with Fire, Police and Animal Control
services in this area. The citizens who opposed were within the
city limits and were asking the Council to give them due
consideration and to follow the P&Z recommendation for denial.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Six
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Nash 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Nash stated that any plan to provide water and sewer service
would have to be approved by the city staff and City Council. The
traffic situation would be handled by the new northern extension of
Loop 288. This development would be phased in as it was a single
family project and would take approximately 3 to 5 years to complete.
A development could not be limited to what the streets could handle
now.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 6 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned in favor and 2 returned in
opposition. This location had been designated as a low density area
which fell under several criteria in the Denton Development Guide.
Firstly, the intensity/density standard should not be violated. No
concentration of mobile homes should exceed the 200 limit. This
developmet would have 198 mobile homes but it was located adjacent
to another moDile home park. The development should have accessed
by a collector or larger street. Strict site plan control should be
maintained and green space and recreational facilities should be
provided. Input to the planning should be solicited from the
neighborhood. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended
denial by a unanimous vote. If the Council approved the petition,
the P&Z had attached several conditions.
Council Member Hopkins asked how far the proposed development was
from the extension of Loop 288.
Spivey responded approximately 1,600 feet north of Hercules was the
site for the development.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the intensity standard included the
mobile home park which was outside the city limits.
Spivey responded yes, in this case, because the two would be
adjacent.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to deny the petition. Motion to
deny carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition
of Bob Crouch requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural
(A) district to the light industrial (LI) district on an approxi-
mately 20 acre parcel located on the north side of Fishtrap Road,
approximately 2,400 feet east of T&P, MKT Railroad. The property is
more particularly described as lots 1-16 of the Meadow Lark
Addition. Z-1691
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bob Crouch, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that he was
representing the 2 property owners. The property was platted into
16 lots of various sizes. They were now requesting a zoning change
to light industrial to build warehouse type structures on the lots.
They felt there was a real need for this project. Surrounding land
uses included a nursery, welding shop, a mobile home park and a
convenience store.
Mr. Jim Griffis, developer of Sandy Hill Mobile Home Park, spoke in
opposition stating that he would be moving into the park within 3 to
4 months. One of the petitioners, Mr. Neblett, owned a 96 acre
tract at the corner of Geesling and Fishtrap Road which had recently
been rezoned commercial and Mr. Griffis had not objected. He stated
that he did feel the remainder of the property should remain
basically residential in nature. If the vacant property were to be
zoned commercial or light industrial, it would be very difficult for
him to sell all of the lots in his mobile home subdivision. The
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Seven
petitioners were not interested in completing the development but
rather to buy the property, have it rezoned and then sell the land
for a quick profit.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Crouch 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Crouch stated that one of the owners was present and had been
very active in development on Loop 288. This property had been
platted in 1972 and the owner did plan on developing. His client
was aware of the requirements by the city to develop the property
under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 11 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. This area had a hodge-podge of land uses which were
mostly non-conforming. Mr. Neblett had recently petitioned and had
been granted a zoning change from agricultural to light industrial
on a 96 acre parcel in this same area.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to
the light industrial (LI) district on an approximately 20 acre
parcel described as lots 1-16 of the Meadow Lark Addition.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-131
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES OF
LAND SITUATED IN THE T. H. LIVING SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 729
AND THE M. FORREST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 417 DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FISHTRAP ROAD
APPROXIMATELY 2,400 FEET EAST OF T&P MKT RAILROAD: TO
PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
AND USE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL "LI" CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR
SAID PROPERTY: AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye" and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Charles Watkins representing Karl F. Young, requesting a change in
zoning from the agricultural (A) district to the commercial (C)
district on two tracts totaling 18.8 acres located on the west side
of Loop 288 approximately 2,500 feet south of East McKinney Street
(FM 426). The property was located directly across Loop 288 from
the eastern extension of Morse Street. Z-1692
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, representing the petitioner, spoke in foavor
stating that the surrounding land uses were a single family
structure to the north, to the south and west was vacant and across
the street on the east was largely industrial. A portion of this
property, approximately 3 acres, was in the flood plain. This was
located in a high intensity node, it fronted on a major arterial
street and was adjacent to 2 large sewer lines. The Capital
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Eight
Improvements Program should extend a major water line acress the
front of the property.
Mr. Mike Ramos, representing the industrial park across the street,
spoke in favor stating that they had no opposition to the zoning
request. The only concern was access back towards Loop 288.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 6 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. This request was in a high intensity area and high
employment area adjacent to the Golden Triangle Mall. The proposed
development would be a consistent land use.
McAdams motion, Alford second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
R.W.G.P., Inc., represented by Curtis Hodgson, requesting a change
in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to the planned
development (PD) district on an approximately 17.1 acre parcel
located at the southwest corner of Paige and Swisher Roads. If
approved, the planned development would permit 18 single family lots
(minimum lot size 7,000 square feet) along the south side of ?aige
Road and 11 single family estate lots (minimum lot size one acre)
along the west side of Swisher Road. Z-1694
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Curtis Hodgson, President of R.W.G.?., Inc., spoke in favor
stating this petition was for a development to serve as a buffer
zone between CHaparral Estates and his proposed mobile home
subdivision. Internal street paving along Swisher Road would be 24
feet streets with 30 feet dedication from the center line. The
streets would be built to standards as far as depth and materials
were concerned. Mr. Hodgson requested to be allowed to construct
the streets to state standards with bar ditches as opposed to
curbing and guttering.
Council Member McAdams asked if the present streets were built to
state standards.
Mr. Hodgson responded yes; the present streets were 18 to 20 feet
wide. He would be increasing the width of the streets.
Mr. Brian Burke, Civil Engineer, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that he was working with Mr. Hodgson on the drainage and
utilities aspects of the development.
Mr. John Russell, of Chaparrel Estates, spoke in opposition stating
that he had mixed feelings in that he would like to see the area
across the street from him develop as single family. However, he
wondered if anyone would buy the single family homes on a 1 acre
tract if a moDile home park was located in the back of the single
family development. He believed Mr. Hodgson would have difficulty
in selling the property and would be back before the Council in 2
years to ask for a planned development on this tract for a mobile
home park.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if Mr. Russell would oppose this
petition if the Council tabled the second portion for the mobile
home subdivision until these lots were sold.
Mr. Russell responded no.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Nine
Mr. S. F. Taylor, President of Shiloh Cemetery Association, spoke in
opposition stating that the developer had agreed to construct a 6
feet high fence to keep water from the cemetery and he wanted and
assurance from the Council that this would be done.
Mayor Stewart stated that this public hearing was for zoning only.
Drainage improvements, etc. would be handled during the platting
process.
Mr. Carroll Nunez spoke in opposition stating that he was concerned
about access through the development on Paige Road.
Mayor Stewart stated that the staff would address this issue during
their report.
Ms. Joette Powell, owner of 10 acres on Paige Road and Swisher Road,
spoke in opposition stating that no one wanted to live next to a
mobile home park.
Mayor Stewart stated that this particular zoning request was not for
mobile homes but for single family dwellings.
Ms. Judy Grimes spoke in opposition stating that she had heard no
clarification on that type of houses would be built.
Mr. Kevin McCormick spoke in opposition stating that he lived
adjacent to the single family 7,000 square feet lots and felt the
petitioner needed to make the buffer of 1 acre tracts applicable
completely around the parcel.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Hodgson 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Hodgson stated that he did not believe that manufactured housing
in the area would devaluate the property values of the single family
dwellings. A fence would be constructed at the cemetery. The 1
acre tracts came about due to the character of the land and he
believed the SF-7 was a reasonable application.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 10 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in opposition and 0 returned
in favor. This was outside the limits of the Denton Development
Guide study area and was mostly agricultural in nature. The
proposed land use would be compatible with adjoining Chaparrel
Estates. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
with 3 conditions.
Council Member Stephens asked about the access back out to the 18
back lots.
Spivey responded access would be on Paige Road.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that Paige was a
collector street and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations would
require 1 driveway every 200 feet.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked why there were no 1 acre lots on
the back of the development.
Council Member Stephens stated that he had noticed that some of
those persons speaking in opposition had reply forms returned to the
city due to an incorrect address.
Spivey stated that the reply forms were mailed to the address on the
current tax rolls.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Ten
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that he had given an
erroneous answer previously. The Subdivision Rules and Regulations:
required 2 driveways per every 100 feet for a collector street and
all of these could come out on Paige Road.
Council Member Stephens asked if the interior road in the
development would also come out on Paige Road.
Svehla responded yes; but this could be platted differently.
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the petition. Motion carried
6 to 1 with Council Member Stephens casting the "nay" vote.
E. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
R.W.G.P., Inc., represented by Curtis Hodgson, requesting a change
in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to the planned
development (?D) district on a 49.4 acre tract in the Gideon Walker
Survey, Abstract 1330. The property was located on the north side
of Shady Shores Road approximately 250 feet west of Swisher Road.
If approved, the planned development would permit the development of
a 275 lot manufactured housing subdivision. Z-1695
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Curtis Hodgson, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that
trees would be planted to separate the SF-7 housing from the mobile
home park. The density, traffic and utility issues had been
discussed at previous public hearings. There would be privacy
fencing around the development. Mr. Hodgson then stated that in his
original petition for this development he had not proposed the
buffer zone of single family housing but had resubmitted the request
in an effort to work with adjoining property owners. The Planning
and Zoning Commission had attached 20 conditions to this petition to
which he was willing to comply. The City of Corinth had stated that
Shady Shores Drive was a major arterial and required 50 feet
dedicated right-of-way.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he wondered if the 1 acre
lots abutting the mobile home subdivision would sell and asked Mr.
Hodgson if he would agree to delay the mobile home park until 75% of
the 1 acre lots were sold. He stated taat he would rather see the
lots sell first and asked Mr. Hodgson if he would have a problem
with this.
Mr. Hodgson stated that he believed the market was fast moving but
there were many subdivisions in southeast Denton which were 5 to 8
years old and were not 75% occupied.
Ms. June Hannah, real estate agent, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that she was also a mobile home broker and there was a great
need for this type of development. Many people could not afford
$80,000 to $90,000 homes. Most of the housing in the lower price
range was substandard and below the quality of good manufactured
housing. Ms. Hannah asked the Council to consider the petition as
it was an option for many people. She concluded by stating that she
did believe the 1 acre lots would sell and if they did not, the loss
would be Mr. Hodgson's.
Ms. Lynn Schneider, resident of Chapparel Estates, spoke in
opposition giving a review of the density of mobile homes in the
southeast Denton area. Even in the best parks, mobile homes still
came on wheels and still had to have 1 side which could be opened to
access hot water heaters and electrical utilities. Fire fighters
required special training on handling fires in mobile homes due to
the formaldahyde problem created by the large amount of plastic used
in mobile home construction. Ms. Schneider presented slides on
mobile home parks in the southeast Denton area which had 50 homes or
more.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Eleven
Ms. Schneider also stated that the Shiloh cemetery had been in the
area for 140 years and Mr. Hodgson had not agreed to place a fence
between the cemetery and his development. She stated that she found
it very offensive that the swimming pool for the development complex
would be located close to the cemetery.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked Ms. Schneider if the mobile home
parks she had denoted on her map were full or if they had vacancies.
Ms. Schneider stated that Lakewood Estates was expanding and
Champion Mobile Home Park owned approximately 100 acres.
Ms. Liz Fobat spoke in opposition stating that Mr. Pearson of the
Planning and Zoning Commission had calculated that between the
current vacancies in existing mobile home parks and the new proposed
parks, there were enough mobile home units available already to last
for 8 years.
Mr. John Russell, resident of Chaparrel Estates, spoke in opposition
stating that he did not believe this development would sell. Many
people in Denton believed this type of development trend would
threaten the future of Denton. Citizens were very concerned about
development in Denton and were angry at the City Council and the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Russell presented a petition to
the Mayor and concluded by stating that the Chaparrel Estates
residents would like to see satisfactory site built homes
constructed. Economic times had not been good but were improving.
Denton's future depended on quality development.
Mr. Carroll Nunez spoke in opposition stating that he lived close to
where Paige Road intersected the road that goes to Maynill. He had
obtained signatures on a petition opposing the development.
Mr. John Tinnerello, Shady Shores Road, spoke in opposition stating
that his objection was to the high density of the development, the
added traffic and the proliferation of mobile homes.
Ms. Judy Grimes spoke in opposition stating that mobile home parks
usually deteriorate over the years which would devaluate adjoining
property values.
Ms. Evelyn Denton, resident of Hidden Valley Airpark, spoke in
opposition stating that she was a realtor who worked with young
couples. Many of these couples had owned mobile homes and could not
sell them. Mobile homes did devaluate property values.
Ms. Marilee Johnson spoke in opposition stating that the Council
should consider keeping green space around Denton.
Mr. Morris Pearson, Chaparrel Estates, spoke in opposition stating
that this would be an inappropriate development adjacent to single
family custom homes. The most current update to the Denton
Development Guide mentioned that mobile home parks would have to be
of compatible design with existing housing and mobile homes did not
conform with custom built homes. Chaparrel Estates was an
established neighborhood and the proposed development did not comply
with the 1,600 feet distance requirement from existing housing.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Hodgson 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Hodgson stated that there would be 4.57 units per acre which had
the effect that only 11% of the property would be covered with
houses. There was no question of the quality of construction of the
units. There was a stigma attached to mobile homes and the real
issue seemed to be the "haves" against the "do not have as much" or
$50,000 homes next to $200,000 homes. The development would be
distinguished.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Twelve
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 5 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. The development would be controlled under the planned
development zoning and not the Mobile Home Ordinance. The Planning
and Zoning Commission had recommended approval with 20 conditions
attached.
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second to deny. Motion to deny
failed 4 to 3 with Council Members McAdams, Hopkins, Alford and
Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting the "nay" votes.
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the petition. Motion to
approve carried 4 to 3 with Council Members Stephens, Riddlesperger
and Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" votes.
Council Member Alford left the meeting.
6. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the single family (SF-10 and
SF-16) zoning classifications to the planned development (PD)
classification on an 83.2 acre tract located on the east and west
sides of Lillian Miller Parkway beginning approximately 1,000 feet
south of Interstate Highway 35E. Z-1682
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that this was
the ordinance only for a previously approved petition.
Council Member Stephens stated there was a discrepancy on the
detached/attached portion of the petition.
Council Member McAdams stated that she remembered very distinctly a
lengthy discussion of the petition with fences, garages, etc. as
attached.
Spivey reported that Council Member Stephens' motion had been for
the portion of the development west of Lillian Miller Parkway to be
detached.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the ordinance with detached
housing west of Lillian Miller Parkway.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the original had called for
attached by garages but to look like detached.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the presentation had stated that
these units could have common garages.
Council Member Stephens stated that he had checked with the
petitioner. Two changes had been made to the original petition -
one change was to delete the planned development classification for
those areas which already were zoned SF-10 and SF-16 and the other
was that the proposal west of Lillian Miller Parkway be changed from
attached to detached housing.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he was not aware of this and
believed the Council was to vote on the original presentation.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to table the ordinance. Motion to
table passed 4 to 2 with Council Member Stephens and Mayor Pro Tem
Chew casting the "nay" votes.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an amendment to planned development (PD-6) on a 58.2 acre
tract located on the south side of Colorado Boulevard approximately
1,500 feet northwest of Loop 288. Z-1674
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, stated this was the
ordinance for the Township II zoning case which had been previously
approved.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Thirteen
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-132
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
PURUSANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX B-ZONING OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AS SAID DISTRICT
APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 56.027 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR
LESS, OUT OF THE MARY AUSTIN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 4,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COLORADO BOULEVARD
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET NORTHWEST OF LOOP 288 AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) to the
planned development (PD) classification on a 52.9 acre parcel
located at the southwest corner of Bonnie Brae Street and Payne
Drive. Z-1688
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that this was
the ordinance on the Payne Drive/Bonnie Brae zoning petition which
had been previously approved.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-133
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 52.9 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BONNIE BRAE AND PAYNE DRIVE, AND
IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; TO PROVIDE FOR A
CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL (A)
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; AND
PROVID]~NG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger motion to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
repealing Article II of Chapter 25 of the Code of Ordinances;
enacting a new Article II of Chapter 25 of the Code of Ordinances to
provide for the establishing of rates, charges, fees, deposits,
billings and procedures for providing electrical service by
ordinance; and declaring an effective date.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this ordinance
would establish the procedure by which the fees would be removed
from the Code of Ordinances and therefore would not have to be
codified.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-134
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 25 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES; ENACTING A NEW ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 25 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHING OF
RATES, CHARGES, FEES, DEPOSITS, BILLINGS AND PROCEDURES FOR
PROVIDING ELECTRICAL SERVICE BY ORDINANCE; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECT.£VE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Fourteen
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carrieH
unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
establishing rates, charges, fees, deposits, billings and procedures
for providing electrical services by the city to its customers;
providing a severability clause; and providing for an effective date.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that staff had
previously presented the rate study and the comparison of various
other city's rates. Nelson then reviewed the comparison of rates
for residential and small commercial customers.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he had reviewed the information
and did not know what else the Council could do but approve the
ordinance. He further stated that he would like for staff to update
the Council in a few months and perhaps the rates could be lowered
at that time.
Nelson responded that staff would be reviewing the rates on a
monthly basis. In April, staff would be looking at the summer fuel
adjustment charges and would present a report to Council at that
time.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-135
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES, CHARGES, FEES, DEPOSITS,
BILLINGS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROVIDING ELECTRICAL SERVICES
BY THE CITY TO ITS CUSTOMERS; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
repealing Articles III and IV of Chapter 25 of the Code of
Ordinances; enacting a new Article III of Chapter 25 of the Code of
Ordinances to provide for the estaDlishing of rates, charges, fees,
deposits, billings and procedures for providing water and sewer
service by ordinance; and declaring an effective date.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported this was the same
procedure as before so as to take the fees out of the Code of
Ordinance so they would not have to be codified.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-136
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE III amd IV OF CHAPTER 25 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; ENACTING A NEW ARTICLE III OF
CHAPTER 25 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ESTABLISHING OF RATES, CHARGES, FEES, DEPOSITS, BILLINGS
AND PROCEDURES FOR PROVIDING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE BY
ORDINANCE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Fifteen
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
establishing rates, charges, fees, deposits, billings and procedures
for providing water and sewer services by the city to its customers;
providing for a severability clause; and providing for an effective
date.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this ordinance
essentially addressed water revenues. Only minor changes had been
made to the ordinance.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-137
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES, CHARGES, FEES, DEPOSITS,
BILLINGS AND PROCEDURES FOR PROVIDIN~ WATER AND SEWER
SERVICES BY THE CITY TO ITS CUSTOMERS; PROVIDING FOR A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered approval of final payment for the
Lillian Miller Parkway (Ridgeway Drive) paving and drainage
improvements in the amount of $85,894.69 (Bid ~ 9209).
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported the project was
completed. There was an overrun on the time due to field
requirements; however, the overrun was less than 2% which was not
unusual on a project of this size.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if a letter had been forwarded to
the State Highway Department regarding maintenance.
Svehla responded yes.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve the final payment on
Bid ~ 9209. Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council held a discussion of the overrun on the Handi-
Hop contract.
Ms. Roberta Donsbach, Director of SPAN, reported that Handi-Hop was
begun as a pilot program 3 years ago. During the first 2 years,
everything had gone very smoothly and SPAN had even been able to
return money to the city. During the last budget, $16,000 had been
requested and $12,000 was approved. Her agency had contracted with
a local taxi oompany to serve their patrons for late hours and
weekends when the Handi-Hop did not run. In mid-September her
office had received a bill for August taxi usage and there were not
sufficient funds available to pay.
Council Member Stephens asked what had been the recommendation of
the Human Resources Committee.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the committee had not
formally met on this item. The next scheduled meeting was November
1. Staff was bringing this item before the Council because of the
immediate nature of the problem.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris stated that the Texas Constitution
stated that power was not granted to cities to pay extra
compensation for services which had already been provided.
The consensus of the Council was to help as much as possible within
legal bounds.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 16, 1984
Page Sixteen
9. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
10. No items of new business were suggested by Council Members
for future agendas.
The Council then reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CH'Ki~LOTT~ ~SLE~, CI~ SE~ET~RY
0960g
City Council Minutes
October 23, 1984
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 5:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew
1. The Council considered removing zoning case Z-1682 from the
table.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to remove Z-1682 from the table.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a
change i~ zoning from the single family (SF-10 and SF-16) zoning
classifications to the planned development (PD) classification on an
83.2 acre tract located on the east and west sides of Lillian Miller
Parkway beginning approximately 1,000 feet south of Interstate
35-E. Z-1682
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that two
ordinances had been placed in the agenda back-up materials in
relation to this zoning case. One ordinance specified that the
development west of Lillian Miller Parkway should be for attached
housing and the other ordinance specified that the area should be
for detached housing. The ordinance specifying attached housing was
based on what Spivey thought was the motion of the Council at a
previous meeting on the zoning petition. After reviewing the
recording of the proceedings, the motion as made by Council Member
Stephens was for detached housing.
Council Member McAdams asked if this change was a major one and
should the petition be referred back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew joined the meeting.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris asked Spivey if the hearing before
the P&Z was for' the west portion of the development to be attached
or detached housing.
Spivey responded attached.
Morris asked if! the petition, as reviewed by Planning and Zoning,
specified lot size.
Spivey replied the ?&Z considered density factors and not lot
sizes. This portion was 9.4 acres in size with a density of 4.3
units per acre.
Morris asked if the site plan would change.
Spivey responded no; the density would not be affected by a change
from attached to detached. The type of dwelling would change but
not the density.
Council Member McAdams stated the original discussion had been in
detail regarding the connection of garages, fences and walls in this
portion of the total development. Council Member Stephens motion
had been that fences would still be attached. The confusion may
have come from differentiating between fences and walls.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that in the discussion of
attached housing he was not thinking about common garages but rather
walls between the units.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 23, 1984
Page Two
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-138
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 83.2 ACRES
OF LAND SITUATED IN THE JOHN MCGOWAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
797, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST
SIDES OF LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY
1000 FEET SOUTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35E; TO PROVIDE FOR A
CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM
SINGLE FAMILY "SF-10" AND "SF-16" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
AND USE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" CLASSIFICATION AND USE
FOR SAID PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Stephens stated that his opposition was to attached
garages and accessory buildings, not fences.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he had understood the previous
motion to be exactly as it was written in the original ordinance;
the dwellings would be detached but could have common fences between
the garages.
Council Member Stephens stated that his motion was for detached
housing because he did not feel common walls between the units was
appropriate.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
0559j
/./lO.
City Council Minutes
October 30, 1984
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The CoLtncil convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Civil Defense Room.
City Manager Chris Hartung asked to have items 7, 8 and 9 moved
forward in the agenda order to accommodate staff members who had to
attend another meeting on transportation.
7. The Coancil received a report and considered approval of
further action on Airport development.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that during the last month the city had received requests from two
different companies who desired to lease land at the airport.
Unlike previous contracts, these firms wanted to lease small parcels
of property with options on additional tract with the intent of
building hangars and office space and then subleasing the facilities
to third parties. This approach to development seemed to be
extremely feasible and appropriate; however, the staff was concerned
about the long range implications of this approach. The primary
area of concern was loss of control by the city over who and what
operated at the airport. It would be difficult for the city to deny
a sublease without substantial justification. It would also be
extremely difficult to impose and enforce airport operating
standards as a third party to a sublease. Additionally, it would be
difficult to assure that the city obtained its share of hangar
rentals and fuel flowage fees from the tenants without direct
control of the leases. The City Attorney's office had also voiced
concern regarding the liability of the city, as the potential for
litigation under this system would be great. Finally, the FAA was
concerned about potential violations relative to existing grant
agreement if the city did not control the leases at the airport. In
addition to the private developer approach, alternative avenues for
development of the airport included requiring prospective tenants to
finance and construct their own facilities or the city financing and
constructing the facilities and leasing the project to the tenant.
In the past the tenant financing approach had proven to be
ineffective as it was difficult for an individual firm to obtain
financing under the conditions the city offered. The most feasible
approach had been for the city to construct the facility and lease
the property and improvements to the tenants at a price which would
recover the costs and produce a small return to the city. The
Airport Advisory Board felt the city should act as the primary
developer of the airport and did not feel that it would be
appropriate to lease to developers who could construct facilities
for the purposes of subleasing to other businesses.
The consensus of the Council was that the city look at various
methods for financing development at the airport without subleasing.
8. The Council considered approval of a tentative selection of
a consultant for the Airport Master Plan update.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public ~orks, reported
that the staff had been evaluating proposals from three consulting
firms for an update to the Airport Master Plan. Responses from the
city's request for proposal had been received frim Shimek, Jacobs
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Two
and Finklea Consulting Engineers, Charles Willis and Associates and
Environmental Services and Engineering, Inc. A staff Consultant
Selection Committee had reviewed the documents and had discussed
their findings with representatives of the FAA. It was felt to be
to the city's advantage to select Charles Willis and Associates due
to the fact that the firm had much more experience with these types
of studies on Texas airports as well as airports in the immediate
vicinity. As a result of this experience, Charles Willis and
Associates was more familiar with FAA and TAC personnel in this
region which would facilitate the study.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to approve the selection of Charles
Willis and Associates as the consultant for the Airport Master Plan
update with the idea that the City Attorney be involved in any
pertinent matters that would affect the city's long range plans for
the airport. Motion carried unanimously.
9. The Council considered authorizing the staff to submit an
application for Federal assistance for the Airport Master Plan
update.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public %~orks, reported
that funds had been set aside by the FAA for the master plan update
for this fiscal year. Now that a tentative selection had been made
on the consultant, the staff could begin preparation of the formal
grant application for federal assistance. Traditionally staff had
asked for authorization from the Council to submit such an
application prior to the document being formally submitted to the
FAA. This authorization did not constitute any obligation on the
part of the city to supply matching funds. Those obligations
occurred only if the city chose to accept the grant offer and award
a contract to the consultant.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to authorize staff to submit an
application for Federal assistance for the Airport Master Plan
update. Motion carried unanimously.
The Council then returned to the regular agenda order.
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of August 21, 1984.
Council Member Stephens asked that a correction be made on page 14,
item 9 in the second paragraph to have to record show the property
had been leased since 1979.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked that a correction by made on page
7 which showed an incorrect unanimous roll call vote.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to approve the Minutes with the
noted corrections. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
Council Member Stephens asked that item 2.C.9 be removed from the
Consent Agenda.
Council Member Stephens stated that the back up material for this
item should read as SF-10 zoning.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to approve section C of the Consent
Agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
The following ordinance was presented for section A of the Consent
Agenda:
Meeting of October 30, 1984
?age Tkree
NO. 84-13~
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.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
The following ordinance was presented for section B of the Consent
Agenda:
NO. 84-140
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote McAdams "aye", Hopkins "aye", Stephens "aye", Alford "aye",
Riddlesperger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Stewart "aye" Motion
carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Consider adoption of 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. Bid # 9347 - Library security detection system
2. Bid # 9226 - Refuse containers
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the
expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of
materials, equipment, supplies or services in
accordance with the provisions of state law exempting
such purchases from requirements of competitive bids;
and providing for an effective date.
1. Purchase Order ~ 64108A to Hewlett Packard in the
amount of $7,692.00
2. Purchase Order ~ 65357 to Esco Elevators in the
amount of $3,744.00.
3. Purchase Order # 65359 to Xerox Corporation in
the amount of $7,092.84.
4. Purchase Order # 65488 to J. S. Equipment Company
in the amount of $3,676.12.
5. Purchase Order # 65701 to Computer Associates
International Incorporated in the amount of
$8,460.00
6. Purchase Order ~ 65702 to ITT Courier in the
amount of $73,296.00
C. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of preliminary replat of the
Blount Addition, Lot 7, Block B (Watley
Addition). (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Four
2. Consider approval of preliminary and final replat
of the Bolton Addition, Lot 4-R. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of preliminary and final replat
of the Carroll Park Addition, Lot 5, Block 7.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
4. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Compton Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
5. Consider approval of preliminary plat of Cooper
Landing, Section III, Lot 1, Block 1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
6. Consider approval of preliminary plat of Dallas
Drive Office Plaza (Alexander Hill Survey,
Abstract 623). (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
7. Consider approval of preliminary and final replat
of the Industrial School Addition. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
8. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the JVS
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
9. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Northwood Estates Addition, 10th Installment.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
10. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Royal Acres Addition, Section 7. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
11. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Royal Inn Addition, Lot 1, Block 1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
12. Consider approval of preliminary plat of Mill Run
Apartments Addition, Phase II, Block 1, Lot 2.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
3. Ordinances:
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting fire inspection and permit fees as provided for by Article
1, Chapter 10 of ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas; repealing
all ordinances in conflict.
This item had been previously discussed by the Council.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-141
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS SETTING
INSPECTION AND PERMIT FEES AS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE I,
CHAPTER 10 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Five
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance with the
agreement that the program would be reviewed in 3 or 4 months. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Stephens and Mayor Pro Tem
Chew casting the "nay" votes.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an oversizing agreement with Northwood Estates, 9th
installation (Checkmate Development).
David Ham, Assistant Director of Utilities, reported that items B
and C were both for oversizing requested by Northwood Estates. Maps
were provided in the agenda back-up materials from the Hogan and
Rasor study showing the lines sizes for transmission necessary to
serve the city until the year 2000. Staff was requesting the
Council approve the city's participation in the oversizing. The
developer required an 8 inch line and staff was asking for the
installation of a 12 inch line. On this item (3.B) the city's
portion of the participation would be approximately $5,950 and on
the second item (3C) the city's portion would be approximately
$1,388. The cost variation was due to the difference in the length
of the line.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-142
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY'S PARTICI-
PATION IN THE COST OF INSTALLING OVERSIZE WATER LINE
FACILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT;
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance.
Mayor Stewart asked about the status of the Public Utility
Commission's study on participation in oversizing for development.
City Manager Hartung responded that it would be a while before the
PUC had completed the study. The city would operate under its
current policy until the PUC study was complete.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an oversizing agreement with Northwood Estates, 10th
installation (Checkmate Development).
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-143
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY'S PARTICI-
PATION IN THE COST OF INSTALLING OVERSIZE WATER LINE
FACILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT;
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract with Hogan and Rasor for high service pumping
stations improvements - northwest area.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Six
David Ham, Assistant Director of Utilities, reported that this
request was in response to a water pressure situation in the
northwest portion of the city. Low pressure was due to the
elevation in the Westgate Hospital and Ranch Estates area. The
ordinance was for approval of a contract in the amount of $17,000
with Hogan and Rasor to design a pump to be located at McKenna Park
to increase the water pressure. The increased pressure would
alleviate any fire protection problems. After the contract for the
design was completed, it was estimated that the equipment necessary
to install the pumping station improvements would be in the
neighborhood of $220,000.
Council Member Hopkins stated that a new water/wastewater treatment
plant was slated for this area. Would these high service pumping
station improvements be compatible with the new water/wastewater
system.
Ham responded that when the system went on line, these pumping
station improvements might not be required in this area but that
they could be moved.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the new water/wastewater
treatment plant would be located in this quadrant or near Lake Ray
Roberts.
Hamm replied that was still being researched. This particular
request was an interim measure.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-144
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND HOGAN AND RASOR FOR PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH SERVICE
PUMPING STATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR SERVICE TO THE NORTHWEST
AREA IN THE CITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
Council Member Stephens left the meeting.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract with Black and Veatch for engineering services
relating to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) construction
license for Lewisville hydroelectric projects.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was a continuation of
an existing contract.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-145
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION (FERC) CONSTRUCTION LICENSE FOR LEWISVILLE
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Seven
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the expenditure of funds by the City of Denton for
annual membership dues in the Texas Municipal League.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was an annual
expenditure and funds had been budgeted.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-146
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY THE
CITY OF DENTON FOR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES IN THE TEXAS
MUNICIPAL LEAGUE AND APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alford motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the expenditure of funds by the City of Denton for
annual service fee for membership in the Public Power Association.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this request was for the
annual membership dues for the City of Denton in the American Public
Power Association. Funds had been budgeted for the expenditure.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-147
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY THE
CITY OF DENTON FOR ANNUAL SERVICE FEE FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE
PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION AND APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the expenditure of funds by the City of Denton for
annual membership dues in the North Central Texas Council of
Governments.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this request was for the
annual membership dues for the City of Denton in the North Central
Texas Council of Governments. Funds had been budgeted for the
expenditure.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-148
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY THE
CITY OF DENTON FOR ANNUAL DUES FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE NORTH
CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger ]notion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
1'7
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Eight
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement between the City of Denton and Public
Technology, Inc. for a Fire Master System and providing for the
expenditure of funds.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that all city departments were
being encouraged to analyze their operations. Funds had been
approved for a new fire station and an appropriate location was;
being sought. Public Technology, Inc. had a program available which
looked at many factors, including streets, fire hazards, etc.
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting.
Hartung continued that Denton was experiencing very rapid growth and
staff was looking at the whole fire protection system in the city.
The Fire Master System looked not only at location, but at manning
the station, etc. While the system was not inexpensive, it would be
more cost effective to take the time and examine all of the
variables before construction of a fire station facility.
Council Member Stephens asked why Fire Chief Gentry and his staff
could not provide the same information as they knew the city better.
Hartung responded that the Fire Master System was a computer system
and the Fire Department staff would have to collect and sort the
same information manually. Staff could not do this task to the same
extent that the computer program could. Chief Gentry would be
involved in the program.
Fire Chief Jack Gentry stated that once the computer program was in
place, the city could use it over the years.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the computer program would keep
historical data.
Gentry responded yes.
Council Member Stephens asked Chief Gentry if he concurred with the
recommendation for the system.
Gentry responded yes.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-149
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC. FOR A FIRE MASTER
SYSTEM; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving the preliminary plat of the Tri-Steel Headquarters
Addition, lot l, block 1.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that this
particular parcel was a 5 acre tract located north of University
Boulevard. On October 16 the City Council reached a consensus to
begin annexation proceedings on this property; however, at the
present time, the tract was outside the city limits. The current
procedure was that preliminary plats were brought before the
Council. The development would have an 8 inch water line and
perimeter paving on the frontage.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Nine
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a preliminary plat has been filed with the
Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas, seeking
approval of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Tri-Steel Headquarters Addition;
and
WHEREAS, the area contained in the proposed preliminary
plat is located within the extraterritorial platting jurisdiction of
the City of Denton and a recommendation for annexation is pending
before the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Article 21(B) of Appendix B to the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton prohibits the Planning and Zoning
Commission from approving any plat within any area where a
recommendation for annexation is pending before the City Council
unless and until such plat shall have been approved by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed plat
meets with the general rules and regulations governing plats and
subdivisions of land falling within the jurisdiction of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 1 of the
Tri-Steel Headquarters Addition, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, dated August 30, 1984 be and the same is hereby
approved.
SECTION II.
That the preliminary plat approved herein be referred back
to the Planning and Zoning Commission for such action as the
Commission deems appropriate.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of October, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO ]LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
amending certain City of Denton personnel policies.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that staff was
introducing 7 new policies which were very straight forward and non-
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Ten
controversial. Council could take action to approve, table, or ask
staff to bring the policies back at another meeting. Usrey gave a
brief synopsis of each policy:
outside employment - the City of Denton would be the
primary employer but employees were free to hold other jobs
in addition to their city employment
fingerprinting - all employees will be fingerprinted
payroll deductions - this policy categorized the various
payroll deductions
drivers license - all city employees operating city
equipment must have an appropriate Texas commercial drivers
license
citizenship - all city employees must be a United States
citizen or a legal alien
age - all full time city employees must be 18 years of age;
seasonal employees must be 16 years of age
nepotism - denoted the charter provisions regarding nepotism
Council Member Hopkins asked if the City Attorney' s office had
reviewed the policies.
Usrey responded yes.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I ON
WHEREAS, the Director of the Personnel/Employee Relations
Department for the City of Denton has presented proposed policies
regarding employee rules and regulations for the Council' s
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt such policies as
official policies regarding employment with the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The following policies, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, are hereby adopted as official policies of the City of
Denton, Texas:
Citizenship & Social Security Number (Reference No. 102.02
Minimum Age (Reference No 102.03
Texas Drivers Licenses & Driving Records (Reference No 102.06
Nepotism (Reference No 102.08
Fingerprinting (Reference No 102.09
Payroll Deductions (Reference No 106.03
Outside Employment (Reference No 108.09
SECTION II.
The foregoing policies are attached hereto and made a part
hereof and shall be filed in the official records with the City
Secretary.
SECTION III.
The Employee Rules and Regulations of 1976 adopted by
Resolution of the City Council on February 1, 1977, are hereby
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Eleven
rescinded to the extent they conflict with the foregoing policies
and any administrative procedures and directives issued under the
authority of the City Manager implementing the policies hereby
adopted.
SECTION IV.
This Resolution shall be effective from and after its date
of passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 30th day of October, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Riddlespeger second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
concerning the relocation of overhead utility equipment and
facilities in accordance with the Capital Improvements Program.
David Ham, Assistant Director of Utilities, reported that the
Electric Department was preparing to relocate the utilities on the
downtown square. The utilities were being placed underground and
staff hoped to have a joint effort with the cable television and
telephone company in seeing that all such utilities at the square
were relocated underground to enhance the overall appearance.
Council Member Alford left the meeting.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE RELOCATION OF OVERHEAD UTILITY EQUIPMENT
AND FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the City's five year capital improvement program
provides for the relocation of overhead utility equipment and
facilities to an underground system on Cedar, Walnut, Pecan and
Austin Streets during the next three years; and
WHEREAS, such relocation would improve the appearance of
the "Downtown Square" and promote the renovation of individual
properties; and
WHEREAS, the relocation of the utility equipment and
facilities would require the cooperation and participation of
General Telephone Company and Golden Triangle Communications;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Twelve
SECTION I.
That the City of Denton, General Telephone Company and
Golden Triangle Communications, shall cooperate and participate to
effectuate to relocation of existing overhead utility equipment and
facilities on Cedar, Walnut, Pecan and Austin Streets to an
underground utility system within three years in accordance with the
City's five year capital improvement program.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of October, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved.
Council Member Hopkins asked how long this project had been in the
Capital Improvements Program.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded 4 or 5 years.
Council Member Hopkins asked if Director of Utilities Bob Nelson had
not stated that much of the utility equipment on the square needed
to be replaced. This seemed like a tremendous expense.
Council Member Alford joined the meeting.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would like for the city to
wait and see if the other utilities, such as the cable television
company and telephone company, would participate.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
5. The Council considered approval of a pro rata agreement
with Roffino-Walters, Inc. for a 6 inch water line at lot 9, block
4, College Addition (West Prairie Street).
David Ham, Assistant Director of Utilities, reported that agenda
items 5 and 6 were almost identical. This item was for a pro rata
agreement on West Prairie and item 6 for was a pro rata agreement on
Chestnut. Staff was seeing more and more that developers were
taking properties on older streets in the city and the water lines
could not handle the increased demand. Staff was requiring
developers to provide adequate services and there was no cost to the
city.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to approve the pro rata agreement.
Motion carried unanimously.
6. The Council considered approval of a pro rata agreement
with Roffino-Walters, Inc. for a 6 inch water line at lot 1, block
1, College Addition (Chestnut Street).
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to approve the pro rata agreement.
Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Thirteen
10. The Council considered approval of the 1984 City of Denton
tax rolls.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was a routine time.
The tax rolls had been prepared by City Tax Assessor Hugh Mixon and
had been available for review during the last week.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the 1984 tax rolls.
Motion carried unanimously.
11. The Council considered calling a street bond election.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that Assistant City Manager Rick
Svehla and Director of Finance John McGrane were prepared to present
the report.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that staff had look at
two alternative bond packages - one for less than $10 million and
one for over $10 million. There were approximatey 45 miles of
streets within the city limits which needed attention.
Council Member McAdams stated that $10 million would not accomplish
what the last bond proposal would have done due to the fact that the
price of material kept increasing.
Mayor Stewart asked if material costs had leveled off.
Svehla responded that costs had leveled off somewhat during the last
year to year and a half. Jagoe Public had stated that they would
receive the most current price increase information from the
refineries during the next month. Prices were increasing but not as
much as they had in the past.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Chamber of Commerce
Transportation Committee had met and were willing to assist the city
in any way. Committee members had raised the question of the timing
of the election. Stephens then stated that he would like to hear
from the Executive Director of the Chamber who was present at the
meeting.
Mr. Chuck Carpenter, Executive Director of the Denton Chamber of
Commerce, stated that the Transportation Committee had never taken a
position but would make an affirmative recommendation to the Chamber
Board of Directors to support the bond election. The Chamber felt
very strongly about the need for this street program and would
assist in organizing citizens to help sell the election. The
primary concern now was the timing of the election.
Mr. Keith Appleton, Chairperson of the Chamber Transportation
Committee, stating that another concern with selling the bond
election was that there must be a product to sell to the public.
This would take time to pull together which would be a problem if
the election were held in 5 weeks.
Council Member Stephens asked Mr. Appleton whether the
transportation committee felt the bond election should be for the
full amount required to repair the streets or a partial amount.
Should the ballot reflect only general information or specifics.
Mr. Appleton stated that if the Council earmarked a specific number
of dollars for repair and reconstruction, it would be very hard to
sell the package if the amount did not take care of all of the
streets. The streets were going to be an on-going problem and those
repaired with pond money would need additional repairs again in 4
years.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the bonds would not be the only
sources of income for street improvements. This project should be a
viable part of the annual city operating budget.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Fourteen
Mr. Appleton stated that there were still many unanswered questions
and he did not feel the committee could pull together a sellable
program in time for a December election.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council for 2 years had looked at a
combination of new funds committed to the streets in conjunction
with bond monies.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the plan was to rebuild the
streets with a combination of "pay as you go" and bonds. The
Council and the staff had anticipated the growth of the city and the
bonds would let those who would move to Denton in the future help to
pay for the streets.
Council Member Hopkins stated that a "pay as you go" program would
also accomplish this and the street program should be increased each
year in the budget.
Mr. Appleton stated that he thought that would be great but was
concerned about whether that idea could be conveyed to the public
prior to a December election.
Council Member Hopkins stated that actual repairs could not be
started until the spring.
City Manager Hartung stated that a major street reconstruction
project would require design work, etc. after the bond election was
held. This would have the effect of delaying the actual repair work.
Council Member Stephens stated that all of the Council was in favor
of the street bond election but there was a need to work together
with citizen group to sell the idea to the voting public. Stephens
then asked Mr. Appleton if he felt a listing by name of the streets
to be repaired should be included in the election material.
Mr. Appleton responded there was not a good answer. If the streets
to be repaired were named, those voters who did not live on those
particular streets would not vote for the bonds; if the streets were
not named, voters would feel they were giving the city a blank check.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, presented a comparison of debt
service and anticipated tax revenues over the next few years in
context with the proposed street bond election based on receipt of
the bond money by mid-March.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that if the sales tax
revenues increased, the city would not lose the "pay as you go"
capability.
Council Member Hopkins asked who would market the street bond
publicly. The people who should not try to sell the bond issue were
the City Council. If the Chamber of Commerce could take the
responsibility for the marketing of the bond issue, the Council
Members would certainly be available to speak to local groups.
City Manager Hartung stated that he agreed that the Chamber of
Commerce should be the entity to sell the program but the City
Council had to positively endorse the idea.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he believed it was very
important that the Council stand united behind the program.
Hartung stated that if the election were delayed until after the
first of the year, there would be an additional issue of street
capacity.
The Council then discussed an election date in February and the
formation of a blue ribbon citizen committee to examine the various
issues and make recommendations to the Council through the Planning
and Zoning Commission on which street repairs should be included,
the amount of the bond election, etc.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of October 30, 1984
Page Fifteen
Council Member Hopkins stated that a February election would give
the staff additional time to look at how to get through repairs for
the entire street system.
Council Member Stephens stated that some communities employed
consultants to accomplish this and would like to receive estimates
on the cost of using an outside firm.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that a bond program should be
coordinated with the schools so as to include their plans for future
building.
Mr. Appleton stated that a blue ribbon citizen committee would
certainly help in getting the street bond approved.
Mayor Stewart stated that the City Manager should get together with
the Chamber of Commerce and set up the blue ribbon committee.
City Manager Hartung stated that staff would bring recommendations
back to the Council on the types of citizens who might best serve on
the comiaittee.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Chamber Transportation
Committee should be utilized as well as other Denton citizens.
The consensus of the Council was to have the recommendations for the
categories for the blue ribbon citizen committee brought back to
them at the November 20 meeting.
12. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
13. No items of new business were suggested by Council Members
for future agendas.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
RbI. START, MA~/~gR
CHARLOTTE ALL~N, CITY SECRETARY
0961g
City Council Minutes
November 6, 1984
The Council convened into the Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams and Riddlesperger
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Stephens was serving as an election
judge for the General Election.
1. Consent Agenda
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-150
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.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. 1. Bid # 9352 - Street lights
2. Bid # 9356 - Printing for Parks and Recreation
2. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
J. Daniel Shea requesting a change in zoning from the single family
(SF-7) classification to the planned development (PD) classification
at 1425 Anna Street. If approved, the planned development would
allow the addition of a garage with an apartment overhead at the
rear of the lot. Z-1678
The Mayor Opened the~p~blic hearing.
Mr. Daniel Shea, the petitioner, spoke in favor and distributed
materials to the Council. Mr. Shea stated that a single family home
had been moved onto the property at 1425 Anna and he was in the
process of remodeling. A zoning change would be required to build
the garage. Mr. Shea intended to move into the structure while
continuing the remodeling. He projected the cost to remodel the
structure to be approximately $30,000 to $40,000. He had conducted
a survey of the neighborhood residents regarding the proposed garage
apartment and had received favorable responses. There had been no
opposition at the second public hearing held by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The staff recommendation for denial had been
based on trying to protect this older neighborhood. Due to the
shape of the lot, it would be difficult to have access to the garage
apartment in keeping with the other homes in the area. He stated
that he was not asking for something which was not in tune with the
neighborhood as there were other rental properties, such as
apartments and duplexes, already in place. Mr. Shea concluded by
stating that there was no opposition from the neighborhood at the
Planning and Zoning hearing; everyone was completely unopposed to
the petition.
Council Member Hopkins asked Mr. Shea to point out the other multi-
family housing on the overhead projection.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 6, 1984
Page Two
Mr. Shea showed the locations on the map and stated that he wanted
to build the garage apartment so as to blend in and become an asset
to the neighborhood.
Mayor Stewart asked Mr. Shea if he was requesting a curb cut on
Carroll Boulevard. The Mayor was very much in favor of maintaining
Carroll Boulevard as a mover of traffic with a minimum of curb cuts.
Mr. Shea responded no; the apartment would face on Anna Street.
Mayor Stewart then stated that the duplexes in the neighborhood had
been approved by the City Council; however, he had voted against it.
Mr. Shea stated that the neighborhood appreciated the petition for
the planned development classification instead of multi-family.
Council Member Hopkins stated that it was not clear in the back-up
material in the agenda packet that there was a lot of multi-family
and rental property in the neighborhood.
Mr. Shea stated that the neighborhood was very congested and
generated lots of residential traffic. A parking lot would be
provided for the garage apartment to avoid on-street parking by
tenants.
Council Member McAdams stated that there seemed to be a contra-
diction. The neighbors were in favor of the petition because it
would be single family but in effect, the planned development would
be multi-family. Once granted for one petitioner, the entire
neighborhood could become multi-family. Mr. Shea was requesting
zoning based on existing zoning and would add one more multi-family
use which would give credance to future multi-family requests.
Mr. Shea again stated that he had spoken with everyone in the
neighborhood and had met with no opposition. He intended to live on
the property.
Mr. Pat Windom spoke in favor' stating that he owned a duplex located
at 1411 and 1413 Anna and there was no logical reason to reject this
request. Rega£ding the statement about maintaining Carroll
Boulevard, offices and multi-family units were located up and down
Carroll now. He had purchased the duplex in 1968 and it was
obviously a duplex then. The residential atmosphere had been
retained. The situation with Mr. Shea's house was that it was
sandwiched between duplexes and another single family unit. The
house was beginning to run down and Mr. Shea was working to restore
and remodel it. Mr. %~indom stated that he could find no reason to
believe that Mr. Shea would demolish the neighborhood. Due to the
narrow streets, dense housing was out of the question. This was a
nice area for students and young couples.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 21 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. The concern of staff was the precedent which could be
set for multi-family encroachment in other sections of the city.
The Denton Development Guide stated that priority should be given to
older existing neighborhoods. The Planning and Zoning Commission
had recommended denial of the petition by a vote of 4 to 2. Six
votes to approve would be required by the Council to overturn the
P&Z recommendation.
Council Member McAdams asked how many multi-family units in the
neighborhood were legal non-conforming uses.
Spivey responded that she did not know.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 6, 1984
Page Three
Hopkins motion to approve. Motion died for lack of a second.
Chew motion, McAdams second to deny. On roll call vote, McAdams
"aye," Hopkins "nay," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye,"
and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion to deny carried 5 to 1 with Council
Member Hopkins casting the "nay" vote.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
_ Homer and Jean Bly requesting historic landmark (H) designation at
213 East Oak Street. The lot was located at the northwest corner of
Oak and Oakland Streets. H-33
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Homer Bly, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that he had
been looking at this property for 20 years and the house had been
acquired from the Evers estate in July. The structure itself, as
well as the Evers family and the time period of construction of the
house, were historical.
Council Member Hopkins asked what the intentions were for the house.
Mr. Bly responded that he hoped to restore the structure as
faithfully as possible and would then consider commercial use as an
office.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he thought this was a
tremendous thing to do for this particular part of town. Some
preservation should be done in this area.
Council Member McAdams also stated that she hoped this would be the
beginning of other historical preservation in this part of the city.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the preservation of the structure
was most appropriate due to its location in the arts district.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 13 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 0 in opposition.
The date of construction of the house made it one of the oldest in
Denton which could be restored. The Evers family was an old and
prominent family in Denton. The Evers had lived in this house in
the 1880's, prior to the construction of their home on Oak Street.
Chew motion, McAdams second to approve the petition. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Robert Holloway Corporation represented by William Dyer, requesting
a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) classification to the
planned development (PD) classification on a 128 acre tract located
adjacent and east of FM 428 (Sherman Drive) and adjacent and north
of Kings Row and the Cambridge Square Subdivision. If approved, the
PD would permit the following land uses:
Single family (SF-10) - 122 units on 43.1 acres located
adjacent and north of Kings Row
Patio homes - 70 units on 11 acres
Duplex - 54 units on 6 acres
Single family detached - 55 units on 13.8 acres
Fourplex - 108 units on 9 acres
Multi-family restricted - 333 units on 18.5 acres
Office - on 4.2 acres
General retail - on 10 acres
Park - on 10 acres Z-1696
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 6, 1984
Page Four
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bill Dyer, project manager for the Holloway Corporation, spoke
in favor of the petition stating that the proposed development was
located in the northeastern portion of the city, east of Sherman
Drive and adjacent to the Cambridge Square development to the
south. The proposed intersection of the extended Loop 288 would
also be adjacent. The existing zoning was agricultural and the
property was being used as suc~. The Denton Development Guide
recognized this as a moderate activity area. The petitioner was
requesting the activity center be expanded from 30 to 71 acres. Mr.
Dyer gave a slide presentation of the proposed locations of the
various requested land uses. He concluded by stating that his firm
had worked with the city planners since February. The original
petition for this property had been denied in May. Meetings had
been held with homeowners and he felt the meeting had been very
beneficial and the development would be an asset to the entire
community.
Mayor Stewart asked about the changes which were being requested.
Mr. Dyer responded that the area was now designated as a moderate
activity center on Loop 288. Holloway Corporation was requesting
the center be expanded from 30 to 71 acres due to the amount of
diversity.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 38 reply
forms had been mailed with 4 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. Spivey congratulated Mr. Dyer and the Holloway
Corporation for their cooperation with the neighbors and staff. The
size of the moderate activity center had been established by the
Jesse Coffey zoning case. With a 71 acre size, the activity center
would meet the total density available to one developer. Staff was
concerned about a precedent not being met for all intersection,
especially on Loop 288. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
recommended approval with 8 conditions.
Mayor Stewart asked what effect changing the activity center from 30
to 71 acres would have on the planned development which was voted on
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Spivey responded that, if approved, all of the intensity/density
would be awarded to this one developer.
Council Member McAdams asked if that would mean that any future
development would have to be single family.
Spivey replied yes.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would like to congratulate the
developer on the patience which had been shown by working with the
neighbors.
Mayor Stewart stated that more and more developers were working with
the neighbors to solve any problems prior to an appearance before
the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the petition with the
conditions stipulated by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Motion
carried unanimously.
Council Member Alford stated that the development was located in his
district and he would like to be kept informed of the progress.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 6, 1984
Page Five
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
M&B Metal Products, Inc., represented by Randy Smith, requesting a
change in zoning from the agricultural (A) classification to the
light industrial (LI) classification on a 1.9 acre tract located on
the west side of Bonnie Brae Street, approximately 1,000 feet south
of Willowwood Street. The tract was more particularly described as
1900 Bonnie Brae Street. Z-1699
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Randy Smith, representing M&B Metal Products, Inc., spoke in
favor of the petition stating that he had been in the Denton area
for 16 years and was asking the Council to approve the zoning so
that he could resume his business. M&B Metal Products manufactured
coat hangers and would like to get back into production. A new
18,000 square feet building was proposed to be built on the
property. Mr. Smith stated that he would work with the city on all
that was reasonable. He planned to put in a model plant with no
noise or pollution problems. He concluded by stating that he wished
to rebuild the plant and get back to work.
Council Member McAdams stated that she had some concerns regarding
landscaping and the use of the adjacent land, which was residential.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 4 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. This area had been annexed in 1981 and the business was
in place as a legal non-conforming use. The plant had been
destroyed by fire and the property would have to be rezoned prior to
construction of another manufacturing facility. The petition did
not violate the intensity. The property would have to be platted.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the petition. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract with Denton County Friends of the Family in the
amount of $25,000 to provide emergency shelter and counseling to
women and their children who are victims of family violence, to
provide counseling to victims of rape and their families, and to
provide community education services concerning rape and family
violence.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that staff did not have
anything to add. The Human Resources Advisory Committee had
endorsed all of the contracts which appeared on the agenda.
Mayor Stewart asked if funds were budgeted.
Ellison responded yes.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-151
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY;
AUTHORIZING THE MAHOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; APPROVING
THE EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
City of Dent6n City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 6, 1984
Page Six
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract with Services Program for Aging Needs in the
amount of $25,000 to provide transportation, hot meals, and
information and referral services to persons sixty (60) years or
older.
Mayor Stewart asked if funds were budgeted.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, responded yes.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-152
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF DENTON AND SERVICES PROGRAM FOR AGING NEEDS; AUTHORIZING
'~HE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE
EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract with Fred Moore Child Care Center in the amount
of $18,000 to provide day care for low income families, information
and referral services, protective day care for abused children, and
family self-support services.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that funds had been budgeted.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-153
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF DENTON AND FRED MOORE CHILD CARE CENTER; AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE EXPENDITURES
OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract with Retired Senior Volunteer Program in the
amount of $6,000 to offer opportunities for retired persons sixty
(60) years of age or older to do volunteer service in the community.
David Ellison~ Senior Planner, reported that funds had been budgeted.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-154
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF DENTON AND RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE
EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 6, 1984
Page Seven
4. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
5. The following items of new business were suggested for
future agendas:
1. Council Member Hopkins requested a report on day care
centers.
2. Council Member Hopkins suggested a general work session or
workshop be held to discuss mass transit in Denton and the intensity
standards related to mass transit.
The Council recommended into the Executive Session to
discuss legal matters, real estate, personnel and board
appointments. No official action was taken.
with no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CH~RL~gTTE ALLEN, Ci~-Y SECi~ET~RY
0558j
City Councli Minutes
NovemOer 20, 1954
The Council was to depart for a tour of Lake Ray Roberts at 2:00 p.m.
1. The tour of Lake Ray Roberts was cancelled because of the
weather.
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
C'[ty Manager, Acting City Attorney and Deputy City
Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a report from the Denton County Tax
Appraisal District representatives.
Tom Harpool, Chairman of the Denton County Tax Appraisal District,
introduced himself and the other representatives. He reported that
the Appraisal District has a five member board appointed by the
school district. The Appraisal District is a state entity and was
responsible for appraisals for Denton County. Harpool introduced
Raymond Pitts, Secretary-Treasurer; Bill Rogers, Chief Appraiser;
and John Brown, Assistant Chief Appraiser.
Raymond Pitts told the group that the Appraisal District has a
Steering Committee headed by Mr. Bernstein of the Denton Independent
School District. The Appraisal District will soon have a Steering
Committee on computers. The Board identifies all property in the
jurisdiction. It is elected by various units within the district
but it is responsible only to the taxpayers.
Bill Rogers told the group that in September 1983 the Steering
Committee, formed of 26 people, represented most districts. There
are four committees within the Steering Committee: (1) Duties, (2)
Communications, (3) Planning, and (4) Data Processing. Previously
there was a four-year cycle which has been changed to a two-year
cycle. The Appraisal District is working on enhancing their
computer system to add any entities within the district which would
like to go on line. Rogers said that when that is accomplished
those entities can begin to help the District to collect taxes.
This should come about by 1987. A new facility is in the works and
should be ready in the summer of 1985. Rogers informed the group
that they will begin to use other entities to help with the utility
and heavy industrial appraisals. This will allow the district to
cut staff and to cut higher paid staff members. The staff of 28
will add five new members next year.
Council Member Hopkins asked about the District's plans regarding
his computer system. Rogers answered that this year they will buy
software and a printer vatidator.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked about problems with bank
resources. Rogers answered that they were having problems. The
District used a method used by the State of Georgia. A law was
passed where a banks appraisal was done by the state. Rogers said
that the banks will benefit.
Mayor Stewart asked about differences between valuation across
county lines. He noted that Dallas appraised their property this
year. Their valuations are above Denton. Rogers said that since
Denton was set up on a four-year cycle and Dallas has been set up on
a two-year cycle the two-year cycle gives a tax base which keeps up
with growth.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Two
Council Member Hopkins asked if revaluations would be done on an
ongoing basis. Rogers answered that any additions put in on 1982
level would be rezoned.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the valuation can be adjusted in
case of error. Rogers answered that it could. The tables are set
until the appraisal is done.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked about agricultural value. Rogers
answered that they change each year depending on land usage or lease
value. City Manager Hartung asked about rollbacks. Rogers said
that they are in the three-year rollback. The Board of Reviews is
to adjourn each year. Now they only recess. Homestead exemptions
now can file for up to two years.
Council Member HopKins asked how the District can find out about new
construction. Rogers answered that the District has several sources
to find out where new construction is taking place. Council Member
Stephens asked about taxes on airplanes. Rogers answered that all
airplane owners are taxed. They are found by a check of hangars and
also a list of airplane owners the District also checks with Dallas
County.
Tom Harpool talked about the Appraisal District and the problems
that it has. He said that they are "growing pains". The Council
Members had favorable comments about the District as an agency of
collection and one which will unify Denton County economically.
2. The Council received findings and recommendations of a new
computerized Municipal Court system.
In the absence of Phyllis Morris, Court Clerk, Gary Collins,
Director of Data Processing, gave the report. Assistant City
Manager Betty McKean reported that the Data Processing and Legal
departments had spent the last twelve months researching systems.
Howard Watt, the Municipal Judge, will also give his findings. Gary
Collins reported that he nad gone to three different cities: Bryan,
San Angelo, and E1 Paso to see the Municipal Court Systems. Collins
had hired a consultant to help them prepare a questionnaire to give
the cities. Parking tickets were one major criteria of the system.
Collins reported that none of the three systems met all of Denton's
needs. The criminal investigation system fit the needs the best,
however, Bryan and E1 Paso had the best systems.
Collins was disappointed that the City of Bryan did not process
parking tickets in their system. The E1 Paso system was in a test
environment, it was only operational in the data processing area,
but not for use in departments. Collins went back to E1 Paso in
October after their system was operational and the City of E1 Paso
was very pleased with their system. They had had some problems but
those problems had been solved. Collins said that his findings
recommend the E1 Paso system. The only cost for that system is
software. It has a capacity for growth. The system will cost under
$2,000. None of the systems researched had documentation since all
the computer systems are created in-house. In E1 Paso, there were
prompts on the screen which would tell the user how to proceed.
Council Member Hopkins asked about the start-up date for the court
system. Collins said that sometime in the first quarter of 1985 the
new system should be up and running. Hopkins asked how the City
Attorney and the Municipal Judge feel about the new system. Judge
Howard Watt answered that the Court Clerks feel positively about the
system and that Gary Collins is helping to explain it to them.
Judge Watt said that he feels positively about the fact that the
Data Processing people will help to train the Court Clerks and will
also send Phyllis Morris to E1 Paso to train. He said that it will
be of tremendous benefit to the City. Acting City Attorney Joe
Morris said that he has relied on Gary Collins' expertise in this
area. He personally has not seen any of the systems. Mayor Stewart
said that he will be pleased to have this system installed.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Three
3. The City Council received a report on the bid process on
the Library security detection system (Bid ~9347).
Assistant City Manager Betty McKean informed the Council that Joella
Orr, Library Director, is present to answer any questions that they
may have. McKean said that the purchasing of these security
detection systems has been in all respects a routine matter. The
way the bid was made was through the standard operating procedure of
the Purchasing Department. The salespersons' questions were
responded to.
The salesman from 3-M who complained about the bid procedure could
have taken the item off the Consent Agenda for discussion but chose
not to. Regarding the bid, McKean said that it was a normal
procedure to make a "proprietary bid". The procedure always leaves
room for an equivalent item. The 3-M salesman failed to respond to
the questions asked to him regarding his product. McKean stood by
the prior recommendation in this matter.
Council Member Hopkins said that he thought the bidding procedure
would not be fair if only one item is specified and "or equal" is
not put on the bid. Assistant City Manager McKean said that a
comparable offer would be received. The 3-M salesman did not give
the City a list of clients who would recommend him as he was
requested to do.
Joella Orr informed the Council the difference between two different
types of systems the sensitized type of surveillance system has been
known to erase cassettes. This was the type that 3-M offered. The
salesman told her that he had installed over 100 of the radio
frequency type systems, which were the type that we wanted, but he
never gave me a list of clients. Council Member Hopkins asked if
the Purchasing Department had checked out the salesman's
accusations, that his system was priced less all over the country.
Joella Orr said that the printed labels cost more and is 9~ each
label. The plain labels are 8~ each but the cheaper label was not
the type specified in the manual.
Council Member Stephens said that he sees no reason for the dispute
as the Purchasing Department should accept the lowest and best bid.
Council Member Hopkins said that would only apply if the bid was
written fairly and correctly. Council Member Stephens said the 3-M
salesman would not give the information that was needed to make a
good decision. City Manager Hartung said we pick a standard.
Council Member Hopkins asked about the prices of the strips. Joella
Orr said the printed ones are 9~ each and the plain ones are 8~
each. This item must be rebid each year to get the best.
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel and board appointments. No official
action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, Riddlesperger, Stephens and McAdams
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and Deputy City
Secretary
MEMBERS
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of September 4, 1984. There were no corrections,
additions, or deletions.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Four
Motion made by Council Member Riddlesperger second by Council Member
McAdams that the minutes be approved as presented. The motion
passes unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
City Manager Hartung removed item 2.A.4.from the Consent Agenda at
the request of the petitioner.
Mayor Stewart removed item 2.A.5. for discussion.
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve Consent Agenda with the
exception of items 4 and 5. Motion carried unanimously.
Item 5 was a preliminary plat of Country View Mobile Home Park.
Here the Council asked Denise Spivey if this item was in a new or
old mobile home park. Denise Spivey responded that the preliminary
plat is at 2800 Ft. Worth Drive, in a currently existing park. It
is platted under the current City of Denton subdivision. Motion to
pass item 5 of the Consent Agenda made by McAdams, second by
Alford. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of preliminary plat of American
Stores Center, Block 1, Lot 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Carroll Point Addition, Block 1. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.
3. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Cimmaron Addition, Blocks A and B. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
4. Consider approval of amendment of site plan of an
existing specific use permit on a 13.7 acre tract
at 2800 Fort Worth Drive (S-154). (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
5. Consider approval of preliminary plat of Country
View Mobile Home Park. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
6. Consider approval of preliminary and final replat
of the J. W. Erwin Subdivision, Block 1, Lots 2R
and 3R. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
7. Consider approval of final replat of the Milton
Court Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
8. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Paisley Street Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
9. Consider approval of final replat of the Sun
Valley Addition, Block A, Lot 13. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
10. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Kelsoe Addition, Lot 1, Block 1. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Five
~L1. Consider approval of site plan and final replat
of Township II, Phase II, Block A, Lot 4C. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
12. Consider approval of final replat of the Watley
Addition, Block 1, Lot 1, (formerly Blount
Addition). (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
13. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
~estgate Heights Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
14. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Windsor West Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. Appearance by Bob Schmitz concerning property at 221 N.
Locust.
This item was removed by the request of Bob Schmitz who was not able
to appear.
4. Public Hearings
A. Z-1683. This is the petition of W. S. Nash requesting
a change in zoning from the single family (SF-7) classification to
the planned development (PD) classification on a 15.1 acre tract
located on the west side of Stuart Road approximately 700 feet north
of Windsor Drive. If approved, the planned development will permit
the development of 96 zero lot line units (typical lot size
40'x110'). (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial.)
Speaking in favor of the petition was Jo Nash. Nash told the
Council that, given the right product, this was a viable project.
It could be an asset to the City of Denton and the neighborhood.
Nash said that zero lot lines are acceptable and cost less money.
She said she herself lives in the neighborhood and that she would
not devalue her own property with anything that was not a good
product.
No one spoke against the petition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, said that 29 reply forms
had been mailed out to property owners within 200 feet of the
project. Seven were sent back in opposition, none in favor. The
Denton Development Guide designated the area as a low intensity
area. It is a primary housing area and the proposed development
will not violate the intensity standard. However, Spivey said,
there is a concentration of moderate and high intensity land uses in
this and the surrounding area. Spivey also listed other approved
developments nearby. However, there is a concentration of moderate
and high intensity land use in zoning in this area. Spivey said it
will take six votes from the Council to approve this petition as the
Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial by a vote of
6-0. Council Member McAdams mentioned that density should be
distributed evenly within areas.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to deny the petition. Motion
to deny the petition passed 6-1 with Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting the
"nay" vote.
B. Z-1698 This is the petition of Keith A. Rubeck
requesting a change in the zoning classification from single family
(SF-7) to multi-family (MF-1) on a tract of approximately 8 acres
situated east of and abutting Bernard Street, south of and abutting
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Six
Collins Street and west of Cleveland Street and more fully described
as Lot 6.1, Block 313, on Alexander Hill Survey, Abstract #623,
Denton. A townhouse condominium project comprising approximately
119 units is proposed for the site. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission has no recommendation.)
Dick Myers spoke in favor of the petition. Myers said that this
would be a condominium townhome development on the southeast corner
of Bernard and Collins Streets. There would be 118 units, at 15.75
units per acre, with 2.89 parking spaces per housing unit, which is
less than the 2.25 spaces per unit required by the City of Denton.
The petitioner had developed a similar project, the Mesquite Ridge
project, which was zoned multi-family. It had 94 units, 15.67 units
per acre, which was less than the allowed density. These townhomes
are marketed to the parents of students. They will be occupied by
the owner. Myers said that this increases stability of the area,
raised property value of the area, and increases the likelihood that
the homes will be well maintained because of ownership interest.
This project is well below the multi-family standards. Myers showed
some slides of the projected development in which he pointed out
that there would be ample green space for aesthetic purposes. There
will be a lot of landscaping done. A retention pond would be used
for drainage. The project will cover 7.5 acres, the retention pond
is able to drain 10.5 acres. There will be laundry facilities on
the premises. The project will be close to the North Texas State
University area and near prior multi-family areas. The project will
be near main arteries in all directions. Myers showed location of
housing in the area. The project will be near private housing. It
is a 15 minute walk away from North Texas. Myers showed a
transparency in which he traced the route that commuter buses take
to the North Texas campus. He said it would be possible for the
_ commuter buses to go near the townhomes. North Texas State
University is now considering the commuter buses. Myers said that
if the students living in apartments south of 1-35 cannot find the
kind of housing they want they will move farther away from campus.
In a survey of the current Mesquite Ridge project, 94% of residents
are interested in the shuttle bus. The Mesquite Ridge project has
94 units, 91 of which responded to the questionnaire.
Staff had recommended against this petition as being inconsistent
with the Denton Development Guide. They said it exceeded intensity
standards for the area. However, Myers said, the Denton Development
Guide says to use real numbers if they are available. Myers used
figures which were based on the Mesquite Ridge project. Myers said
this development would have a positive impact on the neighborhood.
He gave statistics on a traffic study that he had done which he said
differs from the traffic study done by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Myers said ne is looking at the North Texas State
University area as a specific area with specific needs. Myers
talked about the methodology staff uses to make recommendations by
calculating the intensity rating and applying it to current zoning.
Myers said that the reason the traffic study found what it did is
because there is no existing numbers for the corner of Bernard and
Collins Streets. Actual traffic numbers applied to the new property
projected trip generation less than the density level. The traffic
generation is less than standard numbers. Myers gave further
statistics regarding trip generation. He stated that the traffic
generation was less than low intensity development standards. The
conclusion of Myers' traffic engineer was that no problems would
result from the proposed development.
Myers said that the project would make a significant contribution to
the tax base. He said that he reviewed the Denton Development Guide
objectives and felt the proposed project is totally consistent with
those objectives. Myers summarized the benefits to the neighborhood
as meeting the need for quality housing for students, reducing
student traffic in other areas of the city, encouraging pedestrian
and bicycle traffic, extending the residential character of the
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Seven
existing neighborhood, enhancing neighborhood property values,
increasing the city tax base, buffering the single-family
neighborhood to the west, improving the drainage and streets in the
area, and providing a low density alternative to a higher density
project which might have been built there.
Randy Looney, a resident of the neighborhood in which the
development is proposed, spoke against the petition. Looney said
that in the mornings cars going north on Bernard to Eagle are backed
up a long way, which would indicate that there is already too much
traffic in that area. This is a dangerous place during that hour to
try to cross. There is a blind intersection on Collins and Bernard
which is also dangerous to get across.
Furthermore, Looney said that the students who would be buying and
living in the condominiums are not permanent residents of the area;
they come and go. Even if they do buy the property, they will
generally rent the property out once they leave. He said that he
owns his home and that the proposed project will devalue his
property because his house will be across from the condominiums.
Looney said that the entrance on Bernard to the condominiums will
bring more traffic and cars parking on the streets. He said he has
two children and they cannot even play in the front yard because of
current heavy traffic. Looney said that more units will only bring
more traffic. Looney also said that during the bad weather and in
the winter st~ldents will drive cars instead of using bicycles or
other alternative transportation. The main problem, Looney said, is
traffic, in addition to the strain on utility services.
The Mayor gave the petitioner the opportunity to rebut the
opposition.
Myers addressed the issue about excess traffic. He said that the
traffic engineer nad counted cars and found that traffic was well
within the bounds. Myers said that there would be trees between the
property and the nearby houses. The utility question is under
discussion with the City. Myers said that out of all the neighbors
that he had surveyed, Mr. Looney was the only one who had a problem
with the proposed development.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that he had
mailed out 22 reply forms; received two in favor, zero in
opposition, and one undecided. Persaud said that the proposed
zoning change is inconsistent with the Denton Development Guide
policies because of the large number of trips generated by the
change. If this change is approved, it will result in an overall 33
percent above the planned intensity standard.
The Development Guide recommends as a priority the need to protect
existing housing. ?ersaud said that Bernard and Collins Streets are
already loaded to capacity. No formal recommendation was made by
the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission considered this
item in its October 10 meeting and voted 3-1 for denial.
The Mayor asked if six votes would be required for approval. Joe
Morris, Acting City Attorney, said that a simple majority would be
required.
David Ellison responded to the intensity analysis given by Myers.
Ellison said that according to Koorosh Olyai, City Traffic Engineer,
he is in agreement with Myers' traffic study. However, Ellison said
that he is looking from a long-range standpoint as a city planner.
There is also no guarantee that the area would be developed at 16.9
units per acre as stated.
Ellison said that the current Mesquite Ridge property is an asset.
However, the property had already been zoned multi-family. He
suggested that the developers acquire existing zoned property and
develop it.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Eight
Council Member Stephens asked Ellison if the PD classification had
built-in guarantees for density. Ellison answered that it did not
and that any additional high density housing in the area is
undesirable.
Council Member McAdams said that the Mesquite Ridge was advertised
as investment property, not necessarily to be lived in by the
owner. McAdams said that parking is a problem in the area. McAdams
said that by overloading the area it could create another "concrete
city" or an undesirable area like the area on the west side of the
North Texas State University campus.
McAdams mentioned traffic problems and said that this area does not
actually border the university.
McAdams move, Chew second to deny the petition. Motion carried
unanimously.
C. Z-1703. This is the petition of Henry S. Miller
Company requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
district to the planned development (?D) district on a 243.3 acre
tract located on the north side of 1-35E, approximately 1,800 feet
east of Loop 288. If approved, the planned development will permit
the following uses:
57.1 acres - office (O)
29.1 acres - multi-family (MF-2)
61.5 acres - light industrial (LI)
95.7 acres - commercial (C)
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
The Mayor opened the public ~]earing.
Charles Watkins of Fields, Edwards, and Associates, representing the
Henry S. Miller Co., spoke in favor of the petition. Watkins read a
list of uses that the Henry S. Miller has agreed not to locate at
the property. The list is included in the backup material. At one
time there were some concerns about infrastructure, but the Henry S.
Miller Co. has addressed those concerns. The area is already a high
intensity area and Watkins said that it will be an economic asset to
the city.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked about the extension of Loop 288
through the area. Watkins showed the land which would be dedicated
to the City of Denton for the extension of Loop 288.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey reported that none of the forms mailed to property
owners within 200 feet of the proposed development received a
reply. The area is one of the three high intensity areas of the
city. High density housing is encouraged by the Denton Development
Guide here to provide housing near jobs and services. A planned
development will give the city better control over the area than
unrestricted zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
the petition by a vote of 5-0 with the condition that the list of
land uses that are included in the backup information not be
permitted as planned development. Spivey listed the land uses.
McAdams moved, Hopkins second to approve the petition with the
condition stated above. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Z-1704. This is the petition of Henry S. Miller
Company requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
district to the planned development (PD) district on a 57 acre tract
located on the east side of Loop 288, approximately 2,200 feet north
of 1-35E. If approved, the planned development will permit the
following land uses:
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Nine
30.1 acres - light industrial (LI)
27.0 acres - multi family (MF-2)
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
Charles Watkins spoke in favor of the petition. Mrs. Mason
Haggard's property adjoins the property and he requested that a
solid fence be built between the properties, and also between the
property and the railroad tracks.
Mrs. Mason Haggard spoke in opposition to the petition. She said
that she had received no notice of the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting or this Council meeting.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey gave the report which is similar to the preceeding
item. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval
with a vote of 5-0 with the conditions that: (1) the land uses
prohibited in the previous development also be prohibited in this
development; and (2) that a six-foot solid fence be built between
this property and the railroad track, and also between this property
and the Haggard property.
Spivey responded to Mrs. Haggard's question, saying that she should
have received a reply form and it was evidently due to staff error
that she did not receive one.
Mrs. Haggard said that she had brought up this issue to the Planning
and zoning Commission in the spring, and had still received no
notification. Council Member Stephens said that her question should
be looked into so the omission could be corrected in other cases.
McAdams moved, Hopkins second to accept the petition with the two
conditions. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of 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.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-155
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.
City Manager Hartung explained that this is a standard ordinance
under the City's new policy as identified by the Acting City
Attorney.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts
for public works or improvements; providing for the expenditure of
funds therefore; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Ten
NO. 84-156
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of B. L. Archer for annexation of 31.027 acres located at
the southwest corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane (FM 2181) (A-8).
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-157
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
David Ellison said that this is a voluntary annexation request and
that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval
since the time the ordinance was submitted.
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for puDlic hearings regarding the
annexation of approximately 5 acres of land located north of Highway
380 West and adjacent and west of Masch Branch Road (A-9).
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-158
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
David Ellison said that this is the Tri-Steel Structures, Inc.
proposed office site north of the airport runway. Staff is going
forward with the five-acre annexation because there was a technical
problem with the sixty-nine acre tract.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of Myers Development Corporation for annexation of
approximately 131.7 acres located south of Robinson Road and east of
Nowlin Road (A-10).
The following ordinance was presented:
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Eleven
NO. 84-159
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE~ TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
David Ellison explained that this is a part of the 760-plus acre
proposed Oakmont Development.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of Walter DeRonde for annexation of approximately 112 acres
located west of 1-35E service road and north of Marshall Road and
east of the Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (A-12).
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-160
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
David Ellison said that this was also a voluntary request. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.
Alford motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance quit-
claiming Center Street in the I.O.O.F. Cemetery. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-161
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING AND VACATING OF THAT
PORTION OF CENTER STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH EAGLE
DRIVE NORTH THROUGH THE I.O.O.F. CEMETERY TO ITS
INTERSECTION ~ITH HIGHLAND STREET; PROVIDING FOR THE
REVERSION OF THE FEE TO SAID PROPERTY FOR CEMETERY
PURPOSES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, told the Council
that Parks and Recreation wants to quitclaim the portion of Center
Street that still goes through the cemetery so as to finish the
fencing and avoid cars cutting through Center Street off of Carroll
Blvd.
Council Membe~ Stephens asked if there is currently a parking
proDlem. Brinkman answered that it has been a problem for a number
of years.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Twelve
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the
creation of a Library Board; to provide for the adoption of policies
governing the operation of the Library; repealing all ordinances in
conflict therewith; and providing for an effective date. (The
Library Board recommends approval.)
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-162
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF A LIBRARY BOARD; TO PROVIDE
FOR THE ADOPTION OF POLICIES GOVERNING THE OPERATION OF THE
LIBRARY; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Joella Orr, Director of the Library, explained that this is simply a
"housekeeping" issue, which will just put into an ordinance what has
already been done in fact.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
revising Section 25.24 of the Code of Ordinance regarding pro rata
street light costs. (The Public Utilities Board recommends
approval.)
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-163
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COST FOR STREET LIGHTING SERVICES
PURSUANT TO SECTION 25-23 OF CHAPTER 25 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, explained that semi-anually he
reviews the cost of installing street lights for subdivisions. The
list of costs is in the agenda backup material.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
J. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing an engineering services contract with Freese and
Nichols, Inc. for the design of ground water storage tank at the
Water Treatment Plant. (The Public Utilities Board recommends
approval.)
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-164
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE DESIGN OF A
GROUND STORAGE TANK FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT;
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Bob Nelson said that within the study conducted by Freese and
Nichols on water plant expansion requirements was included a
two-million gallon ground storage. The cost is estimated to be
around $400,000.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Thirteen
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
K. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an annual software maintenance agreement for the Utility
Billing System, known as "CIS", and meter record system. (The Data
Processing Advisory Board recommends approval.)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 84-165
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS, FOR THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FEE FOR THE
UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gary Collins, Director of Data Processing told the Council that this
is the continuance of the annual maintenance contract on software
packages. This one affects the utility billing system. The cost of
the package is higher because of the meter record system.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
L. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a funding agreement between the City of Denton and
Services Program for Aging Needs (SPAN); authorizing the Mayor to
execute the agreement; the expenditure of funds therefore; and
providing for an effective date. (The Human Resources Advisory
Committee recommends approval.)
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-166
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF DENTON AND SERVICES PROGRAM FOR AGING NEEDS (SPAN);
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; APPROVING
THE EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning, explained that this is a contract
with SPAN to provide service to the handicapped called Handi-Hop.
The program amounts to $19,800. Planning will be monitoring the
program because there had been problems in the past.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
M. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a funding agreement between the City of Denton and Denton
City-County Day Nursery; authorizing the Mayor to execute the
agreement; the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an
effective date. (The Human Resources Advisory Committee recommends
approval.)
NO. 84-167
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF DENTON AND DENTON CITY-COUNTY DAY NURSERY; AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE
EXPENDITURES OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Fourteen
Jeff Meyer said that this contract assists the day-care center in
providing day-care to lower-income working mothers. This
supplements funds that were lost with a change in the federal
program. This is one of two day-care in the city that accepts
low-income people.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
N. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the expenditure of funds by the City of Denton for
participation in a municipal electric job training program and
approving the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an
effective date.
NO. 84-168
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY THE
CITY OF DENTON FOR PARTICIPATION IN A MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC
JOB TRAINING PROGRAM AND APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Bob Nelson said that the amount of the contract for job training for
distribution crews was $4,329.16 per year.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if this would protect the City
from possible lawsuits. Nelson answered that it would. The City
has participated in this program for many years.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
6. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving the newly revised policy manual for the Denton Public
Library as rewritten by the Denton Library Board. (The Library
Board recommends approval.)
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That in accordance with Section 2-52 of Chapter 2 of the
Code of Ordinances, the policy manual, as recommended by the Library
Board, containing policies and procedures for the operation of the
Emily Fowler Public Library, a copy of which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof, is hereby adopted and approved by the City
Council of the City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION II.
This Resolution shall become effective from and after its
date of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 20th day of November, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1954
Page Fifteen
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Joella Orr told the Council that this is a revised policy which
outlines the services and limitations of the Library.
Orr said that this revision is simpler to read and some excess words
were taken out from the previous policy.
Orr said that she is in touch with Judge Cole of the County, and if
the County decided once again to fund the LiOrary, a contract would
have to be made. She said that the policy would not change in that
event.
Stephens motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution for
the development: of a County-wide transportation plan for Denton
County.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Denton County the fourth fastest growing county in
the country is facing a mobility crisis; and
WHEREAS, Denton County and it's cities need to develop a
systematic approach that will set priorities, indicate when and
which transportation improvements are needed; and
%~HEREAS, Denton County Commissioners ' Court needs to
implement a program to help meet our future right-of-way needs due
to our phenomenal growth factor and escalating land values; and
WHEREAS, this resolution confirms this city's support and
participation in the development of a county wide transportation
plan; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF '£HE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas supports
the Commissioners' Court intent to hire a consulting firm to develop
a technical transportation guide designed to result in a program of
transportation improvements for Denton County during the next two
decades.
SECTION II.
The technical transportation guide would include:
1. Developing a county-wide plan for a transportation network
that is responsive to future growth;
City Council Minutes ~-/~7
November 20, 1984
Page Sixteen
2. Providing the necessary coordination among existing
throughfare plans of individual cities within Denton County for the
development of a integrated roadway network;
3. Establishing a roadway classification system;
4. Recommending a geometric and design standards for roadway
development for both rural and urban conditions along with cost
estimating procedures for use in throughfare planning;
5. Right-of-way plans for use by the county and cities in order
to reserve right-of-way during the development plat process; and
6. Recommending a program for staged development of freewayst
urban arterials, rural arterials and controlled access facilities
which will be compatible with incremental growth development to 2005
to insure continuity of major roadways an timely roadway
construction.
SECTION III.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 20th day of November, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Council Members Riddlesperger and Hopkins spoke in favor of this
item. Mayor Stewart said that this is where we have been heading
for years.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
creating a City of Denton Health Facilities Development Corporation.
City Manager Hartung introduced Roy Poinsett to explain the item to
the Council. Poinsett told the Council that the state legislature
has authorized the creation of a health facilities development
corporation to finance "life-care projects." The Lake Forest
project is one of those type projects. The Good Samaritan project
is also a similar project. The bankrupt Lake Forest project has
approached the Good Samaritan Society with hopes of them acquiring
that project. This resolution would provide a vehicle by which the
Society could obtain a favorable financing for the acquisition of
the project, by tax exempt revenue bonds, secured by the corporate
obligation of the A-rated Good Samaritan Society.
Poinsett said this resolution must be passed to file articles of
incorporation in Austin to incorporate to issue bonds. Acquisition
date should be around February or March, 1985.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Seventeen
Council Member Riddlesperger said that this would help the residents
of Lake Forest Village. Council Member Alford said that many of the
residents moved to Denton from other places.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered disposition of excess Henry Street
(Sherman Drive) right-of-way. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
and Development Review Committee recommend approval.)
David Ellison said that this is 1942.5 sq. feet of excess Henry St.
right-of-way. Key recommendation comes from the Development Review
Committee. Ellison mentioned that Jon Weist from the Denton
Record-Chronicle pointed out that he had not earlier mentioned for
the record that all of the previous annexation public hearings will
be held on December 4, 1984.
Council Member Stephens asked why it has taken so long for this item
to reach the Council, and Ellison said that he did not know.
Mayor Stewart asked Ellison how this area is zoned. Ellison said
that he did not know but he felt fairly certain that it was
single-family because of the area that it was in. Ellison checked
the map and said it was single-family.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the disposition. Motion
carried six to ()ne with Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" vote.
8. The Co[lncil considered disposition of City property located
at the northeast corner of Bonnie Brae and Scripture Street. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission and Development Review Committee
recommend approval.)
Harry Persaud said that this is a tract of .223 acres east of Bonnie
Brae and north of Scripture Street. This is part of a larger
portion of land acquired by the City for right-of-way. It is
triangular shape.a~d will severely restrict buildings on the land.
Hopkins motion, McAdam~ second to approve the disposition. Motion
carried unanimously.
9. The Council considered strategy for proposed street bond
election.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, answered the questions the
Council had expressed in their last meeting regarding total cost of
street improvements. Svehla said that assuming there are 45 miles
of overlay, 25 miles of rebuilding, the figure would be
approximately $3 million of overlay and $16 million of rebuilding,
or minimum, $19 million. John McGrane had a plan where $10 million
worth of improvements could be done with no tax increase if we
dedicated the two cents appropriated in the last budget. For $19
million, there would be a 30 percent tax increase.
Council Member Stephens asked if bonds would be sold all at once or
at different times. Svehla answered that if that much is issued
then sooner or later it must be levied. Stephens asked if it could
be "phased in." City Manager Hartung said that there is some
benefit from scheduling bond sales. Svenla said that if we sold
them all at once the interest could be used to help make payments,
and reduce some of the impact.
John McGrane said that the amount of money and timing of selling is
crucial. The first two years of debt service is the most crucial.
Currently our debt service is decreasing.
City Council Minutes
November 20, 1984
Page Eighteen
Council Member Hopkins asked what is the lowest tax rate we could
get by with. City Manager Hartung said that it was possible to do
$10 million over five years without any tax increase. If an
additional $9 million was done, it would need to be spread out over
that five years. Depending on how it was spread out, it would
determine what the tax increase was.
Council Member Hopkins said that he would like to include looking at
ways to add capacity to the existing street system.
Hartung asked the Council about what they wanted to do regarding the
Citizen's Advisory Committee. Council Member Riddlesperger said
that he wanted input from the citizens. Council Member Stephens
asked who would give direction to this committee of citizens, and
Hartung said that the Council could appoint them and set the policy
and give direction. Hartung also mentioned the Chamber Trans-
portation Subcommittee had volunteered to help.
Alford motion, Chew second, to appoint a blue ribbon committee.
Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member McAdams asked for some kind of list of members.
Hartung suggested that the staff would list some categories for the
Council to consider at their next meeting.
10. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
11. No items of new business were suggested by Council Members
for future agendas.
The Council then reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
/
~IE JAC~O~--DEPUTY CIT~ SECRETARY
0976g
City Council Minutes
December 4, 1984
'~he Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Mayor Stewart was serving on a panel for the American
Public Power Association
1. The Council received a report from representatives of the
Flow Memorial Hospital Board of Directors.
Ms. Mary Williams, Chairperson of the Flow Hospital Board of
Directors, reported that the hospital auditors had prepared a
partial study at the end of July which projected that the hospital
would be in the black. This was not the case. The current
preliminary projection was a loss of approximately $240,000 at the
year end. The collection rate was approximately 70% and patient
volume had declined. Flow was experiencing cash flow problems and
significant delays in reimbursement. The board hopefully considered
the problem to be temporary. More staff had been hired for the
business office to collect accounts.
In regards to planning, the consulting firm of Harwood K. Smith and
Partners had Oeen retained to prepare a master plan. Detailed
drawings of the proposed recommended floor plan for the hospital
were being completed. The proposed medical office building planning
was progressing. The annual plan for Flow would be completed and
presented at the January board meeting.
A licensed midwife had been recruited and that program would be
operational early in 1985.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the board had explored the idea of
increasing fees.
Williams responded that the fees had been increased.
Council Member McAdams asked if a 70% collection rate was low.
Williams replied that was about average; however, patients were not
paying their bills and there had been a significant slow down in
Medicare payments to the hospital.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked about the rate of loss of
patients.
Williams responded that other doctors were seeing an approximate 20%
patient drop rate. More patients were using day surgery and not
using hospital rooms.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked about the status of the First
Texas Medical Certificate of Need to build another hospital.
Williams replied that the board and the hospital administration were
still contesting the award of the certificate and were going to
appeal in court.
Jeff Hausler, Flow Memorial Hospital Administrator, stated that the
chances of winning the court appeal were not good.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that, since the hospital use
rate was down, that should be given consideration by the court
before a Certificate of Need was issued to construct another
hospital.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Two
Williams stated the administrators must look at getting more
efficient and getting into more profitable types of services such as
day surgery and out patient care. Staff reduction had been made;
however, new employees had been added in the business office to take
care of collections.
Council Member Stephens asked if the midwife program would make any
difference in Flow's liability.
%~illiams responded no; the midwife program would be staffed with
licensed nurses who would work with obstetricians.
2. The Council held a discussion on the child care ordinance.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that there were a number of day care facilities operating without
specific use permits. One way to alleviate the problem was to
revise the existing ordinance.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris reported that the ordinance could be
written so as to have all of the existing day care centers as
non-conforming uses. Another option was to enforce the present
ordinance giving existing non-conforming uses a time deadline to
comply. The problem with the ordinance would be the definition of
what constituted a day care center.
Council Member Stephens asked the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance as the attorney thought it should be and to bring it to
the Council for review.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he would hate to see church
groups have to pay a large fee for a specific use permit.
Morris responded that an ordinance could not distinguish between a
church and non-religious group.
Council Member McAdams stated that all existing day care centers
could be "grandfathered" into the revised ordinance.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if a grace period could be given
to allow existing centers to comply with the revised ordinance.
Meyer responded that another issue to be considered was that the
church day care centers were not considered as a charity because
they were making a profit.
Mayor Stewart stated that accurate records of those centers which
had applied for specific use permits and those who had not did not
exist.
The consensus of the Council was to direct the Acting City Attorney
to prepare an ordinance based on current state law with a
"grandfather" clause for all existing day care centers.
Council Member Stephens asked about operating day care centers which
had not been licensed by the state.
Morris responded the state would have to be notified.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the specific use permit was
issued for the property; the individuals operating the centers were
licensed by the state. The specific use permit would be valid if
the people changed.
Council Member McAdams stated that if the location had been deemed
appropriate for a day care center, the permit should remain.
Meyer stated that the city would be controlling zoning only.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Three
3. The Council considered approval of proposed sign ordinance
provisions.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that this proposed ordinance nad been reviewed in general and staff
was now requesting direction from the Council on some specific
areas. Meyer then introduced Charlie Watkins, consultant, who had
been retained to work with staff on the sign ordinance.
Watkins then asked if the Council would prefer to review the entire
ordinance or just the controversial issues. The consensus was to
limit the discussion to the controversial portions of the draft
ordinance.
The Council began the discussion by reviewing the section on
prohibited signs, specifically signs on public property.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris reported that this section was
originally prepared to be in compliance wita federal law. The
Supreme Court had reversed the decision. Morris suggested that this
section might De rewritten to be more restrictive.
Council Member McAdams stated that she felt signs should be
completely off of public property.
Council Member Stephens stated that the section called out medians
and sidewalks and ne felt there should be some flexibility. In some
instances signs on public property would be appropriate.
Morris stated that the section should be reworded to be very
specific. The current wording of "when such use or location
unreasonably interferes with ... the use of the public property"
would place the responsiDility of making the determination of what
was unreasonable on the Code Enforcement Officers.
Council Member Riddlesperger suggested that the word "unreasonably"
be deleted from the section.
Mayor Stewart joined the meeting.
Morris stated that the public right-of-way could then be used for
political and non-political "stake" signs.
Mayor Stewart stated that he personally would prefer no signs on
public property.
Meyer added that there was a great deal of private property which
could be used for signs.
Morris stated that the section would be rewritten to ban all signs
on puDlic property and the Council could discuss the issue again at
a later date.
Charlie Watkins then clarified that the portion on proper shielding
of lighted signs referred to non-portable signs.
Watkins stated that the permit fees proposed were based on the size
of the sign and a procedure nad been devised to allow sign permits
to be revoked.
The Council then began a discussion of the regulation of signs by
zoning districts. The proposed ordinance was more restrictive in
residential zoning districts than in non-residential districts. The
spacing and size of signs in residential districts had been
addressed. In size requirements in the non-residential district had
received complaints from members of the sign industry. It was felt
that a 60 feet sign should be allowed on the interstate highway
rather than the 40 feet suggested by staff.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Four
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris reported that general billboards are
off premises; i.e., not located on the business property, and were
regulated by state law.
The consensus of the Council was to use the state standard of 672
square feet for signs on the Interstate and a maximum size of 400
square feet for signs located in non-residential districts as it was
written in the proposed ordinance.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Council needed to know how
many signs currently were non-conforming because they exceeded the
400 square feet limit.
Mayor Stewart stated existing signs which were not in compliance
could request an exception.
Morris stated that sufficient time must be allowed for owners of
non-conforming signs to recoup their investment in the sign.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he believed the Council
s~ould allow existing signs in violation of the 400 square feet
limit to remain but not allow any more.
Direction from Council was for ~atkins to report back on the number
of existing signs which exceeded the 400 square feet limit.
4. The Council reviewed the elementary after-school program.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported that the
program had been successful. The program had been created due to
the success of the summer program and staff was trying to expand the
use of recreational facilities city-wide. A need had been
identified for this service. There were currently 6 different
sites; 5 located at elementary schools and 1 at Denia Recreation
Center. Enrollment was approximately 30 children at each of the 6
sites. Future registrations would hold places for 5 students who
were on the free lunch program at the schools. A small fee was
charged to cover the cost of supplies.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he had requested this report
because he had received several telephone calls from parents
regarding the program. All of the comments had been very positive
and complimentary and he did not want to lose the program. Council
Member Hopkins further stated that he felt the fees were too low.
Brinkman reported that staff would be reviewing the fees in the
future. There currently was a waiting list of approximately 15
students for each of the sites.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Alford was absent due to a previous
commitment
1. The Council considered approval of a resolution of
appreciation for Ms. Margaret Nichols.
Ms. Nichols was present to receive the resolution.
The following resolution was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Five
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF
MARGARET NICHOLS
WHEREAS, Margaret Nichols is a member of the Denton Library
Board; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton appreciates the time, effort,
and dedication of service that Margaret Nichols contributes as the
County Ex-officio to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Denton
Library Board; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
That the sincere and warm appreciation of the City of
Denton be formally conveyed to Margaret Nichols in a permanent
manner by spreading this Resolution upon the official Minutes of the
City of Denton and forwarding to her a true copy hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 4th Day of December, A.D.,
1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Chew motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Riddlesperger "'aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
2. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Special Called Meeting of September 13, 1984.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Consent Agenda
Mayor Stewart stated that item B.2 had been removed from the Consent
Agenda at the request of the petitioner.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented with the exception of item 3.B.2. Motion carried
unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
~. Bid # 9352 - Streetlights
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Six
2. Bid # 9354 and 9355 - Raw water pump station
with values and controls
3. Bid # 9365 - Fire nose
4. Bid # 9368 - Concrete planks
5. Bid # 9369 - Structural steel
6. Bid # 9358 - %~ater and sewer utility capital
improvements
7. Bid # 9364 - Loop 288 water and sewer utility
relocations
8. Purchase Order # 64896 to Calvert Motor Company
in the amount of $3,083.43
9. Purchase Order # 65683 to Mahaney International
in the amount of $9,000.00
B. Plats, Replats and Site Plans:
1. Approval of preliminary plat of the M & B Metal
Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. REMOVED AT REQUEST OF PETITIONER
3. Approval of preliminary plat of South Denton
Industrial Park Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
- approval.)
4. Approval of preliminary and final replat of the
Wainwright Addition, Block 28, Lot 1-R. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
4. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Dabney Companies requesting a change in the zoning classification
from planned development (PD-17) and agricultural (A) to light
industrial (LI) classification on a tract of 334.607 acres located
east of and abutting Woodrow Lane and north of the proposed
extension of Morse Street north of Spencer Road and west of Loop
288. The tract contains approximately 123 acres for light
industrial (LI) use within the planned development district ?D-17
and the balance of approximately 211.6 acres under the zoned
agricultural classification (A). If approved, the entire site of
334.607 acres would be developed for light industrial uses in
accordance with the Denton Zoning Ordinances. Z-1700
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Bill Perry, representing Dabney Companies, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that his company had worked with staff. The
detailed planning for the development would be completed when the
zoning was granted. Mr. Perry further stated that much work was to
De done, Dut the zoning was a major step.
Mayor Stewart asked Mr. Perry if any apartments were to be included
in the development.
Mr. Perry responded no; not on the southern side. This basically
was an industrial area and Dabney Companies envisioned the entire
southern tract as Deing utilized as industrial.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Seven
Council Member Stephens stated an industrial park was proposed and
asked if Dabney Companies had any future plans for residential use
on the property.
Mr. Perry responded that many utility lines were on the tract which
ran in a triangular fashion; however, there were no utility lines on
the property in a north/south configuration. The property would
basically De utilized for warehousing and shipping.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that 21 reply
forms had been mailed with 4 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. The tract was located in a high activity center and it
would be in the best interest of the city for the property to
develop as this type of light industrial zoning. Adjacent existing
land uses included 183 acres of light industrial property. If
granted, this would zone the remainder of the parcel as light
industrial. The street situation was no problem.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Minutes of the Planning and
Zoning Commission discussed a question of whether the petitioner
should have requested a planned development.
Persaud responded that the planned development classification should
be used if straight zoning could not be applied. That would allow
flexibility for offices in the future.
Council Member Stephens stated that under the present zoning, the
petitioner could develop the entire property with apartment units.
Persaud responded that the entire tract could not be developed with
apartment units during a 3 year time period.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that the Planning and Zoning
Commission was looking at cumulative zoning and examining revisions
which needed to be made to the zoning ordinance.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to approve. Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
E1 Dorado Car Wash Systems requesting a change of zoning
classification from multi-family (MF-1) to general retail (GR) on a
tract of approximately 0.5326 acres situated north of and abutting
Londonderry Lane and west of and abutting Jason Drive and more fully
described as Lot 1, Block D, Teasley Mall Subdivision. If approved,
the site may be developed for any general retail and service type
uses as permitted by the City of Denton Zoning Ordinance. Z-1707
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Harris Hollabaugh spoke in favor of the petition stating that
the location was on Londonderry Lane just off of 1-35 and Teasley.
It was his intention to build a first-class car wash.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the puDlic nearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 4 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned. The tract was located in a
moderate intensity area and was surrounded by multi-family zoning.
To the east was a laundromat and a small day care center. There was
one small area of agricultural zoning on 1-35. Staff felt it was
unlikely that any single family units would be developed on this
property.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve. Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Eight
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Dallas Design Group, Inc. requesting a change of zoning
classification from multi-family (MF-1) to general retail (GR) on a
tract of 0.574 acres of land situated north of and abutting
Londonderry Lane and east of and abutting Jason Drive and more fully
described as Lot 4B1, Block B, Teasley Mall Subdivision. If
approved, the site may be developed for any general retail and
service type uses as permitted by the City of Denton Zoning
Ordinance. Z-1708
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jack Jowolski spoke in favor of the petition stating that Dallas
Design Group intended to design and construct a first class building
of approximately 6,000 square feet with 4 lease spaces.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 6 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0 in opposition.
This was the same type of location and situation as the previous
puDtic hearing for E1 Dorado Car Wash Systems.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
B. L. Archer for annexation of 31.02 acres located at the southwest
corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane FM 2181). A-8
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that this was
1 of 4 cases which had been before the Council on November 20. This
was a voluntary annexation. The Council would take final action on
the annexation on February 19. No formal action was required at
this time.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to continue the annexation
proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing regarding the
proposed annexation of approximately 5 acres of land located north
of Highwat 380 %~est and adjacent and west of Masch Branch Road. A-9
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that this was
the Tri-Steel Estates tract. This was not a voluntary annexation
but the owner had returned the reply form in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to continue the annexation pro-
ceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Myers Development Corporation for annexation of approximately 131.7
acres located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin Road. A-10
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Nine
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the petition
reporting that this was a voluntary annexation. No reply forms had
been returned.
No one spoke in. opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Hopkins motions. Chew second to continue the annexation proceedings.
Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Walter DeRonde for annexation of approximately 112 acres located
west of 1-35E service road and north of Marshall Road and east of
the Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. A-12
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the petition
reporting that Mr. DeRonde and 2 other owners had petitioned for
this voluntary annexation. Two reply forms had been returned in
favor and 0 in opposition.
Charlie ~atkins, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor urging
the Council to annex the property so the developer could proceed
with zoning.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Chew motion, McAdams second to continue the annexation proceedings.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of 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.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this ordinance would
authorize the expenditure of funds for the bids which were listed on
the Consent Agenda.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-169
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.
C~ew motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts
for public works or improvements; providing for the expenditure of
funds therefore; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Ten
NO. 84-170
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of
materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the
provision of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of
competitive bids; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-171
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
establishing rates for commercial sanitation service.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that these rates had
been discussed during the budget process. The increase would help
to fund the landfill and to cover operating costs. The proposed
rates were based on the actual rental cost of the container and the
charge back of how many times the commercial customer received
service per week. The comparison chart furnished in the agenda
back-up material was for the city and Texas Waste Management.
Council Member Hopkins asked how the city compared with local
commercial haulers.
Svehla responded that the local commercial hauler's rates were also
in the back-up material comparison chart.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he was concerned that the city
would get the commercial rates out of line and would lose customers
to the private haulers.
Svehla responded that staff had considered this and had held the
increase to 13% to remain competitive.
Council Member Alford joined the meeting.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he seriously thought the increase
would cause the city to lose lots of customers. It was an economy
of scale. The city could not afford to lose 5% of the present
customers.
Svehla responded the city also could not afford to subsidize the
service. A portion of the landfill charges was being paid through
commercial rates and a portion through residential rates.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Eleven
Council Member Hopkins asked what was the rate of increase in the
residential rates.
Svehla responded approximately 18%.
The following ordinance was presented:
No. 84-172
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12-20, OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL
SANITATION RATES; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "nay," Stephens "nay," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried 4 to 3 with Council Members Hopkins, Stephens and
Chew casting the "nay" votes.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the addition of increased municipal contributions and
supplemental death benefits to the Texas Municipal Retirement System.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that the ordinance
was to implement a benefit which had been authorized in the 1984-85
budget. The increase in municipal contributions was from 1.5 to
2.0. There was also a supplement to the death benefits for
survivors of employees.
The following o~dinance was presented:
NO. 84-173
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR INCREASED MUNICIPAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CURRENT SERVICE ANNUITY RESERVE AT
RETIREMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS;
PROVIDING FOR PARTICIPATION OF THE CITY IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL
DEATH BENEFITS FUND OF THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT
SYS'~EM, TO PROVIDE CERTAIN IN-SERVICE DEATH BENEFITS FOR
EMPLOYEES~ AND DEATH BENEFITS FOR ANNUITANTS WHOSE LAST
EMPLOYMENT BEFORE RETIREMENT WAS WITH THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting the dedication of right-of-way for a new alignment of
Spencer Road at Woodrow Lane.
Council Member Hopkins stated that this item had been discussed many
times Defore.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-174
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION BY DEED FROM JEWELL
M. OWEN PARHAM AND ROBERT H. PARHAM, OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE MARY L. AUSTIN SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NO. 4t DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 832,
PAGE 83 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY TO THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, FOR THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC
STREET AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Twelve
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
abandoning right-of-way on Spencer Road at Woodrow Lane.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-175
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING AND VACATING OF A
PORTION OF SPENCER ROAD, A PUBLIC STREET, AS HEREIN
DESCRIBED, RESERVING A UTILITY EASEMENT THEREIN; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an employment agreement between the City of Denton and the
City Manager.
Mayor Stewart stated that the employment agreement would be
retroactive to October 1, 1984.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-176
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY MANAGER; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
6. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving an agreement by the City of Denton Industrial Development
Authority to issue a bond for Dallas Drive Development Group and a
guarantee agreement with G. E. Adami, John S. Adami, Ted L. Coe, and
James Shane and the bond resolution providing for the issuance of
such bond.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the Denton Industrial
Development Authority had approved a similar resolution earlier in
the day.
Mr. Tom Spurgeon, representing McCall, Parkhurst and Horton law
firm, stated that the Dond was for $1 million for the Dallas
Development Group, a general partnership with 4 members. This was a
commercial project located in an eligiDle blighted area. A 27,000
square feet guilding would be constructed to be used for commercial
business purposes. The project inducement resolution had been
approved after June, 1984 so the project fell under the new legal
regulations of the Texas Economic Development Commission.
The following resolution was presented:
City of Denton .City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Thirteen
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BY
CITY OF DENTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TO ISSUE A BOND FOR
DALLAS DRIVE DEVELOPMENT GROUP
AND A GUARANTEE AGREEMENT WITH
G. E. ADAMI, JOHN S. ADAMI, TED L. COE AND JAMES SHANE
AND THE BOND RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BOND
~HEREAS, City of Denton Industrial Development Authority
was created under the auspices of the City of Denton, Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton (the
"City") has, by written resolution declared that certain areas of
the City be designated as blighted areas (the "Blighted Area")
pursuant to the Development Corporation Act of 1979, as amended,
Article 5190.6, V.A.T.C.S, and the rules promulgated thereunder (the
"Act"); and
WHEREAS, Dallas Drive Development Group, a general
partnership, desires to finance, pursuant to the Act, the
construction of a facility containing approximately 30,000 square
feet (which will be leased to third parties and will be used as a
mixed-use building for office, retail and warehouse purposes)
located at 1325 Dallas Drive in Denton, Texas (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within or adjacent to the
Blighted Area; and
WHEREAS, the general public had an opportunity to make
comments on the Project prior to the adoption of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and advisable that this
Resolution be adopted.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON THAT:
Section 1. The "Loan Agreement between the City of Denton
Industrial Development Authority and Dallas Drive Development
Group", in substantially the form and substance as attached to this
Resolution and made a part hereof for all purposes, is hereby
approved, and the Bond in the principal amount of $1,200,000, may be
issued pursuant thereto for the purpose of paying the cost of
acquiring and constructing or causing to be acquired and constructed
the Project as defined and described therein.
Section 2. The "Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of
City of Denton Industrial Development Authority Bond, Series 1984
and the Execution of a Trust Indenture (Dallas Drive Development
Group Project)", in substantially the form and substance attached to
this Resolution and made as part hereof for all purposes, is hereby
specifically approved, and the Bond may be issued as provided for
therein.
Section 3. The "Guarantee Agreement between City of Denton
Industrial Development Authority and G. E. Adami, John S. Adami, Ted
L. Coe and James Shane" in substantially the form and substance
attached to this Resolution and made a part hereof for all purposes,
is hereby approved.
Section 4. The City hereby approves the issuance of the
aforesaid Bond in the aggregate principal amount of $1,200,000 for
Dallas Drive Development Group, and further approves the Project as
described in the aforesaid Loan Agreement, and such approvals shall
be solely for the purposes of Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended, and the City shall have no liabilities for
the payment of the Bond nor shall any of its assets be pledged to
the payment of the Bond.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Fourteen
Hopkins motion, Alford second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
regarding the use of land at Flow Memorial Hospital.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council had discussed this
item at a previous meeting.
The following resolution was presented:
A RESOLUTION by the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
relating to certain covenants to be made by the city of
Denton, Texas, in connection with the construction,
ownership, and operation by the Denton County-City of
Denton, Texas, Hospital Board of a professional medical
office building adjacent to Flow Memorial Hospital.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, and
the Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas, have heretofore
provided for the free agent of the Denton County-City of Denton,
Texas, Hospital Board, under the provisions of Article 4494i-1,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, and have charged said Board with the
operation and management of Flow Memorial Hospital under the
provisions of the aforesaid law; and
WHEREAS, the said Board has determined that it is in the
best interest of Flow Memorial Hospital to construct, own, and
operate a professional medical office building on property adjacent
- to the existing hospital facility, which property is currently owned
by the City of Denton and Denton County; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS:
SECTION I: The City of Denton shall dedicate for the
construction and operation of a professional medical office building
adjacent to Flow Memorial Hospital such real property as the Denton
County-City of Denton, Texas, Hospital Board shall reasonably
request and shall enter into an agreement providing for the lease of
or a similar arrangement with respect to such property to the said
Board or a separate entity established by the said Board on terms
acceptable to the City of Denton and the said Board and such other
related agreements, documents, and instruments as shall be
necessary, advisable or appropriate.
SECTION II. The City of Denton shall provide such other
assistance as the Denton County-City of Denton, Texas, Hospital
Board shall reasonably request and shall cooperate to the fullest
extent possible in connection with the construction, financing,
ownership and operation by the said Board or a separate entity
established by the said Board of a professional medical office
building adjacent to Flow Memorial Hospital.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the City of Denton to apply to the Texas Rental
Rehabilitation Program Fund for federal funds for rehabilitation of
privately owned rental property.
Elizabeth Evans, Community Development Coordinator, reported that
the resolution was required for the city to apply to the state for
$105,000 in funds.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Fifteen
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Council of the City of
Denton to authorize the submission of an application to the Texas
Rental Rehabilitation Program Fund for a federal funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is eligible to receive such
funds and desires to apply for federal funds administered by the
Texas Rental Rehabilitation Program Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, as an entitlement City, has
prepared a program for utilizing its share of the fund for
rehabilitation of privately owned rental property to be used
primarily for residential rental purposes in the amount of $105,000;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires these funds to support
the rehabilitation of privately owned rental property; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
authorizes the City Manager to sign and submit to the Texas Rental
Rehabilitation Program Fund a grant application and appropriate
assurances for entitlement funds under the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended.
SECTION II.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
authorizes the City Manager to handle all fiscal and administrative
matters related to the application and the assurances required
therefore.
SECTION III.
That the City Secretary is hereby authorized to forward a
certified copy of this Resolu~sion to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 4th day of December, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Riddlesperg.~r second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 4, 1984
Page Sixteen
7. The Council considered approval of Change Order #1 to Bid
#9249 for Capital Improvement Plan Project #84-W-21 and 84-5-12 to
replace Panhandle water and wastewater lines.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the contractor for
the Panhandle project had requested an extension of approximately 40
days to complete the project.
Council Member Stephens asked when would be the completion date.
Nelson responded the water and wastewater lines would be completed
by the end of December. Drainage improvements would still have to
be done.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve the Change Order.
Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered approval of a request for pro rata
agreement for a 10 inch sanitary sewer line with Weston Development
Corporation, developers of Bellaire Heights, Phase III.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the 10 inch
sanitary sewer line would be approximately 1500 feet in length and
the developer would pay the entire cost.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the pro rata agreement
with Weston Development Corporation. Motion carried unanimously.
9. The Council considered disposition of request of Denton
County Mental Health Centers, Inc. for a specific use permit at 1120
Frame Street to permit the operation of a halfway house. S-182
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that this was an
issue which needed to be resolved. The Denton County Mental Health
Centers had purchased some property to be used as a half-way house
and had felt that the use met the criteria for a group home. The
use had been established when the neighbors began to complain to
staff. Staff had investigated and had asked the Denton County
Mental Health Centers to petition for a specific use permit. The
Planning and Zoning Commission requested a City Attorney's opinion.
The City Attorney's opinion was that a half-way house was legally
not a group ~]ome. The Planning and Zoning Commission had taken no
action on the request for the specific use permit.
Council Member McAdams stated that, in light of the extensive legal
opinion which had been rendered by the City Attorney, she felt the
appropriate course to take was to take no action and let the request
die.
No action was taken.
10. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
11. The following items of new business were suggested by
Council Members for future agendas:
1. Council Member Riddlesperger requested an ordinance to
limit the use of lawns and streets for storage of cars and boats.
2. Council Member Stephens asked for a staff report on whether
the best interests of the city would be better served by annexing
large parcels as opposed to smaller parcels.
~ith no further business, the meetinq_was, adjourned. ~
~-OT~E- ~LL~, ~ITY SECRETARY
0560j
City Council Minutes
December 11, 1984
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 5:00 p.m. in
the City Manager's Conference Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
ABSENT: None
1. The Council met in Executive Session to discuss personnel
and board appointments. No official action was taken.
CH~A~RLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
0977g
City Council Minutes
December 18, 1984
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a report on activities of the Denton
Sesquicentennial Committee.
Mr. Frank Davilla, Chairperson of the Denton Sesquicentennial
Committee, reported' that the committee was trying to generate
interest and enthusiasm for the upcoming events. The deadline for
entry onto the state calendar of events was January of 1985. This
calendar would be very comprehensive and would show events divided
into three areas of interest -- by city, date and type of event.
This would form the groundwork for the Texas bicentennial
celebration activities. The state theme was to be "Come home to
Texas" and included would be a multi-media exhibit called Project
150. A joint celebration would be held with South Australia which
would have their sesquicentennial the same year. The grass roots
celebrations were important and the Committee wanted to include all
age citizens, all ethnic groups, etc. The Denton Committee was
preparing a master calendar of all County activities in conjunction
with the Sesquicentennial with the primary goal of having city-wide
participation and to insuring that no one was left out.
The Council expressed their appreciation to Mr. Davilla and his
committee for their efforts on this project.
2. The Council held a discussion of the Fire Department
reorganization and position title changes in the Police and Fire
Departments.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that two ordinances
would be placed on the January 8 agenda relating to the title
changes in the Police and Fire Departments. One of the ordinances
would change the name of the position just below the Chief in each
department to Division Commander. The other ordinance would update
the number of positions in each authorized classification. In the
Fire Department the reorganization would provide two promotion
positions. A resolution had been approved by the Council relating
to 1269M which would allow the Chief to appoint one person just
below him. Chief Gentry had chosen to appoint to this position
through an assessment center. Currently there was one Assistant
Chief of Administration. The reorganization would add a Battalion
Chief of Operations to relieve the work load of the Assistant Chief
of Administration.
Council Member McAdams asked if this meant there would be one less
Civil Service position.
Usrey responded yes. The total number of employees would remain the
same; however, since the new position was not under Civil Service,
that one position would be lost.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Civil Service Commission had
reviewed these changes and made a recommendation.
Usrey responded this presentation was only a discussion. The Civil
Service Commission was scheduled to meet and make their
recommendations prior to any official Council action.
The consensus of the Council was that the staff should proceed but
if the Civil Service Commission had problems with the items, staff
should bring the items back to Council prior to placing the final
ordinances on the agenda.
City. of Denton City Council Minutes
Meet%ng of December 18, 1984
Page Two
3. The Council was to hold a discussion on the vacation/bonus
pay policy.
This item was removed from the agenda by staff.
4. The Council held a discussion on proposed expansion of the
Capricorn Mobile Home Park for the purpose of determining whether to
begin the annexation process.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that Council should consider
annexation to gain control of the current sewer problems at the
Capricorn Mobile Home Park as well as insuring the control of
development in this area.
The consensus of the Council was to proceed with annexation.
Ellison then stated that staff was not annexing large parcels of
land with individual annexations as the city was alotted 10% of the
land space per year for involuntary annexations, plus whatever carry
over there was from the previous year. There were some potential
annexations around the lake area of approximately 2,000 acres and
staff did not want to deplete the allotment by annexing small
parcels.
5. The Council considered approval of proposed sign ordinance
provisions.
Charles Watkins, consultant, stated that the Council had ended their
previous discussions with the provision in the proposed ordinance
stating a maximum size of 400 square feet and a maximum height of 40
feet. Also previously discussed had been the question of how far
from 1-35 would[ the 672 square feet maximum size and 70 feet maximum
height to match the Highway Beautification Act apply. In the Golden
Triangle Mall and across Loop 288 there were quite a number of
signs; howeverj, none were 672 square feet in size. In fact, none
were found to exceed 400 square feet. On 1-35 there were a number
of signs (billboards) which exceeded the 400 square feet size.
Between the mall and University Drive there were approximately 25
such signs including the Sack and Save sign which was 704 square
feet in size. Thirty permits had been issued for pole signs in the
1-35 area. Three exceeded the 400 square feet size, 15 exceeded the
40 feet high requirement and 4 exceeded 60 feet in height. Watkins
then stated that the philosophy and psychology of seeing looked at
the issue of how much a driver on a freeway actually saw and
recognized as he drove. The suggestion was that a billboard need
not be larger than 250 square feet in size based on information on
what a person can perceive and absorb while driving. The
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission had been for a
maximum size of 400 square feet. At a previous meeting the Council
had suggested that a maximum size of 672 square feet in an area 660
feet either side of the interstate highway would be acceptable.
Mayor Stewart stated that a question had been raised at the last
discussion regarding the Morrison Milling Company sign.
The Council recognized Mr. Milton Hill.
Mr. Milton Hill, representing Morrison Milling Company, stated that
the company felt this particular sign was historical. They were
very proud of the sign and did keep it maintained. Morrison Milling
did not think the flashing lights bothered anyone and would be happy
to have a historical designation placed on the sign.
Watkins then reported that, in the section of the ordinance
regarding minimum setback standards, it had been suggested that the
setbacks should be relative to the size of the sign. This would
create almost a 3 dimensional calculation involving the size of the
sign, the height of the sign and the setback.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Three
Council Member Hopkins asked how setbacks for signs on 1-35 would be
regulated.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris responded that this could be handled
through the sign ordinance with an exception clause.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if a fee should be included in
the ordinance for signs over 400 square feet in size.
Watkins responded that the original ordinance did not allow any
signs that large; however, a fee could be added.
Council Member Stephens asked how the staff had determined the fees.
Watkins replied that the fees were based on the amount of staff time
which would be involved for inspections of the signs.
The Council then recognized Mr. Cliff Reding.
Mr. Reding stated that anyone could put up a free standing sign of
any height. No certificates or seals by engineers were required on
the plans which dealt with the safety of the signs.
Watkins stated that this could be covered under the building code.
Mayor Stewart stated that this requirement could be added into the
ordinance under the section dealing with the fee structure.
~atkins then addressed the ordinance provision regarding the
limiting of ground signs to 1 ground sign per each premise, with
some exceptions. This provision would establish a spacing standard
and did allow for 1 sign for every 450 feet of frontage. If there
was 451 feet of frontage, there could be 2 signs.
The same sign ordinance provisions would apply in planned
development districts.
Morris added that the planned development classification was the
exception to the zoning ordinance and normal regulations did not
apply.
Watkins stated that the current sign regulations required that the
location of signs be specified in a planned development. The
proposed ordinance stated that if signs were not specified in a
planned development, they would be regulated as in any other zoning
district.
Council Member Stephens stated a more general ordinance might be
preferrable to a very specific one.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated he did not have a problem with
this as planned developments were protected by Council approval.
Council Member Hopkins stated he felt businessmen had an inherent
right to have signs if at all possible.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council had only denied 1 sign in a
- planned development in 7 years and he felt this was a dead issue.
Council Member McAdams stated the Council often allowed different
things under planned development zoning.
Morris reported the staff could not write regulations for a planned
development.
Watkins stated the next section to be discussed covered special
regulations for the central business district. It established
standards to make roof signs comparable to the height of the
building.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Four
Regarding projecting signs~ the proposed ordinance would allow a
sign which was 20% of the size of the wall to which it was
attached. Standards were also established for the removal of
abandoned signs. One of the problems was with the setbacks. This
ordinance measured the setbacks from the curb and not from the
middle of the street.
The Council then discussed the proposal regulations for stake signs.
Council Member Hopkins stated that it did not make sense to limit
the size of stake signs to 25 .square feet when the plywood material
used to construct the sign came in a 32 square feet size.
The consensus of the City Council was to discuss the proposed sign
ordinance at the January 8 meeting.
6. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate~ personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Member Stephens
1. The Council considered approval of a resolution in memory
of C. J. Taylor, Jr.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF
"C. J. TAYLOR, JR."
WHEREAS, C. J. Taylor, Jr. was the City Attorney of the City of
Denton from November 12, 1979 until his untimely demise
July ~3, 1984; and
WHEREAS, C. J.. Taylor, Jr. served on active duty in the United
States Naval Reserve from July 24, 1942 to December 5,
1945, as a radioman aboard the USS Arkansas and the USS
Capps; and
%~HEREAS, C. J. Taylor, Jr., earned his Doctor of Jurisprudence
Degree from t~e University of Missouri at Kansas City in
1952 and was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court
of Texas; the Supreme Court of the United States; U. S.
Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; U. S. District Courts for
the Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of
Texas; and
WHEREAS, C. J. Taylor, Jr. enjoyed a distinguished reputation in the
field of governmental law, having served as Assistant
Attorney General for the State of Texas, Assistant City
Attorney for the cities of Corpus Christi and Austin, City
Attorney for the cities of Irving and Amarillo, President
of the Texas City Attorneys Association in 1970, having
authored the respected and widely-used publication Law and
Procedures for Cities, Towns and Villages in Texas and
~aving lectured at numerous seminars throughout the State
of Texas on various aspects of the law; and
%~HEREAS, C. J. Taylor, Jr. was a member of the State Bar of Texas;
Texas City Attorneys Association; Denton County Bar
Association; North Texas Bar Association; and Phi Alpha
Delta Law Fraternity; and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Five
WHEREAS, C. J. Taylor, Jr. served his community above and beyond the
mere efficient discharge of his duties in promoting the
welfare and prosperity of the citizens of Denton, and
earned the full respect and admiration of his colleagues
and associates;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS:
That the sincere and warm appreciation of C. J. Taylor, Jr.
felt by the citizens and officers of the City of Denton,
Texas, causes this Resolution to be formally transcribed
into the official minutes of the City of Denton, Texas,
dedicated to the rememberance of the "Honorable C. J.
Taylor, Jr."
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 18th day of December, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting.
Mayor Pro Tern Chew joined the meeting.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the resolution. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
The resolution was accepted by Mrs. C. J. Taylor, Jr.
2. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of September 18, 1984 and the Special Called Meeting
of September 25, 1984.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
3. Consent Agenda
Council Member Stephens asked that item 3.C.3 be removed from the
Consent Agenda.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the Consent Agenda
with the exception of item 3.C.3. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Stephens stated regarding item 3.C.3. that the pro
rata for Collins Street should go to Christopher Bancroft when the
area to the north of his property was developed.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that the City Attorney had
determined that a paving assessment would have to be done.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla stated that the assessment would
have to be made for the other side of the street of Mr. Bancroft's
development.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
~e~ting of December 18, 1984
Page Six
Council Member Stephens asked if this would be done when the
property was developed.
Svehla responded that the assessment would have to be done before
the street was built and the property owners would have to be
notified.
Council Member Stephens asked the staff to provide a report on this
issue at a later date.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he would like to see park
space required, is possible.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve item 3.C.3. Motion
carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
Bid # 9366 - Police sedans and sedans
Bid # 9367 - Pickups and vans
Bid # 9370 - Lease/purchase of motor pool
equipment
40 Bid # 9371 - IBM disk drive
5. Bid # 9373 - Loss test set
6. Bid # 9374 - Tree trimming and
miscellaneous electrical lines
B. Agreements:
1. Approval of an agreement to provide certain
program services on the Utility Billing
System and Payroll-Personnel System during
fiscal year 1984-85 between the City and
Tres Systems, Inc.
C. Plats, Replats, and Site Plans:
1. Approval of amendment of site plan of an
approved specific use permit on an
approximately 39.313 acre tract of land
located along the east side of Mayhill Road
(S-165). (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of preliminary plat of the Garner
Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Approval of preliminary plat of the Smith
Hill Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of preliminary replat of the
Veteran's Addition, Lots 4A and 4B. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Seven
5. Approval of preliminary plat of Westgate Park,
First Addition, Block C, Lot 5. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
6. Approval of preliminary plat of The Woodlands and
Oaks of Township II Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
4. The Council received resolutions approved by the Sam
Houston Elementary School Parent-Teacher Association.
Dr. Cliff Black, President of the Sam Houston PTA, reported that the
resolutions had grown out of problems associated with the rapid
growth in this area. There had recently been a lot of construction
and extension of utility lines. The large ditches created during
the construction were a safety hazard for school children. The
resolutions which had been taken to the School Board were now being
brought before the City Council. The resolutions were formulated to
enhance the safety of the children traveling to and from the Sam
Houston Elementary School. The first resolution suggested that a
method of informing appropriate school personnel be developed in
order to provide the principals of affected school building adequate
warning that a construction project was imminent which would make
passage for children hazardous. The second resolution stated that
additional marked crosswalks and crossing guards were needed along
Hobson Lane. The third resolution suggested that the current path
connecting Pennsylvania Avenue with Teasley Lane over which all
children from the Southridge area must pass, should be appropriately
widened to handle the volume of bicycle and pedestrian traffic on
this artery. Additional safety personnel should be provided to
patrol the wooded area before and after school. The fourth
resolution recommended that Teasley Lane be widened in the immediate
future and immediate steps be taken and consistently pursued to
lower the speed limit in front of the school to 20 miles per hour
and 35 miles per hour for appropriate sections preceding the 20 mile
per hour section. The last resolution recommended appropriate steps
be taken to further guarantee the coordination between the city and
school officials regarding safety issues, construction hazards,
forecasting increased enrollment as related to the increased
congestion of traffic patterns.
Council Member McAdams stated she was sympathic to the concerns
addressed in the resolutions. The Council could say yes to the
suggestions and recommendations stated in the resolutions but did
not Have any means to implement corrective measures. The requests
delineated in the resolutions needed to go somewhere else.
Dr. Black responded that the PTA was aware of this but their concern
was that when construction was begun in the school area, the school
had not been notified.
Council Member Stephens stated that Dr. Black had invited him to
attend the PTA meeting and that the Council was concerned about the
safety of all Denton citizens. He had spoken to the City Manager
about these issues.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the easiest method of
handling future problems of this nature would be for the school
_ principal to call the City Manager's Office. A representative from
the Denton Independent School District was a member of the
Development Review Committee and should be aware of these types of
projects. The request for additional crosswalks and guards would be
referred to the Citizens Traffic Safety Support Commission for
consideration. Money had been awarded by the State Highway
Department for the widening of Teasley Lane. Regarding the
recommendation to lower the speed limits in the school area, the
state (not the city) sets these. Hartung concluded by stating that
he felt there was a high level of cooperation between the city and
the school district. Both entities were working together on
potential school sites in relation to traffic flow; however, the
School Board had to acquire property where it was as economical as
possible.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Eight
Council Member Hopkins stated that staff should review the crosswalk
situation and report back to the Council.
5. The Council received a petition by Mr. Jim Goulet regarding
the saving of trees.
Mr. Jim Goulet stated that he was concerned about the wholesale
clearing of trees by developers when selected clearing could be
done. Stricter zoning was needed for environmental impact and to
preserve the trees. More multi-story buildings would preserve the
open space and an ordinance could be approved to require replanting
of removed trees.
Mayor Stewart responded that this was also a personal concern.
There was an oncoming and active program to try to save the trees
and to beautify Denton. However, the trees being removed by
developers were on private property and were beyond the control of
the City Council.
Council Member Stephens stated that some control could be obtained
through planned development zoning.
6. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
B. L. Archer for annexation of 31.027 acres located at the southwest
corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane (FM-2181). A-8
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that the staff had no new
information on this petition.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to proceed with the annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing regarding the
proposed annexation of approximately 5 acres of land located north
of Highway 380 West and adjacent and west of Masch Branch Road. A-9
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that 1 reply form had been
mailed with 1 returned in favor.
Hopkins motion., Chew second to proceed with the annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
D. 9?he Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Myers Development Corporation for annexation of approximately 131.7
acres located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin Road. A-10
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Tim January, representing Myers Development Corporation, spoke
in favor asking the Council to give this request for annexation
favorable consideration.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Nine
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if any thought had been given to
the proposed extension of southern Loop 288 in this area.
Mr. January responded that the Loop would go down State School Road
and would Dorder on their property to the west.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that 2 reply forms had been
mailed with 0 returned. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
recommended approval of the overall development.
Stephens motion, Chew second to proceed with the annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Walter DeRonde for annexation of approximately 112 acres located
west of 1-35E service road and north of Marshall Road and east of
the Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. A-12
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that 3 reply forms had been
mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0 returned in opposition.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to proceed with the annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Council then left the agenda order and considered an emergency
agenda item.
1. The Council considered approval of a resolution relating to
allocation of the right to issue private activity bonds assigning to
the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. a portion of the
allocation made or to be made to the City of Denton.
Council Member Stephens left the meeting.
Mr. Ralph Rushing, representing the North Texas Higher Education
Authority, Inc., stated that the Authority was created by the cities
of Denton and Arlington. Congress had adopted the Deficit Reduction
Act during the summer and Governor White could allocate monies until
the legislature met. The state would have an approximate $2.3
million carry over of funds. The approval of this resolution and
associated documents would allow the Authority to reserve a portion
of the carry over funds for a future bond issue in 1985 or 1986.
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION by the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
relating to allocation of the right to issue private
activity bonds; assigning to the North Texas Higher
Education Authority, Inc. a portion of the allocation made
or to be made to the City of Denton.
WHEREAS, by Executive Order MW-27A, interim procedures have been
established for the 1984 allocation of the state ceiling of certain
private activity bonds; and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Ten
WHEREAS, the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.
proposes to issue student loan bonds in principal amount not to
exceed $50,000,000 and it is now appropriate for this governing unit
to assign a portion of the allocation of 1984 to the said Authority;
now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
The City of Denton hereby elects to carry forward an allocation
of 1984 for student loan revenue bonds to be issued on its behalf
after December 31, 1984 and assigns to the North Texas Higher
Education Authority, Inc. a portion of its 1984 allocation. This
carryforward election is being made pursuant to Section 103(n) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. The amount of
allocation to be included in this carryforward election is for the
purpose of issuing student loan bonds in the total principal amount
of $50,000,000 (which includes the amount being requested by the
City of Arlington, Texas), it being understood that such bonds are
to be issued for and on behalf of the Cities of Denton and
Arlington, Texas.
SECTION II.
This resolution shall be in force and effect from and after its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the 18th day of December, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, Mayor
City of Denton, Texas
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, City Secretary
City of Denton, Texas
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
BY:
Mayor Stewart asked Mr. Rushing how big he thought the program would
be.
Mr. Rushing responded the Authority had reached their level at the
present time. The repayment rate of the student loans was
approximately 4% to 5%.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked Mr. Rushing how the increases in
college tuition would affect the Authority.
Mr. Rushing responded the impact would be felt on the demand for the
program.
Hopkins motion., Riddlesperger second to approve the resolution. On
roll call vote,. McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
The Council then returned to the regular agenda order.
7. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of 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.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Eleven
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-177
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.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement to provide certain program services on the
Utility Billing System and Payroll-Personnel System during fiscal
year 1984-85 Oetweeen the City and Tres Systems, Inc.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-178
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE CERTAIN
PROGRAM SERVICES ON THE UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM AND
PAYROLL-PERSONNEL SYSTEM DURING FISCAL YEAR 1984-85 BETWEEN
THE CITY AND TRES SYSTEMS, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the sale of 0.142 acres of real property as described
herein; authorizing the Mayor to execute the necessary documents
transferring title. D-35
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-179
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE SALE OF 0.142 ACRES OF REAL
PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED HEREIN; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TRANSFERRING TITLE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "nay." Motion
carried 6 to 1 with Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" vote.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to
the planned development (PD) district on an approximately 17.1 acre
parcel located at the southwest corner of Paige and Swisher Roads.
Z-1694
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-180
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 17.1 ACRES OF LAND, AS
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, FROM AGRICULTURAL (A)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Twelve
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried 6 to 1 with Council Member Stephens casting the "nay"
vote.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to
the planned development (PD) district on a 49.4 acre tract located
on the north side of Shady Snores Road approximately 250 feet west
of Swisher Road. Z-1695
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-181
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 49.41 ACRES OF LAND, AS
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, FROM AGRICULTURAL (A)
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Stephens and Mayor Pro Tem Chew
casting the "nay" votes.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the expenditure of funds by the City of Denton for
hosting a business meeting and banquet for the Texas Municipal
League, Region 8.
Vic Boyer, Administrative Assistant, reported that this ordinance
would authorize the expenditure of funds incurred by the city for
hosting the TML Region 8 meeting in January, 1985.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 84-182
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY THE
CITY OF DENTON FOR HOSTING A BUSINESS MEETING AND BANQUET
FOR THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, REGION 8; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
8. Resolutions
A. ~he Council was to have considered approval of a
resolution to amend the vacation/bonus time policy.
This item was removed from the agenda by staff.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
postponing the regular Council meeting of January 1, 1985 to January
8, 1985.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Thirteen
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the regular Council meeting of the City of Denton
scheduled January 1, 1985 is an official holiday, therefore, it is
necessary that the Council meeting for such date be postponed until
January 8, 1985; NO%~, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the regular Council meeting to be held on January 1, 1985
be postponed until January 8, 1985.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 18th day of December, 1984.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
9. The Council received the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report by Arthur Andersen and Company.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, reported that the preliminary
report had been included in the agenda back-up material. Mr. Bill
Dillon would distribute the final report and report the findings to
the Council.
Mr. Bill Dillon, representing Arthur Andersen and Company, reported
that the final report was identical in substance and content to the
preliminary report. The only item which was officially from the
auditors was the opinion found on page 8. Page 7 was the Government
Finance Officers Association Certificate of Conformance. Separate
tabs had been provided on pages 80 through 86 for priority
information on the city utilities. The management letter would be
completed for the January 8, 1985 Council meeting.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the report was very well done and
easy to read.
10. The Council considered approval of closing the Wye-
Robertson railroad crossing.
Assistant City Manager Svehla reported that this closing was part of
a Community Development Block Grant project. The closing was
recommended as a safety precaution.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that this was located in his district and
he had no objections in view of the safety factors involved.
Chew motion, McAdams second to approve the closinq of the Wye-
Robertson railroad crossing. Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 18, 1984
Page Fourteen
11. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
12. The following items of new business were suggested by
Council Members for future agendas:
1. Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked for an update on East Prairie
Street.
2. Council Member Hopkins asked staff to review all of the
traffic signal lights in the city to see if they were appropriately
placed or if they should be moved; also to determine if the signals
were moving or deterring traffic.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLOTTE' ALLEN, CItY SECRETARY
0977g
City Council Minutes
January 3, 1985
Council convened into the Work Session at 12:00 noon in the City
Manager's Conference Room.
Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
None
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
appointments.
motion, Chew second to appoint a Task Force in conjunction
street bond election. Motion carried unanimously.
following were appointed:
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
1 Dr. Bob Toulouse
2 Mr. Hugh Ayer
3 Dr. Darrell Bulls
4 Mr' ~ob Benfield
5 Mr Glehn Davis
6 Mr Jake Craven
7. Ms Geneva Berg
8. Mr Jack Bomar, Jr.
9. Ms Mary Ann McKenzie
10. Mr Keith Appleton
11. Ms. Virginia Gallian
12. Dr. Shirley Barrett
13 Mr. Ed Morrison
14. Mr. Jack Miller
15 Mr. Ken Baker
16 Dr. Harold Reed, Jr.
17 Mr. William P. Phillips
18 Mr. Fred Patterson
19 Mr. Richard Chandler
20 Ms. Janet Hammett
21 Mr. W.C. Orr, Jr.
22 Mr. Bill Brady
23 Mr. Donald Wright
24 Mr. Bob Crouch
25. Mrs. Sue Smith
26 Mrs. Eleanor Hughes
Denton 'City Council Minutes
of January 3, 1985
TASK FORCE MEMBERS -- continuation
27 Mrs. Sara LaGrone
28 Mrs. Sue Fickey
29 Mrs. Donna Trammell
30 Mr. Burtis Hollis
31 Mrs. Patricia Lovette
32 Mr. Ron Arrington
33 Mr. Charles Ridens
34 Dr. Roland Vela
35 Mr. Joe Bailey
36 Mr. Crockett Lowrey
37 Mr. H.F. Schaake
38. Mrs. Etha Kiker
39. Mr. Russell Bates
40. Dr. Don Smith
41. Mr. Frank Davila
42. Ms. Dorothy Minter
43. Ms. Irene Price
44. Mr. Lloyd Hindman
45. Rev. Bruce Chamberlain
46 Ms. Hazel Fredrick
47 Mr. Ray Roberts
48 Mr. Audley Blackburn
49 Rev. Bill Crouch
50 Mr. Alton Donsback
51 Dr. L L. Armstrong
52 Rev. L.E. Lawson
53. Mc. Allie Miller
54. Mr. Loren Traeger
further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
FITRD ~ STE'W'AXT,- MAYOR
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, C~Y SECRETARY
City Council Minutes
January 8, 1985
The Council convened into the %~ork Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Atford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
ABSENT: None
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
personnel. No official action was taken.
The Council convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of October 2, 1984; the Regular Meeting of October
16, 1984; the Special Called Meeting of October 23, 1984; the
Special Called Meeting of October 30, 1984; the Regular Meeting of
November 6, 1984; the Regular Meeting of November 20, 1984; the
Regular Meeting of December 4, 1984; and the Special Called Meeting
of December 11, 1984.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
1. Bid # 9355 - Raw water pump control valves
2. Bid # 9351 - Hobson lift station
3. Bid # 9383 - Aerial photography maps
4. Bid # 9375 - Capacitors
5. Bid # 9376 - Transformers
6. Bid # 9378 - Aluminum conductor
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of preliminary plat of the
Burke-Saunders Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of preliminary replat of the
Haywood Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
3. Approval of preliminary plat of the Teasley
Square Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of final replat of the Veteran's
Addition, Lots 4A and 4B. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Two
5. Approval of preliminary plat of the Alvin
and Charlotte Whaley Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition
of Dale Irwin requesting a change in zoning from the single
family (SF--7) classification to the multi-family (MF-1)
district at 601, 615, 701 and 705 Malone Street. The property
is more particularly described as lots 1 and 2, block 2, of the
Wright Addition. Z-1711
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dale Irwin, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that he
was one of the property owners and the request involved 4 lots
located on Malone Street. These were large lots and could
accommodate duplexes or apartments or condominimums. Currently
3 of the 4 houses located on the property were rental units
with only I house being owner occupied. These houses were
approximately 40 years old and were surrounding by various land
uses including medical facilities, office use and apartments.
This particular portion of Malone Street was residential. The
specific lots to be rezoned were 100 x 200 feet in size which
could be utilized for uses other than single family. Mr. Irwin
stated that not everyone living in apartments in Denton wanted
to live on Teasley Lane. If approved, this plan would offer an
opportunity to live in the middle of town and close to Flow
Hospital, University Drive, IH-35, and North Texas State
University. Higher use zoning would increase the tax base for
the city. These lots currently had old houses on large lots on
a street which was predominantly apartments and offices. The
petitioners would accept multi-family (MF-1) or multi-family
restricted (MF-R) zoning and any consideration which the
Council could give to the request would be appreciated. The
petitioners had owned the lots for many years and wished to
improve the property which they already owned. Staff had
stated that planned development zoning could not be requested
because the total parcel was less than 3 acres.
Council Member Hopkins asked Mr. Irwin if he intended to build
duplexes.
Irwin responded that he could only speak for himself but that
would be acceptable to him. His first choice would be
multi-family zoning; however, the MF-R classification would be
a working solution.
Council Member Riddlesperger.stated that he was surprized that
Mr. Irwin suggested that this was not a single family area as
it was in every respect.
Mr. Irwin responded that the area was a mixture of office,
duplex and single family land use.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he had always regarded
the area as predominantly single family as the nearest
apartments were located on Scripture Street.
Mr. Irwin replied that perhaps a better approach would be to
construct duplexes.
Council Member McAdams asked if there was a way to replat the
lots to allow duplexes.
Mr. Irwin responded that if rezoned to the MF-F classification,
the restrictions would direct that duplexes be built.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Three
Mr. R. W. Thorton, 701 Malone, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that he owned an older home in this area which he had
purchased from his parents. As rental property, the house was
not really affordable housing due to the poor insulation which
lead to high utility bills. It was not feasible to spend money
to remodel the house. Mrs. Hall was the only owner who
occupied her home on this block; the remainder were rental
properties. It seemed the better way would be to put housing
that people could use on these lots.
Mr. Arthur Thompson spoke in opposition stating that traffic
was very congested in this area near North Texas State
University and Flow Hospital. If duplexes were approved, they
would add to the congestion. This petition had been denied by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member McAdams stated that the petition had not been
denied by P&Z. The motion to approve had failed but no motion
to deny had been made.
Mr. Roy Croftmore spoke in opposition stating that he had
spoken against the petition at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. He main objection was to the MF-1 zoning
as he hated to see apartments move into a primarily single
family area. If the development were restricted to duplexes he
would not object. His objection would be to apartments.
Ms. Dot Thompson spoke in opposition stating that she owned
property within a block of this petition. There was a
difference in multi-family units and duplexes. It appeared to
her to be spot zoning and there were many apartments in Denton
already. She felt that the supply of apartment housing had
exceeded the demand. A recent article in the Denton Record-
Chronicle reported the number of building permits which had
been issued for single family homes and apartments. Her fear
was that Denton would become an "apartment city." She further
stated that she had not been shown the rule which stated that
if a motion to approve a petition failed that a motion to deny
had.to be made.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Irwin 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Irwin stated that economics did not show that anything new
and nice would be detrimental to rental property which was
adjacent. The MF-R zoning would restrict the density as far as
the number of units constructed were concerned.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council was voting on the MF-1
petition because that was what was presented on the agenda.
Mayor Stewart then asked Mr. Irwin how long he had owned the
property.
Mr. Irwin responded approximately 9 years.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the City Council could
not approve duplex zoning with only a verbal agreement from Mr.
Irwin that the development would in fact contain only duplexes.
Mr. Irwin responded that if granted the MF-1 zoning
classification as stated on the agenda, he would only be
allowed to build 1 duplex on each of the lots.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Council could approve
the MF-1 zoning with only a verbal agreement with Mr. Irwin
that he would build duplexes. Mr. Irwin could then construct
the duplexes; however, a subsequent owner of the property could
demolish the duplexes and build apartment units as the lots
themselves would be properly zoned for apartments.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Four
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 37
reply forms had been mailed with 7 returned in favor and 9
returned in opposition. Staff felt this area was predominantly
single family zoning and basically a single family
neighborhood. The density would not be violated by this
petition but the Denton Development Guide policy on the
preservation of older, low to moderate income neighborhoods was
a concern.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to deny the petition.
Mayor Stewart asked Acting City Attorney Joe Morris to rule on
the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial, or lack of denial.
Joe Morris, Acting City Attorney, reported that the Commission
was not required to make any recommendation to the Council.
Council Member Stephens asked about the 2-family zoning.
Spivey responded that 2-F was for standard duplexes or 1 unit
per lot. The MF-R classification would permit 4 to 6 duplex
units per lot.
Council Member Stephens asked about replatt~ng the property.
Spivey replied that a surveyor would prepare a drawing of the
duplex configuration; however, utilizing the back portion of
the properties would be a problem as it would not front on a
dedicated street.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Board of Adjustment could
not rule on this as a request for a variance.
Council Member Riddlesperger moved the question. Unanimous
from the Council to move the question. Motion to deny carried
unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition
of Gunter Knight for Knight and Miller (developers) requesting
a change in the current zoning classification from Agricultural
(A) to Light Industrial (LI) on a tract of 1.530 acres situated
south of U. S. Highway 380 and commencing approximately 1,140
feet east of Masch Branch Road and shown on Will~am Bryan
Survey, Abstract #148, Denton County. Z-1713
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Gunter Knight, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that
he was requesting light industrial zoning to install metal
buildings and warehouses. The developers were waiting on the
appropriate zoning to purchase the property. The development
would be an office/industrial park.
Council Member Stephens asked if the property was at the site
of the stock yards.
Mr. Knight responded part of it.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that 7
reply forms had been mailed with 0 returned. The site was in a
moderate intensity area which could easily accommodate light
industrial uses. This particular moderate intensity area was
not close to capacity at this time. The site was located
within the approach zone to the municipal airport. Certain
restrictions would be required so as to conform to the airport
height zoning regulations. Staff recommended approval with 3
conditions.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Five
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition
of Gunter Knight for Knight and Miller (developers) requesting
a change in the current zoning classification from Agricultural
(A) to Light Industrial (LI) on a tract of 4.960 acres situated
south of U. S. Highway 380 and commencing approximately 420
feet east of Masch Branch Road and shown on William Bryan
Survey, Abstract #148, Denton County. Z-1714
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Gunter Knight, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that
this parcel was the larger of the 2 tracts and would answer any
questions which the Council might have.
Mayor Stewart asked Mr. Knight if he understood the conditions
pertaining to the area near the airport.
Mr. Knight responded yes.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the puDlic hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that the
same data pertained to this request as the previous one. This
parcel was located approximately 300 feet east of Z-1713.
Persaud presented a chart of the sensitivity areas near the
airport.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Ordinances
A. T~e Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or
services; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and
providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-01
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.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger motion to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for public works or improvements; providing for the
expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective
date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-02
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING
FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR
IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Six
Chew motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Stephens asked if work would begin immediately
on the Hobson Lane lift station which was included on the
ordinance.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded yes.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing a title change and update in the number of
positions in each classification in the Police Department.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that this
ordinance would provide for a title change from Captain to
Division Commander in the Police Department and would update
the number of positions. The Civil Service Commission had
reviewed this item and recommended approval.
?ne following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-03
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CLASSIFIED POSITIONS IN THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS;
PROVIDING FOR THE NUMBER OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED FOR
EACH CLASSIFIED POSITION; CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
CLASSIFICATION OF CAPTAIN TO DIVISION COMMANDER;
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Stewart asked if it was possible that the word "Division"
in the title might be confused with other City of Denton
Divisions.
Usrey responded no; this title was already being used
informally in the Police Department.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing a title change and update in the number of
positions in each classification in the Fire Department.
Kathryn Usrey reported that this ordinance pertaining to the
Fire Department addressed the same issues as the previous
ordinance for the Police Department. The title change would be
from Assistant Chief to Division Commander. This ordinance
also allowed the Fire Chief to appoint one position immediately
below him.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-04
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CLASSIFIED POSITIONS IN THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS;
PROVIDING FOR THE NUMBER OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED FOR
EACH CLASSIFIED POSITION; CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
CLASSIFICATION OF ASSISTANT CHIEF TO DIVISION
COMMANDER; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote,. McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Seven
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement between the City of Denton and Rone
Engineers for engineering services in regard to the excavation
services of the new landfill and providing for an effective
date.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that this ordinance
would approve a contract with Rone Engineering to do testing to
certify the thickness of the lining of the new landfill. This
testing would have to be repeated 3 times during the
construction of the landfill at a cost of $21,000 per test.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-05
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF DENTON AND RONE ENGINEERS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
IN REGARD TO THE EXCAVATION SERVICES OF THE NEW
LANDFILL, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting of
approximately 31.027 acres of land beginning at the southwest
corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane A-8
The following ordinance was presented. This was the first
reading of the annexation ordinance.
NO. 85-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT
LOT, TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 34.173 ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING
SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND
BEING PART OF THE ELI PICKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
1018, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS
AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting of
approximately 5.70 acres of land beginning north of Highway 380
West and adjacent and west of Masch Branch Road A-9
The following ordinance was presented. This was the first
reading of the annexation ordinance.
NO. 85-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT
LOT, TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 5.70 ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING
SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND
BEING PART OF THE S. HUIZAR SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 514,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS
AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Eight
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting of
approximately 131.761 acres of land beginning south of Robinson
Road and east of Nowlin Road A-10
The following ordinance was presented. This was the first
reading of the annexation ordinance.
NO. 85-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT
LOT, TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 130.55 ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING
S[?UATED IN THE COUNTY OF DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND
BEING PART OF THE B. MERCHANT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
800, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS
AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting of
approximately 112 acres of land beginning west of the 1-35N
service road, north of Marshall Road and east of the Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway A-12
The following ordinance was presented. This was the first
reading of the annexation ordinance.
NO. 85-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT
LOTt TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 111.71 ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING
SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND
BEING PART OF THE B.B.B. & C.R.R. CO. SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NUMBER 141, AND THE R. WHITLOCK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
1403, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS
AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
J. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a specific use permit for a mobile home park on a
104.28 acre tract located adjacent and north of FM 426 (East
McKinney) and adjacent and south of Mills Road, and beginning
approximately 3,000 feet east of Mayhill Road S-174
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this property was
originally the Champion Home Community site. The land had been
sold and this site plan did meet the city requirements.
The following ordinance was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Nine
NO. 85-06
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A
MOBILE HOME PARK; PROVIDING FOR THE REFERENCING OF
SUCH USE ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY
ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIED TO
APPROXIMATELY 104.28 ACRES OF LAND IN THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "nay," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart
"nay." Motion carried 4 to 3 with Council Member Stephens,
Mayor Pro Tem Chew and Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" votes.
K. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in the zoning classification from planned
development (PD-17) and agricultural (A) to light industrial
(LI) classification on a tract of 334.607 acres located east of
and abutting Woodrow Lane and north of the proposed extension
of Morse Street north of Spencer Road and west of Loop 288.
Z-1700
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-07
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 334.6073
ACRES OF LAND, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN,
FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) AND AGRICULTURAL (A)
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI)
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
L. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving contracts for the city's participation in the cost of
installing oversize water and sewer line facilities as
described herein; authorizing the Mayor to execute the
contracts, approving the expenditure of funds therefore, and
providing for an effective date.
1. Proposed pro rata and oversize agreement
with Windsor West Addition for a new 14 inch water line from
University Drive along Bonnie Brae and along Payne Drive
approximately 5,200 feet.
2. Proposed pro rata and oversize agreement
with Windsor West Addition for a new 18 inch sanitary sewerline
from Greenbriar and Hinkle Streets south on Hinkle Street
approximately 2,600 feet to an existing 15 inch/12 inch
sanitary sewer at the proximity of the Denton High School,
including a bore under Highway 380.
3. Proposed pro rata and oversize agreement
with Sandy Hill Addition for a new 14 inch water line from
Geesling Road and Highway 380 to Fishtrap Road.
4. Sewer line oversize participation agreement
with Sandy Hill Addition for an 18 inch sewer line from
Fishtrap Road to Cooper Creek lift station.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Ten
5. Proposed pro rata agreement with Sandy Hill
Addition for a new 18 inch sanitary sewer line from Fishtrap
Road to Cooper Creek lift station.
6. Pro Rata and reconsideration of oversize
agreement with the Meadows Addition (formerly Champion Mobile
Home Park) for a new 16 inch water line from the intersection
of Mayhill Road and McKinney Street, east along McKinney Street
to the east boundary of the development, approximately 4,560
feet.
7. Proposed pro rata and oversize agreement
with the Meadows Addition (previously Champion Mobile Home
Park) for a new 12 inch sanitary sewer line from the Pecan
Creek interceptor to McKinney Street approximately 5,420 feet.
8. Proposed oversize agreement with American
Stores Properties, Inc. for a 16 inch water line on east
Highway 380 along the frontage of their property.
9. Oversize agreement with North Texas
Industrial District for an 18 inch sewer line along a drainage
easement on the east side of the property from the southeast
corner of this property north to the Pecan Creek interceptor.
10. Proposed oversize agreement with Ridgeway
Plaza Joint Venture for a new water line on Lillian B. Miller
Parkway along the frontage of their property.
11. Agreement for participation and associated
documents in the State School outfall sewer line from Lillian
B. Miller Par~way/Teasley to State School Road with Southridge
Joint Venture.
12. Sewer line oversize participation agreement
with Dimension Development Company, Inc. and Dimension-Unicorn
Lake Associates, Ltd.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that, due to the
number of agreements presented, several would be discussed at
the same time and he would answer questions during the
presentation. Written materials were then distributed on each
of the agreements giving costs of the items, maps of locations,
etc. An overhead projection was shown of each quadrant of the
city showing the location of each of the oversizing projects.
Nelson also reported that the Council had previously approved
an agreement for participation with the Sandy Hill development
when it was a partnership. It was now under single ownership
and the agreement on the agenda was a reaffirmation. The total
cost to th~ city for the agreements would be $368,000.
NO. 85-08
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING CONTRACTS FOR THE CITY'S
PARTICIPATION tN THE COST OF INSTALLING OVERSIZE WATER
AND SEWER LINE FACILITIES AS DESCRIBED HEREIN;
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACTS,
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
daye." Motion carried unanimously.
M. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the expenditure of funds by the City of Denton for
annual service fee for membership in the Public Power
Association and approving the expenditure of funds therefore;
and providing for an effective date.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Eleven
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this ordinance
would allow the payment of the annual City of Denton dues to
the Texas Public Power Association.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-09
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY
THE CITY OF DENTON FOR ANNUAL SERVICE FEE FOR
MEMBERSHIP IN THE PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION AND
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
N. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a supplemental agreement to a prior approved contract
between the City of Denton and the United States of America,
concerning cost of acquisition, construction and maintenance of
recreational facilities for Lake Lewisville, Lake Ray Roberts
and the greenbelt corridor, and providing for an effective date.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was the
long awaited supplemental facility contract for Lake Ray
Roberts in which all parties had agreed on various recreational
projects. Specifically, the contract outlined that the state
would construct Isle DuBoise Park and pay 25% of the greenbelt
and thus have identified it as a project. The city's
responsibilities had been slightly increased for new fish
hatchery ponds at wildlife/waterfowl land area at the lake.
NO. 85-10
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO A
PRIOR APPROVED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CONCERNING COST OF
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR LAKE LEWISVILLE, LAKE RAY
ROBERTS AND THE GREENBELT CORRIDOR; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
O. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement between the City of Denton and Black and
Veatch for engineering services for the Lewisville Hydro-
electric Project, and providing for an effective date.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported the city had been
moving forward on the Lewisville Hydroelectric Project. Staff
had presented a contract to the Public Utilities Board and
there was as request to relook at the feasibility and timing of
the project. The feasibility was originally established on the
basis of escalating natural gas costs. These costs had now
seemed to stabilize and in some cases, reductions had been
made. Staff had re-evaluated the project and had asked Freese
and Nichols to perform an analysis. The concern was that in
the early years the debt service payment would represent
approximately 5 1/2~ per kilowatt hour for the first few years
and would then, over about 20 years would take it down
approximately 4 1/2~ per kilowatt hour. This cost is higher
than that of natural gas. This projection was predicated on
the hydroelectric unit costing approximately $15 to $15.5
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Twelve
million. No value had been given to the capacity of the unit
itself; staff had ignored the fact that the new plant might
provide capacity in the summer. This was not of value unless
you were capacity deficient but could possibly of value to
someone who was capacity deficient and could possibly be used
for co-generation and the city could sell the power at a higher
rate. It would then be of value of Denton. These were some of
the areas that staff would like to asked Black and Veatch to
analyze. A number of calls had been received from hydro-
electric developers, those people who know the hydroelectric
business. These corporations receive a tax credit advantage.
By doing this the developers are able to take advantage of tax
credits for the first 4 or 5 years and then sell the unit back
to the city. Hhe city was also on a schedule by licensing
agreement to begin construction within 2 years or would stand
to lose the license. Black and Veatch would develop plans for
a turbine generator and would also assist in evaluating the
hydroelectric developer proposal and financial aspects. They
had agreed to do this at a price which represented only their
out of pocket salary cost. T~e proposed $25,000 contract would
pay no overhead. To date the city had invested approximately
$79,000 in associated licensing activities for the
hydroelectric project at Lake Lewisville and $60,000 for Lake
Ray Roberts. The city %;ould take bids on the turbine
generator, look at the entire financial picture and consider
the license schedule time table.
NO. 85-11
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF DENTON AND BLACK AND VEATCH FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE LEWISVILLE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
5. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
amending the following policies:
107.03 Vacation/Bonus Time
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, stated that in August the
new vacation/bonus pay policy had been approved by Council.
Some employees had raised questions regarding the policy and
staff had completed a review and revision. During the
preparation of the policy for the agenda, an adjustment to the
accruals for the permanent part-time employees had not been
included. Ms. Usrey distributed a corrected copy of the policy.
Council Member Hopkins congratulated Ms. Usrey and her staff on
the fine job which they nad done.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Director of the Personnel/Employee
Relations Department for the City of Denton has presented a
proposed policy regarding employee vacation/bonus time for
consideration by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt such policy
to replace the existing policy on employee vacation/bonus time
adopted by the Council by Resolution on August 21, 1984;
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Thirteen
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The following policy, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, is hereby adopted as an official policy of the City of
Denton, Texas:
Vacation/Bonus Time Reference No. 107.03)
SECTION II.
The foregoing policy is attached hereto and made a part
hereof and shall be filed in the official records of the City of
Denton with the City Secretary.
SECTION III.
The policy is entitled vacation/bonus time adopted by
Resolution on August 21, 1984 is hereby rescinded.
SECTION IV.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately after its
date of passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 8th day of January, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the resolution. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
6. The Council considered a resolution from the Public
Utilities Board regarding capital recovery fees.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the Public
Utilities Board had been looking for quite some time for some method
by which the city could assist the ratepayers in paying for the
capital improvement projects that serve the city's customers other
than continuing to raise the rates. An analysis was conducted by
the staff. For each new residential unit built in tile city, staff
calculated that it required approximately $300 in water transmission
lines, water towers and approximately $325 for sewer trunk lines and
lift stations. That was just essentially the major trunk lines and
paralleling transmission lines that might be in place or paying the
oversizing. This was a total of $625 per home. Each residential
unit would cost $575 for a new water plant, $675 for a new sewer
plant for a total of $1,200. The total cost to each residential
unit was $1,825 which was equivalent to about 375 gallons of water
per day usage. The capital recovery fee that the board and staff
had been looking at would have the developer pay $625 at the time of
platting which represented the lining portion, the builder would
pay
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Fourteen
$600 at the time he requested water and sewer tap. This would be in
addition to the cost of the meter and tapping fee. The ratepayer
would pick up the other $600 through increased rates. Some of the
options which the board considered was that the developer pay the
entire fee at the time platting. If this occurred, the developer
would add an additional 25%, real estate fees would increase as
would the taxes on the increased value. This would represent
approximately $29 per month per homeowner over a 30 year mortgage.
If the builder paid the entire fee at the time he requested the
meter, the total cost would be reduced because the developer front
end risk deleted. This would represent about $23 a month to the
homeowner over a 30 year period. If the ratepayers pay, as they are
now, and if you assume a 5% growth rate per year, it would represent
aDout 73~ per month on each homeowners water and sewer Dill. This
would escalate each year by a similar amount. The Public Utilities
Board proposal was that the developer pay $625, the Duilder pay $600
plus tapping fees and the ratepayer take care of the other part of
the plant costs which was $600. The essentially mean that Denton
would not have a situation like the Council considered earier where
there was a sewer line 1 1/2 miles away from a development, and the
developer had to extend the lines. A sewer line would be available,
the developer would tie on and the city would come behind with the
capital improvement plan to ensure adequate capacity. All the
developer would have to do is pay the $625 per residential unit.
This would mean $17 per month per homeowner if all the costs are
rolled into the cost of the home and assuming a 25% mark-up by the
developer. The cost to the ratepayer with the $600 would be
approximately 25~ per month.
Mayor Stewart asked Nelson to clarify the per month cost and the
ratepayer cost.
Nelson stated that the $17 per month would be included in the
payment for the new residents and the ratepayers would be everyone
across the entire city. Capital recovery fees were not an usual
concept. Many cities were looking at this and several cities have
already adopted the fees. Denton was presently financing these
costs through revenue bonds. Only recently with the last 8 months
had staff begun to ask developers to share in participation in
including off-site lines and oversizing.
Council Member McAdams stated that she felt the Council would need
more time to study the materials. This was a major change in the
city's app£oach and she wanted to see the total cost from beginning
to end as .looking at only 1 cost could De misleading. She was also
concerned ~hat these fees to developers and builders would not leave
Denton in a competitive position with other cities in the area.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he believed this issue should be
explored in depth with the Public Utilities Board and later with the
Planning and Zoning Commission. All of the ramifications of the fee
should be discussed, including the effect on the economic
development program. It was the responsibility of the City Council
to look at the total picture and he still had a great many questions.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to table the item and defer to a work
session.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he also had concerns about the impact
on the economic development program.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that this was a new idea and
should be studied very deeply.
Council Member Stephens stated that the growth factor had led the
city to this position. The PuDlic Utilities Board was trying to
ease the burden on the existing ratepayers and at the same time not
stifle development. Part of the question was how to pay for the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 8, 1985
Page Fifteen
expected development explosion. An earlier agenda item had dealt
with oversizing and pro rata agreements between the city and
developers.
Motion to table and defer to a work session item passed 6 to 1 with
Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" vote.
7. The Council considered approval of a sanitary sewer line
pro rata agreement with Meadow Ridge Addition.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was a routine
item in which the developer would pay all of the costs.
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the sewer line pro rata
agreement with Meadow Ridge Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
8. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
9. No items of new business were suggested by the Council for
future agendas.
With no further items of Dusiness, the meeting was adjourned.
CPtA'RLDTTE ~LLEN, CIT~SECRETARY
1006g
City Council Minutes
January 15, 1985
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
ABSENT: Council Member Hopkins was absent due to illness
1. The Council received a presentation of the management
letter from Arthur Andersen and Company, the City of Denton auditors.
Mr. Bill Dillon, representing Arthur Andersen and Company,
distributed the Memorandum on Accounting Procedures, Internal
Control and Related Matters to the Council.
Ms. Juana Daniels, representing Arthur Andersen and Company,
presented their findings and recommendations. The following report
was made regarding the payroll function.
A. Overlapping responsibilities:
Both the Payroll and Personnel departments had the
capability to modify the employee master file
The Payroll and Personnel departments had different
fund decoding schemes
The effect was one of confusion, time lost in converting
codes, no segregation of duties, and inconsistencies and
inefficiency.
B. Lack of timely approval:
Modifications were being made without approval
The effect was errors.
C. Length of payroll processing cycle:
The processing cycle presently lasted over 2 1/2 days
The effect was a burdensome investigation and correction of
errors, plus errors in the payroll.
D. Timesheet errors:
Timesheets were being submitted with errors
The effect was inefficiency and delays in month-end and
year-end closing as well as untimely information to user
departments.
A report was then given regarding internal control.
A. Overall management controls:
1. consideration should be given to a direct deposit
payroll system for employees
2. the Motor Pool Fund was not reporting depreciation
3. there were unrecorded liabilities and no search
was being done for these
4. regarding lease accounting, there did not exist a
readily accessible list of leases; the
recommendation was that management establish a
schedule
5. staff should watch for recurring journal entries
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Two
B. Cash and investment management:
1. no check limit currently existed
2. investment records had not been kept current
C. Accounting for property taxes:
the City needed to improve the property tax collection
so as to improve cash flow
D. Utility system:
1. there should be separate reporting for each
utility
2. records should be kept on interest charged durin~i
construction, as required by FASB
3. problems were being experienced with the utility
billing system during meter changes
4. there was not adequate information regarding the
work order budget versus the actual amounts
Ms. Daniel concluded by reporting that the internal audit function
would address matters of concern and compliance with policies and
procedures.
Mr. Dillon stated that overall, the internal controls for the city'
were strong. He further stated that thought should be given to ar]
internal audit position with the city.
Mayor Stewart asked about the cost of such an internal audit
position.
Dillon responded that the cost would vary and would depend on what
the Council and staff determined should be included in the
responsibilities and duties of the position.
Mayor Stewart stated that many of the functions of an internal audit
position was what the city paid Arthur Andersen to do.
Dillon replied that the internal auditor could look at financial
aspects in depth as well as non-financial issues such as assuring
that the city was receiving accurate franchise payments from the gas
company, etc.
2. The Council considered approval of proposed sign ordinance
provisions.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, consultant, began the discussion of regulations
for portable advertising signs and the termination portion of the
proposed ordinance. A canvass has been completed of 81 other
cities's regulations for portable signs. From a sampling of 15
cities of comparable size, 7 did not permit portable advertising
signs at all and the rest regulated them to different degrees. The
proposed regulations for Denton would prohibit flashing lights on
the portable signs. There also was a requirement that the signs had
to be anchored so as not to create a safety hazard during stormy
weather. The proposed maximum size was 72 square feet. A
regulation was also proposed that no person or place of business
should have more than 1 portable sign of 72 square feet or 2 more
than 25 square feet on-premises. The purpose was to reduce the
number of this type of sign in any one location. In concert with
this purpose, a proposed regulation was that a 450 feet spacing
should be maintained between signs.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he had a problem with businesses
being permitted to only have 1 off-premise sign.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, !985
Page Three
Council Member McAdams stated that she did not like any of them.
Council Member Alford stated that he saw the issue from two
perspectives - aesthetics and business.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he despised to see streets
full of signs.
Council Member Stephens stated that he felt too much regulation was
worse than not enough. Based on statements by Council Member
McAdams and Mayor Pro 'rem Chew, he felt that if enough people did
not like to see the signs, that would take care of the problem.
Stephens further stated that he would like to regulate that the
signs were kept in good order and repair.
Council Member McAdams asked if Council Member Stephens was
suggesting that a city employee inspect the portable signs to insure
that they were in good repair.
Council Member Stephens responded that the proposed ordinance
specified that the Building Inspector would inspect the signs.
Mayor Stewart stated that he objected to 6 or 7 of the portable
signs being located at the same intersection.
Council Member Stephens stated that the proposed distance of 450
feet was approximately 1 1/2 miles which he felt was too strict.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he had a problem with limiting the
number of off-premise signs.
Mayor Stewart asked if 4 off-premise signs would be acceptable.
The consensus of the Council was to increase the limit of off-
premise portable advertising signs to 4.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he was opposed to having
the portable signs too close together.
Watkins stated that the suggestion in the proposed ordinance was 450
feet apart.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he felt that was too far and
suggested 100 feet apart.
The Council recognized Cliff Reding.
Mr. Reding stated that portable signs were rented to be placed on
lots and since most lots were 250 feet apart, a spacing requirement
of 250 feet would solve the problem.
The consensus of the Council was to set the spacing requirement
between portable advertising signs at 250 feet.
Watkins then reported that he had been contacted by Mr. "Slick"
Smith requesting that he be allowed to place portable advertising
signs in multi-family zoning districts.
The Council recognized Mr. Cliff Reding.
Mr. Reding stated that he had a question regarding the limit of
signs 25 square feet and larger for on-premises as all portable
signs were 32 square feet in size.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris clarified that the proposed
ordinance would permit 2 portable signs of not more than 25 square
feet on-premises or 1 sign of more than 25 square feet up to a
maximum size of 72 square feet.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Four
Watkins then stated that the proposed sign ordinance called for the
abatement of all off-premises portable advertising signs in 5 years.
Council Member Stephens stated that he felt this section should be
deleted from the ordinance. The Council could see how the other
provisions worked out and staff could bring the abatement section
back at a later date.
Watkins stated that the proposed ordinance would require that all
non-conforming signs must conform within 10 years. The state
legislature might act on this issue during the next session.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the Council was going to allow
the legislature to make this determination.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated he felt that if a sign deteriorated, itl
should be taken down but if the sign were in good repair, it should
not have amortized.
Council Member McAdams stated that amortization was not unusual at
all.
Council Member Stephens asked why the Council should set a
termination time we they had deferred the abatement provision
earlier.
The consensus of the Council was for a 10 year amortization with
Council Members against.
3. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, McAdams, Riddlesperger, and Stephens
ABSENT: Council Member Hopkins was absent due to illness
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of December 18, 1984 and the Special Called Meeting
of January 3, 1985.
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the Minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor then presented a Proclamation honoring J. Newton Rayzor.
2. Consent Agenda
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9377 - Motor controller
2. Bid # 9379 - Steel retaining wall
3. Bid # 9381 - Modular furniture for Accounting
4. Bid # 9386 - Vibratory rollers
5. Purchase Order # 66190 to Boyd Excavation in the
amount of ~7,020.00
6. Purchase Order # 66666 to Boyd Excavation in the
amount of ~7,020.00
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Five
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Myers Development Corporation requesting an amendment of planned
development (PD-12) on an approximately 78 acre tract located on the
west side of Interstate 35-E approximately 2,500 feet south of State
School Road. The currently approved planned development permits the
following uses: Hotel and Restaurant Site, Office Site, Recreation
Area, Cultural Center. The proposed amendment includes the
following land uses:
Cluster Homes - approximately 80 units on 13.2 acres
with a density of 6 units per acre
Single Family - approximately 21 units on 5.2 acres
with a density of 4 units per acre
Commercial Shopping - approximately 44.5 acres
Multi-Family - approximately 360 units on 15 acres
with a density of 24 units per acre
Z-1705
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Curtis Holly spoke in favor of the petition stating that the
development would be a joint venture. Mr. Myers of Myers
Development Corporation had developed several country clubs in
Texas. Mr. Holly then showed a slide presentation of various
country clubs and golf courses which Mr. Myers had constructed.
Mr. Craig Curry, with Nelson Corporation representing Mr. Myers,
spoke in favor stating that this petition was a proposal to amend
PD-12. The total project would cover 770 acres bordered by the
IH-35 and Shady Shores interchange, State School Road and would tie
into Robinson Road. Major points of access would be via the
proposed realignment of Post Oak Drive, Lee Drive which was an
existing road, the county road on the west and Lake Sharon Drive.
Mr. Curry then presented a large map of the proposed development and
pointed to the location of the proposed golf course which ran
through the entire development. A large area to the north of the
development would be reserved for commercial shopping. Other land
uses would include condominiums and cluster housing, apartments and
5 acres of single family dwellings.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Council had received citizen
input regarding other developments on the need to keep as many trees
as possible.
Mr. Curry responded that the center line of the property would be
cleared for the golf course and the developer's staff was hand
selecting trees which would be left in place.
Council Member Stephens asked if the developer could transplant
those trees which had to be moved.
Mr. Curry replied that discussion were being held on replanting of
the trees.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that 16 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned. Staff had looked at the
entire Oakmont development during their evaluation. The dual
jurisdiction between the cities of Denton and Corinth was a
problem. The Denton Development Guide called for moderate intensity
development along Loop 288; however, high intensity uses were
already in place. Traffic would pose a problem due to the proximity
of the development to the Golden Triangle Mall. The traffic impact
would be addressed at the time of platting.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Six
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that staff had
worked with Myers Development Corporation, the City of Corinth and
City of Denton engineers for several months and felt that a suitable
traffic plan had been attained.
Persaud further reported that the golf course would account for 20%
of the development and the Denton Development Guide did speak to the
need to preserve natural green belt areas. Oakmont would provide a
variety of housing types and the size of the development would allow
for coordination of one total project as opposed to smaller parcel
developments. Seventy-three percent of the total project had
already been approved by the City of Corinth. Whether the petition
was approved or not by the Council, the development would have an
impact on Denton. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
recommended approval with 3 conditions.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve with the conditions attached
by the P&Z. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts
for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services;
providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for
an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-12
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.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance for
the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of materials,
equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the provisions of
state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive
bids; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-13
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to
the commercial (C) district on two tracts totaling 18.8 acres
located on the west side of Loop 288 approximately 2500 feet south
of East McKinney Street (FM 426) Z-1692
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Seven
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-14
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 18.801 ACRES
OF LAND SITUATED IN THE MARY L. AUSTIN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
4, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
LOOP 288 APPROXIMATELY 2,500 FEET SOUTH OF EAST MCKINNEY
STREET (F.M. 426) TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A"
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO COMMERCIAL "C"
CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR SAID PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on a
128 acre tract located adjacent and east of FM 428 (Sherman Drive)
and adjacent and north of Kings Row and the Cambridge Square
Subdivision Z-1696
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 129.245 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ADJACENT AND EAST OF F.M. 428 (SHERMAN DRIVE) AND
ADJACENT AND NORTH OF KINGS ROW AND THE CAMBRIDGE SQUARE
SUBDIVISION, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
"A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF; TO PROVIDE FOR
A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A"
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the light industrial (LI) classification on a 1.9
acre tract located on the west side of Bonnie Brae Street,
approximately 1,000 feet south of Willowwood Street. Z-1699
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 1.963 ACRES
OF LAND SITUATED IN THE O. B. BREWSTER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
56, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
BONNIE BRAE STREET APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF
WILLOW-WOOD STREET TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Eight
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A"
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL "LI"
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; AND DECLARING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye,"
and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried 5 to 0 with Council Member
Stephens abstaining.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to
the planned development (PD) district on a 243.3 acre tract located
on the north side of 1-35E, approximately 1,800 feet east of Loop
288 Z-1703
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-17
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 243.361 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF INTERSTATE 35E APPROXIMATELY
1,800 FEET EAST OF LOOP 288, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION
FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to
the planned development (PD) district on a 57 acre tract located on
the east side of Loop 288, approximately 2,200 feet north of
1-35E. Z-1704
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-18
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 57.087 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LOOP 288, APPROXIMATELY 2,200
FEET NORTH OF INTERSTATE 35E, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION
FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change of zoning classification from multi-family (MF-1)
to general retail (GR) on a tract of approximately 0.5326 acres
situated north of and abutting Londonderry Lane and west of and
abutting Jason Drive Z-1707
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, ].985
Page Nine
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-19
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 0.5326 ACRES
OF LAND SITUATED NORTH OF AND ABUTTING LONDONDERRY LANE AND
WEST OF AND ABUTTING JASON DRIVE AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED
AS LOT 1, BLOCK D, TEASLEY MALL SUBDIVISION; TO PROVIDE FOR
A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM
MULTI-FAMILY "MF-I" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO
~NERAL RETAIL "GR" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR
SAID PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change of zoning classification from multi-family (MF-1)
to general retail (GR) on a tract of 0.574 acres of land situated
north of and abutting Londonderry Lane and east of and abutting
Jason Driw~ Z-1708
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 0.574 ACRES
OF LAND SITUATED NORTH OF AND ABUTTING LONDONDERRY LANE AND
EAST OF AND ABUTTING JASON DRIVE AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED
AS LOT 4B1, BLOCK B, TEASLEY MALL SUBDIVISION; TO PROVIDE
FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION
FROM MULTI-FAMILY "MF-i" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO
GENERAL RETAIL "GR" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR
SAID PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
J. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving 'historic landmark (H) designation at 213 East Oak Street
H-33
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-21
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING 213 EAST OAK STREET IN THE CITY OF
DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK UNDER
ORDINANCE NO. 80-30 (ARTICLE 28A OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
ZONING ORDINANCE); AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
5. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
supporting Section 312 Rehabilitation Program of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Ten
Elizabeth Evans, Community Development Coordinator, reported that
staff was requesting Council approval of the resolution so that
application could be made for a loan program for Community
Development Block Grant funds for residents.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Fort Worth Regional Office of the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development has Section 312
Rehabilitation loan funds available for distribution to cities
certifying their desire to participate in the Section 312 Program
and committing themselves to paying the administrative costs
incurred in operating the program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
believes it to be in the best interests of the citizens of Denton to
participate in such program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The City of Denton, Texas, hereby certifies its desire to
participate in the "Section 312 Program," Section 312 of the Housing
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 1452b., as amended, and hereby commits itself
to pay the administrative costs incurred in the operation of the.
program.
SECTION II.
The Office of Community Development is hereby authorized tc
submit the appropriate application for Section 312 Rehabilitation
loan funds including a copy of this Resolution therewith.
SECTION III.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 15th day of January, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution to
amend F-51 lease at the Denton Municipal Airport.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that under the Fox-51 contract which was approved in 1980, Mr. Frank
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Eleven
Strickler had the option to lease property adjacent to his business
at the Denton Municipal Airport. Mr. Strickler was now requesting
to exercise this option. The property was approximately 30,800
square feet which would bring his total lease tract up to 1.16 acres.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Airport Advisory Board had any
problems with this arrangement.
Angelo responded that there had been some discussion regarding the
property behind Mr. Strickler and this cutting that portion off from
the runway. Staff had devised a plan which would give access to the
runway for the property behind the immediate lease property. This
solution was acceptable to the Airport Advisory Board. A series of
taxiways would intersect the property behind Mr. Strickler to
provide access.
Council Member McAdams stated that the city should look very
carefully at all issues relative to the airport.
Mayor Stewart asked if Mr. Stricker had met the terms of his lease
agreement.
Angelo responded yes.
Council Member McAdams asked what was the length of the lease
agreement.
Angelo replied 25 years.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the City of Denton leases land upon the Denton
Municipal Airport to Fox-51 Limited by lease agreement dated July 1,
1980; and
WHEREAS, the lease agreement provides that Fox-51 Limited
may lease additional land at three and one-half cents per square
foot per year if such right is exercised prior to July 1, 1985;
WHEREAS, Fox-51 Limited, acting by and through its
President, F. D. Strickler, has determined to exercise its right to
lease additional land; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
believes it to be in the interest of efficient airport operations
and in accordance with the existing lease agreement to lease
additional property to Fox-51 Limited;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The attached amendment to the airport lease agreement of
July 1, 1980, between the City of Denton and Fox-51 Limited is
hereby approved.
SECTION II.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the attached
amendment on behalf of the City and the City Secretary is hereby
directed to affix this Resolution, with the executed amendment
attached, to the original airport lease agreement dated July 1,
1980, inscribing on the original agreement the fact it has been
amended and the effective date of such amendment.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Twelve
SECTION III.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 15th day of January, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved with
the recommendations of the Airport Advisory Board. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
6. The Council considered approval of preliminary and final
replat of the Avondale Addition, Section III, Block G, Lots 17, 18
and 19.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that 48 reply'
forms had been mailed with 4 returned in favor and 1 returned in
opposition. The Planning and Zoning Commission had directed their'
attention to matters external of the Subdivision and Land
Regulations. The residents in the area were concerned that the
developers had dug a hole in one of the lots and had built a gargage
on one of the lots causing a problem with the property boundary.
The developer had also caused some damage to city streets in this
area by the use of heavy machinery. Staff found no regulations
which could be applied to this particular situation. If the
developer destroyed the lots it would result in a financial loss to
the developer. The staff therefore recommended approval.
Chew motion, McAdams second to approve the preliminary and final
replat of the Avondale Addition, Section III, Block G, Lots 17, 18
and 19. Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered appointment of a Deputy City
Secretary.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that due to staff changes from
time to time, a Deputy City Secretary must be redesignated. Staff
was recommended that Ms. Jennifer Imrie of the City Manager's Office
be appointed as Deputy City Secretary to assist the City Secretary
with the upcoming election.
Stephens motion, Chew second to appoint Jennifer Imrie as Deputy
City Secretary. Motion carried unanimously.
8. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matter, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
9. New Business
The following items of new business were suggested by
Council Members for future agendas:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Thirteen
1. Council Member Stephens requested a report on how to
improve the public address system in the Council Chambers.
2. Council Member Stephens requested a report on the city
street striping policy.
3. Council Member Stephens requested a written report on the
status of surplus property. (D-33)
The Council then moved to the emergency agenda item.
1. The Council considered approval of a resolution
amending City of Denton policies and procedures.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this item had been placed
on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Chew.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he felt it was befitting since
January 15 was the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. that the
Council should designate the 3rd Monday in January to celebrate his
birthday as a legal holiday for the City of Denton.
Council Member McAdams stated that she felt Dr. King was one of the
most significant contributors to humanity in the United States and
felt that it was most appropriate that Denton as a city respond by
adding this holiday to the list of holidays.
Mayor Stewart asked if the city had specific days which employees
got off and were paid for.
Hartung yes.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what would be the cost to the
city.
Hartung responded that he could not answer that specifically but
could make an estimate. Holidays were unlike vacation in that there
was no direct cost with vacation days because they were spread out
during the year. When the city shut down operations for holidays,
there were many areas in which 24 hour a day coverage had to be
maintained and could not be shut down. There were indirect costs
for over-time and holiday pay for employees who had to work on these
days.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he thought it was perfectly
fine to honor Martin Luther King as he was one of the most
significant people in American history. However he had noticed that
the city did not celebrate Washington's birthday, Lincoln's birthday
or any other American national holiday as a city. He did not know
if it was appropriate. He felt that as a city we should have the
kind of celebrations that would be appropriate for Martin Luther
King but he had reservations about declaring a city holiday for one
American, no matter who he was, when there was not another
historical American in that kind of category.
Council Member McAdams stated that while it was not a city holiday,
it was a federal holiday. She felt that there was added
significance in the fact that there were a number of holidays which
were celebrated, none of which reflected in anyway the contributions
made by blacks in the United States. There was no holiday and no
other attention given to reflect what had happened to blacks in the
United States. It might have chosen to recognize the 19th of June
in Texas, but was not. No step had ever been taken to recognize the
contributions that blacks have made and the changes that have been
made in their lives in the United States. While it might cost some
money, she felt it was high time some kind of action was taken in
recognition of the work and activities which had been done by
blacks. This was symbolized by Martin Luther King's birthday.
Blacks would have been just as happy in some years past if there had
5-//
Ci%y of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Fourteen
been something else but they have had nothing. Because of his
statute, it was reasonable to choose his birthday as the day.
Blacks could have National Black Americans Day but at the present
there was nothing and she felt it was very important that there be
something. Martin Luther King's birthday was a national holiday and
it seemed fitting to chose this day as opposed to no recognition at
all as had been done in the past.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he thought all holidays
which the city presently celebrated had as much to do with blacks as
whites. Memorial Day was as much a day for blacks as for whites;
Independence Day - blacks contributed to that; Labor Day,
Thanksgiving, etc. He agreed and he was very reluctant to even
suggest otherwise because Martin Luther King's birthday had been
designated as a national holiday. The only question he had was
whether it was appropriate for the city, that doesn't recognize any
other American, to simply say that they would close the city offices
for his day and no one elses.
Council Member McAdams asked if Council Member Riddlesperger would
prefer June 19 to be designated as a holiday. She further stated
that she felt very strongly at this point about affirmative action
and taking some steps to say "yes" to black Americans about where
the United States stands. As a teacher, Dr. Riddlesperger could
look at the holidays on the list of city holidays and he could say
that they had as much to do with blacks as with anyone else;
however, she dared him to say that when he read his history books
these holidays would accurately reflect the contributions of blacks
as it does of whites. She was asking that the Council take one
small step just for some recognition and this seemed to be an
appropriate day. She was willing to change and make Juneteenth a
holiday if that was preferrable. She felt Martin Luther King's
birthday was a better day as it was a national holiday. It was one
that school children, old people, people through the United States
and throughout the world could recognize and understand. It was
high time that something was done and everyone knows what this day
meant. She as a black would simply like to have a day designated to
honor the contributions of black Americans.
Mayor Stewart asked if there would then be a day for Chinese and
Mexican Americans. He felt that race was being brought into the
issue in a backward fashion and he believed that it should be kept
out. Black people had participated in all the holidays and he was
proud of them. He fought with black men in the service and Memorial
Day honored them. There were blacks killed in the Revolutionary
War, in fact the first man killed during the war was Crispus Attuck
who was black. All people were honored on Independence Day. He
agreed with Council Member Riddlesperger that the Council should not
take one man and take him out from everybody else and give a holiday
for that man himself. If you looked at the contributions that
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln made, as well as Roosevelt and
a number of others, they would deserve a holiday on their birthday
also. He hesitated to single out one man and make his birthday a
holiday just because he was black.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated he felt Mayor Stewart was -missing the
whole point. Not only did Martin Luther King represent the blacks
and the Chinese, but he woke up the conscience of America. From
where he was standing now, it sounded as though some of us still
needed to have their consciences awakened. When the issue was
~examined realistically, what was actually being asked of the city
was to set aside a date for a man who did a lot for all Americans.
Council Member McAdams stated that she did not want a holiday just
for that one person but rather for black Americans. It was all well
and good to talk about the fact that Christmas Adams was one of the
people killed, but she suggested that if he had lived a little
longer he would not have been able to vote, he would not have been
able to walk into a restaurant, his children would not have gone to
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of January 15, 1985
Page Fifteen
decent schools, he would have been discriminated against in terms of
jobs, and he would have had to do as she did as a child. She rode
on the back of the bus and the fumes made her ill. On a bus from
Dallas to Wichita Falls, the driver had to stop a Continential
Trailways bus because she was sick because she could not tolerate
the fumes at the back of the bus but she rode there because she was
black. What she was saying was that they could say all they wanted
to about Crispus Attuck and what he was, but the blacks knew that
neither he nor the people who came after him were treated as equal
citizens. It was high time to say something in favor. She did not
care if the Council decided to choose Juneteenth or some other day
but the fact remained that in the United States blacks had been
discriminated against for years and years in a way that was
uncivilized. This would still be going on today were it not for
people like Martin Luther King and she felt some acknowledgement of
the change must be made; something that would say to young black
Americans growing up today that this was an acknowledgement of the
work which was done by blacks. A statement that the city's holidays
did not just reflect white American, they also reflect black
Americans. She would like to have this in the City of Denton as
well as in the United States. She did not believe that asking for
one day was asking for too much, given what the blacks had gone
through. If the city could afford all of the dollars which were
spent on everything else, could they not just afford one day on
behalf of the blacks who had suffered so much and as an inspiration
to those children who are coming now and who are still suffering
through a loss of symbols and role models. If the city could hold
Martin Luther King up as a person, as a role model for young black
people today, and help break the circle, it would be worth how ever
many dollars it costs the city.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he could agree with what
Council Member McAdams was saying. He did not know who to approach
it; perhaps a day could be designated as Black American Day. He
simply was saying to choose one American and celebrate his birthday,
no matter how great he was, but not to celebrate George Washington
or Abraham Lincoln's birthday seemed inappropriate. Certainly it
was a national holiday and should be celebrated as such. The only
question was whether the City of Denton offices should be closed.
Perhaps a better choice would be June 19th or a Black American Day.
He would vote for a day for those things, but not someone's birthday.
Council Member McAdams stated that she wanted this holiday.
Historically, this was so obviously observed.
Alford motion, Riddlesperger second to table the item until a full
Council could! be present.
Council Member McAdams stated that there was only 1 Council Member
absent and felt the issue should be resolved.
Motion to table passed 4 to 2 with Council Member McAdams and Mayor
Pro Tem Chew casting the "nay" votes.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken..
With no luther business, the meeting was adjourned.
~R'I~ii~I~-~TST~WA~,MAYOR~
~U~TYSECRETARY
0676j
City Council Minutes
January 24, 1985
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 4:00 p.m. in
the Personnel Conference Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, McAdams.,
Riddlesperger and Stephens
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew
_ Council Member Hopkins
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
Personnel.
The Council conducted an interview for the City Attorney position
with Ms. Susan Godwin.
No official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
~I CIA~RD -0 r~ STEWA R~, MAYOR ~/
C~OTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
0690s
City Council Minutes
January 26, 1985
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 9:00 a.m. in
the Personnel Conference Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
Personnel.
The Council conducted interviews for the City Attorney position as
follows:
9:00 a.m. Mick McKamie
10:30 a.m. Vonceil Jones Hill
12:30 p.m. Karen Brophy
2:00 p.m. James Riggs
Council Member Alford left the meeting.
3:30 p.m. Doyle Curtis
No official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARLOTTE ~LLEN, CITY SECRETARY
0691s
City Council Minutes
January 29, 1985
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 1:00 p.m. in
the Personnel Conference Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,,
McAdams, and Riddlesperger
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew
Council Member Stephens
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
Personnel.
The Council conducted interviews for the City Attorney position as
follows:
1:00 p.m. Debra Drayovitch
2:30 p.m. Jack Barton
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting during Mr. Barton's
interview.
4:00 p.m. Joe Morris
5:00 p.m. William Walker
No official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
0692s
City Council Minutes
February 5, 1985
The work session of the City Council on Tuesday, February 5, 1985 at
5:30 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal Building.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, McAdams, Riddlesperger, Hopkins and Stephens
ABSENT: None
The following items were considered:
1. The Council received a report on the public address system
in the City Council Chambers.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, told the Council
the existing speaker system had been adjusted. He was looking into
alternative systems with different microphones. Brinkman said they
were installing an auxiliary microphone. He stated the current
system is sound, but that it was at maximum output. He asked for
input from the Council on how to proceed.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew said that it was difficult to hear from one end
of the City Council table to the other.
Council Member Hopkins asked if fixing the speaker system had been
budgeted for.
Brinkman replied that we have redirected the speaker, the problem
with the microphone is that the speaker has to be right on top of
them to be heard. The microphone stands are to small to adjust.
Council Member Stephens said that with notebooks on the stand it is
hard to get close to the microphone. Mayor Stewart asked about the
possibility of purchasing microphones which would attach to their
clothing. Brinkman answered that it was a possibility. It had been
done once, and it was discontinued because the microphones picked up
private conversations between council members.
Council Member McAdams asked about being able to get microphones
with flexible necks which could be brought closer to the speaker.
Brinkman said that was also a possibility. Betty McKean, Assistant
City Manager, said that the flexible microphones could place a
barrier to the vision of the people in the audience.
The group discussed how to deal with microphones that would clip on
to clothing. Council Member Stephens suggested having an on-off
switch on the microphones. Council Member Alford said that the
microphones could be taken off when the council member wanted to
have a private conversation, but it would look too obvious. Council
Member Stephens asked about the cost to have a Sound Engineer come
in and look at the system. He also asked what kinds of things would
require a sound engineer and which could Building Maintenance do
themselves. Brinkman said they could change the microphones them-
selves. If more speakers were needed a sound engineer would have to
be brought in. Assistant City Manager Betty McKean said that she
preferred to experiment with different mikes, before installing more
speakers. Council Member Stephens said that it is frustrating to
the people who come to attend Council meetings, when they cannot
hear what the Council Members are saying. Mayor Pro Tem Chew said
he would like to see a clip on microphone with an on-off switch.
Council Member McAdams said she did not like the clip on microphone,
she wanted adjustable microphone stands. City Manager, Chris
Hartung said adjustable microphone stands with and on-off switch
were used in the City of Garland, the Council Members would turn the
mikes off and not turn them back on again. Brinkman said this could
be done, he could get some on loan to try out. Hopkins and Chew
agreed, as along as the people in the back could hear the Council
and the Council Members at one end could hear the one at the other
end, that adjustable stands would be fine. Council Member Hopkins
suggested that a microphone be placed in the back or middle of the
room for speakers who come from the audience so that they would not
have to walk to the front.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 2
2. The Council convened into the Executive Session.
The Council then convened into the Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, McAdams, Riddlesperger, Hopkins, and Stephens
ABSENT: None
The following items were considered:
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of January 8, 1985.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor presented a Proclamation honoring League of United Latin
Amercan Citizens (LULAC), which was accepted by Frank Davilla,
President of LULAC.
2. 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.
Bids and Purchase Orders:
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 4.A, 4.B,
4.C). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow
Council Members to discuss any item prior to approval of the
ordinance.
1. Bid # 9329A - Janitorial Services
2. Bid # 9382 Truck/Cab Chassis - Dump
Bodies
3. Bid # 9387 Loader Backhoe
4. Bid # 9388 Landfill Bompactor
5. Bid # 9392 Track Type Front-End Loader
6. Bid # 9395 - Miscellaneous Pool Equipment
7. Bid # 9396 Turf Fertilizer
8. Bid # 9397 - Evaluation of Alarm System
9. Bid # 9398 - 30 Yard Containers
10. Bid # 9401 - PVC Conduit
11. Bid # 9399 - Paving Improvements Prairie and Robertson Street
12. Purchase Order # 66842 to Boyd Excavation in
the amount of $7,020.00
13. Purchase Order # 66583 to Boyd Excavation in
the amount of $7,020.00
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 3
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Consider approval of final replat of Cooper
Crossing, Section I. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. Consider approval of preliminary and final
replat of Golden Triangle Industrial Park,
Phase V. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. Consider approval of final replat of the
Haywood Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
4. Consider approval of preliminary replat of
the Owsley Park Addition, Block 2, Lot 12A.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
5. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Extension to the Sauls Addition, Block 1,
Lots 8 and 9. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
6. Consider approval of preliminary plat of the
Stauver Addition, Block 1. [The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
7. Approval of preliminary replat of the
Thompson Addition, Phase I, Lot 1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
8. Approval of preliminary plat of the Woodhill
Square Retail Center. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
9. Approval of final replat of Independence
Square, Lot i-R, Block A. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
C. Tax Refund:
Consider approval of a tax refund to Nowlin
Mortgage in the amount of $678.31.
Council Member Chew stated he was pleased to motion to accept
the Consent Agenda as is, particularly the items on paving
improvements on Prairie and Robertson Streets. Chew motion,
McAdams second to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearings
A. H-34. This is the petition of Mrs. Robert S.
Berg requesting historic landmark (H) designation at 104 North
Locust Street. The property is more particularly described as
part of Lot 5, Block 7, of the Original Town Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Speaking for the petition was Mrs. Robert S. Berg, the owner of
Locust Street Grill. She said that the building was built in
the late 1800's and early 1900's.
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~5--/~
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 4
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the front of the building
was restored or rebuilt. Mrs. Berg answered that from the
I-beam on up it was the same. Below the I-beam she said, it
had been changed several times. The architect rebuilt the
front similar to the style of the times.
Council Member Alford asked if there were any pictures of the
original building. Mrs. Berg said that none could be found.
Council Member Riddlesperger said that what Mrs. Berg had done
was commendable, but that he had some reservations about the
historic landmark designation. He would like to have seen the
building restored instead of rebuilt.
Speaking against the petition was Tom Polk Miller. Mr. Miller
as a member of the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Miller
asked for a clearer definition of "historic landmark" he stated
that his impression of historic landmark was something that
preserved the past for the future. The 104 North Locust Street
building is only a remodeling job and people cannot make up for
losing the past by instantly creating a landmark. Mr. Miller
said that a landmark should be the same as what it had been in
the past.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked if the criteria for historical
designation were met. The first criteria was that it would be
owned by Denton residents; the second is that it would be in
the downtown district of Denton; third it captured the
architectural tradition. Mayor Pro Tem Chew said that he had a
question as to whether it held to the architectural tradition.
Mr. Miller said he did not think it did.
Mayor Stewart asked Mr. Miller why there was a historic
landmark plaque at the furniture store on the northwest corner
of the square. Mr. Miller replied that it was given by the
State Historical Commission, indicating a site, not a build%ng.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the Boyd Building,
Lawyer's Title, and Ellington's were restored or rebuilt. Mr.
Miller said that Boyd's was a restoration, Lawyer Title's upper
half was similar to what it was, i.e, originally, and
Ellington's was a new fabrication. Each of these buildings has
received a historic landmark designation. Mr. Miller said that
he felt that there are many members of the Historic Landmark
Commission who believe that they had made a mistake with the
Lawyer's Title building and Ellington's. Mayor Pro Tem Chew
asked why the same mistake should be made over again. Mr.
Miller said that standards should be tightened up before
another inappropriate building is designated as a historic
landmark, thereby diluting the appeal of the designation.
Mayor Stewart asked Mr. Miller if he spoke for the Historic
Landmark Commission. Mr. Miller said he was speaking only for
himself. The petition was passed 3-2 and he was one of the two
who voted against it.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew said that there was no recommendation for a
historic landmark. Council Member Hopkins said that only those
buildings that visitors come to look at and see what Denton's
past was should be designated as a historic landmark.
Council Member Alford asked if the interior of the building was
original. Council Member Riddlesperger asked what would be
done to restore it. Mr. Miller said that evidence must be
found of what the building may have looked like and efforts
made to restore the building close to its original appearance.
Council Member Hopkins asked about the Homer Bly house. Mr.
Miller said that lots of research went into what structural
material was originally used. Council Member Alford said that
the upper story in Lawyer's Title Building and Locust Street
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 5
Grill were both new. Mr. Miller said the original wall above
the I-beam does not validate what is below. He stated that it
is not possible to create a historic landmark that was not
there.
Mrs. Berg told the Council that the decision on the Locust
Street Grill would be a heavy duty for them to consider. She
stated that if this building was not given historic landmark
designation there would be nothing to stop her from selling her
building if a developer came in and wanted to buy it in order
to knock it down. She said that there would not be anything to
save downtown from looking like another mall.
The Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Stewart left the
room.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, said that out of 17
reply forms mailed, one was in favor and zero in opposition.
Spivey said that the petitioner's request contains several
justifications for historic landmark designation: A couple of
the most prominent citizens of early Denton, such as Otis Welch
and Joseph Carroll, were involved in the ownership of the
original building; the location of the building itself in the
downtown area; and the architecture of the building itself.
Spivey said the architecture of the building was original from
the top of the roof to the windows. While the current facade
is not an exact replica of the one existing in earlier years,
the owners and some of the Historic Landmark Commission feel
that it is a good faith effort to recreate the style of the
late 1800's. Council Member McAdams said that she was
concerned about the criteria. Council Member Hopkins said the
guidelines set before by the Historic Landmark Commission
should be followed. Council Member Riddlesperger said he
agreed that there was a good faith effort, but this item needs
a further look.
Alford motion to approve, motion died for lack of a second.
Council Member McAdams e.~pressed concern about the historic
landmark process. Council Member Riddlesperger said that he
did not want to discourage people from doing the type of work
the Bergs have done on the square. He said that he would
second the motion to table with the understanding that the
Council ought to work on this proposition to get a better
consensus as to how they want to encourage people to do work on
the square. Council Member Hopkins said that he wanted to
table it on the understanding that they get specific criteria
under which this item would fall. He set a time limit of three
months.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to table the item. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Z-1716. This is the petition of Melvin Gouge
(realtor), representing Lela Sparkman (owner), requesting a
change in the current zoning classification from agricultural
(A) to office (0) on a tract of 2.5 acres situated south of and
abutting U. S. Highway 380, east of Egan Road, and being the
most southern portion in the southwest corner of the Thomas
Egan Survey, Abstract 406. If approved, the said tract of land
may be used for any of the purposes permitted in the zoning
ordinance of the City of Denton.
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Melvin Gouge spoke in favor of the petition. He said that he
is requesting the change in order to build a small one story
office building for an eye clinic, with parking provided for
clients.
City o£ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o£ February 5, 1985
Page 6
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, gave the staff
report. Persaud said that the site is located in a moderate
intensity center which is relatively undeveloped and far below
planned capacity in terms of intensity standards. The site is
within the area controlled by the Airport Zoning Act, but
outside of the restricted noise contours of 90 CNR. Persaud
said that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to
recommend approval in the January meeting.
1. The Council considered adoption of an
ordinance changing the current zoning classification from
agricultural (A) to office (0) on a tract of 2.5 acres situated
south of and abutting U. S. Highway 380 and east of Egan Road.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 85-21a
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO
APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE THOMAS
J. EGAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 406, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
AND LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ABUTTING U. S. HIGHWAY 380,
EAST OF EGAN ROAD, AND BEING THE MOST SOUTHERN PORTION
IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE THOMAS EGAN SURVEY; TO
PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO OFFICE "0" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR SAID PROPERTY; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Hopkins "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. Z-1717. This is the petition of Burt Singleton
requesting a c-~ge in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) district for
light industrial (LI) uses on an approximately 94.3 acre tract
in the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract 1330. The property is
located on the east side of Mayhill Road approximately 1600
feet south of FM 426 (East McKinney Street) and is more
particularly described as Tracts iF, 1Fl, lC, lA and 1E of the
Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract 1330. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Pablo Rubio, engineer, spoke in favor of the petition. Rubio
said that he was representing Burt Singleton. He said that he
had studied the property and there were 39 acres in the flood
plain. He said that 18.3 acres can be reclaimed from the flood
plain with a cost of around $400,000. The client, said Rubio,
said that he had no problem in making those improvements.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the developer is willing to
spend the money to make the improvements. Rubio said that he
was.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 7
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, said that this site
is located in a high intensity area where little or no control
of intensity is proposed. The request is consistent with
Denton Development Guide policy of prohibiting residential
development witnin 2,500 feet of the Wastewater Treatment plant.
The Mayor returned to the meeting.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
D. Z-1720. This is the petition of R. J. Button
requesting a c-h~ge in zoning from the agricultural (A)
district with a specific use permit for a mobile home park to
the general retail (GR) zoning district on a 2.9 acre tract
situated in the Stephen Hembrie Survey, Abstract 643. The
property is located at the northeast corner of Robinson Road
and FM 2181 (Teasley Lane). (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
R. J. Button spoke in favor of the petition. He said that
staff had some questions about the fact that the area had been
changed from a medium to a low intensity area. He said that
the tract was not previously zoned when the rest of the land
was zoned for a mobile home park, because instead of zoning it
on speculation, it was better to wait for the need. The type
of business which would be put in would be a convenience store,
possibly a pizza take-out, dry cleaners, and that type of
supportive businesses for the development. Button said that he
extended a water line from John Knox Village down Ryan Road to
the mobile home park and for another $20,000, extended the 8
inch water line across the front of the park and the proposed
zoning tract. The sewer has been laid out in such a way as
would serve this tract of land. Mr. Button distributed
brochures on the project which showed that if this request were
denied, it would be difficult to develop the small tract of
land.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner said that out of
three reply forms mailed out, one came back in favor, zero in
opposition. This site is located in a low intensity area. The
Denton Development Guide has a policy which specifies that
concentrations of retail in low intensity areas should be
limited to four acres. This development is 2.9 acres, which
falls within those parameters. However, the Planning and
Zoning Commission has approved a mixed use planned development
at the southwest corner of Ryan Road and Teasley Lane that
contains four acres of general retail zoning. This will come
before the Council shortly. If both these petitions are
approved, this will be sew~n acres of retail.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
E. Z-1721. This is the petition of Alpha Joint
Ventures requesting a change in zoning from the single family
(SF-7) district to the planned development (PD) classification
on a 4.4 acre tract situated in the Alexander Hill Survey,
Abstract 623. The property is located at 1213 Bernard Street.
If approved, the planned development will permit the
construction of fifty-four (54) townhome units. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
City Of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February S, 1985
Page 8
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
George Hopkins spoke in favor of the petition. He stated that
the development would consist of clusters of townhomes with
easy parking access. He added that there were adaquate sewer
lines in the area but that they are overloaded and the
developer has agreed to install, at his cost, additional sewer
lines. The entire project is reasonable and primarily for
family use. Mr. Hopkins introduced Jack Dimond who is
associated with Alpha Joint Ventures. Mr. Dimond said this is
a single family development by a developer with 30 to 40 years
of experience. It fits into the single family nature of the
neighborhood, which is a private neighborhood with generally
new developments, which promote pride in ownership and
rehabilitation. These will be owner occupied units with only
20 percent or less owned by investors. This stipulation has
been put on these units. This request is for a moderate
density project at the top end of the single family density.
It is a high quality project because of the cost of the land.
It is not restricted from students, but because of the cost and
the quality of the townhomes it is not geared to student living.
Council Member McAdams asked if a student who would live in
these homes with another student would be an investor or
owner. Mr. Dimond said they go under Fannie Mae Guidelines
(FNMA). Unless the student can sign by himself without a
co-signer he cannot buy. Owners are generally a better risk
than investors. Mayor Pro Tem Chew mentioned that several
Council Members understand Fannie Mae Guidelines.
Council Member McAdams said her concern was the traffic
overload. Mr. Dimond said that his competition marketed
housing to students, but they do not have covered parking, pool
and some of the other ammenities he offers. This development
is not marketed for students.
Also speaking in favor of the petition was C. L. Hunt, who owns
property next door to where the property will come out on
Bernard Street, at 1211 Bernard. He said that the traffic for
this development would enter near his house. Hunt said that he
was against commercial buildings, but that small houses rented
to students in the area would be no more populated then letting
this man develop it. If it were left open it would produce
very little tax revenue. He is in favor of the developer
putting up money for the sewer system. Mr. Hunt said the
traffic is bad anyway, even if the area were left as is.
Speaking against the petition was Orville O'Rear, owner of the
adjoining property. Mr. O'Rear said that traffic was
unreasonable in the area and that his mother also lives in the
area and has problems with traffic. There are apartments all
the way to Greenlea Street and one-way traffic going by the
freeway. Regarding the developer's claim that there would be
twelve families to an acre, he said that his place was built on
1/2 acre, and that he couldn't see putting that kind of
development in the area.
Bill O'Rear, the brother of Orville O'Rear, spoke against the
petition. He stated that these developments look like
apartments to him. He moved to Denton in 1936, and does not
think apartments are needed in his neighborhood. His mother is
irritated at the traffic.
George Hopkins said these were common wall buildings, not
apartments, the effect on traffic in the area would be
minimal. Hopkins said that this is a reasonable project.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
5X¥
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 9
Out of 23 reply forms mailed, eight came back in favor, zero in
opposition, and six in favor who were not on the list. Denise
Spivey, Development Review Planner, said that this tract is
located in a low intensity area designated by the Denton
Development Guide. Based on existing zoning, this intensity
area is already over the standard by approximately 17 percent.
The Denton Development Guide recommends as a matter of priority
the need to protect existing housing stock. Low and moderate
income people should have protection of their quality of life.
The proposed development with a density of 12 units per acre is
much more consistent with existing neighborhood patterns than a
previously planned project (with 16 1/2 units per acre) to the
north of this site. The Development Guide specifies that
medium density' housing concentrations require at least one
access by a collector sized street. This site abuts Bernard
Street, a residential street currently loaded to capacity. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval by a vote of
4-3 despite policy violations as it represents a good faith
effort to maintain the residential character of the
neighborhood.
Council Member' McAdams said she hopes that we did not do
something to open up the property on either side to
multi~family or higher density zoning. This may influence the
next development coming up.
Council Member Hopkins said this situation has more in common
with the existing neighborhood than anything that has come
before the Council previously. He also shares Council Member
McAdams' concern.
Chew motion, Mc&dams second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or
services; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and
providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 85-22
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.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," Hopkins "aye," and Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor called a 5 minute break. The meeting was adjourned.
The Mayor called the meeting to order.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for public works or improvements; providing for the
expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective
date.
The following ordinance was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 10
NO. 85-23
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING
FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR
IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," Hopkins "aye," and Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of
materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with
the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from
requirements of competitive bids; and providing for an
effective date.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 85-24
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT,
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to light
industrial (LI) on a tract of 1.530 acres situated south of U.
S. Highway 380 and commencing approximately 1,140 feet east of
Masch Branch Road (Z-1713).
Mayor Stewart informed the audience this ordinance has been
discussed in City Council meetings several times, and this is
merely the formality of the approving of the ordinance.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 85-25
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO
APPROXIMATELY 1.530 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE
WILLIAM BRYAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 148, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U. S. HIGHWAY
380 AND COMMENCING APPROXIMATELY 1,140 FEET EAST OF
MASCH BRANCH ROAD; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL
"A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL "LI" CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR SAID
PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Al{ord "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 11
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from agricultural (A) to light
industrial (LI) on a tract of 4.960 acres situated south of U.
S. Highway 380 and commencing approximately 420 feet east of
Masch Branch Road (Z-1714).
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 85-26
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO
APPROXIMATELY 4.960 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE
WILLIAM BRYAN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 148, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U. S. HIGHWAY
380 AND COMMENCING APPROXIMATELY 420 FEET EAST OF
MASCH BRANCH ROAD; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL
"A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL "LI" CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR SAID
PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
to reconsider a proposed 12 inch oversize water line and water
pro rata agreement with Allan Estates Mobile Home Park on South
Mayhill Road near 1-35E. (The Public Utilities Board
recommends approval.)
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, stated that approval to
serve Allan Estates Mobile Home Park with water and sanitary
sewer service outside the Denton city limits was approved by
the Public Utilities Board, and by the Council on March 20,
1984. Since that time, this development has been annexed.
Nelxon said that the item is being re-submitted due to the sale
of this development to new owners as listed in the title.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 85-27
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY'S
PARTICIPATION IN THE COST OF INSTALLING OVERSIZE
WATERLINE FACILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
THE CONTRACT; APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
supporting a grant application with the State of Texas for
funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and/or the
Texas Local Park Fund. (The Parks and Recreation Board
recommends approval.)
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation said that this
resolution would go into the grant application for funds from
the State to develop a tract of park land which would be
donated in the next three to four months.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 12
The following resolution was considered:
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON
DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY OFFICIALS AS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR,
ACTING FOR, AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON IN DEALING WITH
THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PARTICIPATING IN THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF
1965; CERTIFYING THAT THE CITY OF DENTON IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE
ASSISTANCE UNDER SUCH PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the United States Congress has passed the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (Public Law
88-578), authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to provide
financial assistance to states, and political subdivisions
thereof, for outdoor recreation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature has adopted Article
6081r, V.A.C.S., for the purpose of allowing the State of
Texas, and its political subdivisions, to participate in the
Federal program established under said Public Law 88-578, or
such other programs as are hereinafter established by the
Federal Government; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is fully eligible to
receive assistance under this Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton is
desirous of authorizing its administrative staff to represent
and act for the city in dealing with Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department concerning this Program; NOW, TItEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I:
That the City Council of the City of Denton hereby
certifies that the City of Denton is eligible to receive
assistance under Public 88-578; as augmented by Article 6081r,
V.A.C.S.
SECTION II:
That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs
its City Manager to represent and act for the City of Denton in
dealing with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for the
purpose of this Program. The City Manager is hereby officially
designated as the City's representative in this regard.
SECTION III:
The City Council hereby designated its Director of
Finance as the official authorized to serve as the City's
fiscal officer to receive Federal funds for purposes of this
Program.
SECTION IV:
The City Council hereby specifically authorizes the
City officials herein designated to make application to the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department concerning the tract of
land known as Northeast Park in the City of Denton.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 13
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED by the affirmative vote of
the City Council of the City of Denton, on this 5th day of
February, 1985.
RICHKRD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CflARLOTTE ALLE~, C'I'TY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
for approval of sewer pipeline boring license for John Pass
Investments sewer line from Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
Company. (The Public Utilities Board recommends approval.)
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, said that the developer,
John Pass Inw~stments, is in the process of constructing this
sewer line and requires the obtaining of a license for boring
under the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad near Scott Street.
Nelson said that this is a routine item.
The following resolution was considered:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON TEXAS:
The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute
on behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, a Pipe Line License
Agreement dated January 1, 1985, between the City of Denton and
the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, relating to the
construction, reconstruction, use, maintenance, operation,
repair and installation by boring method one pipe line encased
in a carrier pipe not exceeding eighteen inches (18") in
diameter, to be used for carrying a sanitary sewer line beneath
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company's right-of-way at Mile
Post K-722.69, Denton County, Texas.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 5th day of February, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 14
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETA-T-~-ff~
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the resolution. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
to accept an FAA Airport Grant offer. (The Airport Advisory
Board recommends approval.)
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, said
that the FAA has offered the City funds for the Master Plan
Update. The Airport Advisory Board and staff recommend
approval.
Council Member Stephens asked if this is a straight grant, or
if the City must match it. Angelo answered that we have ten
percent matching funds. Council Member Stephens asked about
the time frame. Angelo said it would take approximately four
months. He said that he would return to Council with a formal
contract.
The following resolution was considered:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has submitted to the
Federal Aviation Administration an application for Federal
Assistance dated November 12, 1984, for a grant of Federal
Funds for a project for development of the Denton Municipal
Airport; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration has
approved a project for development of the Airport consisting of
a Master Plan Update and Environmental Impact Assessment
Report; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration has
submitted to the City of Denton a Grant Offer in the amount of
$34,691.00, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement
Act of 1982, for such airport planning and development; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City of Denton hereby accepts the Grant Offer
from the Federal Aviation Administration in the amount of
$34,691.00 and agrees to comply with all of the assurances and
conditions contained in the Grant Offer and Application
therefore.
City o£ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February S, 1985
Page 15
SECTION II.
That the City Manager or his designee is hereby
authorized to execute such written agreements as are necessary
to receive the funds from the FAA.
SECTION III.
That this Resolution shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 5th day of February, 1985.
~ICHARD O. STEWART, 'MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALL~N, C'ITY SECRE'r'I-R-Y
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, McAdams second to approve the resolution. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
6. The Council considered removing a resolution amending
City of Denton policies and procedures for holidays from the
table.
Council Member' Hopkins said that he realized that this was a
sensitive issue. He stated that he was absent when this issue
was brought as an emergency item before the Council. He agreed
that it was important, but not that it was an emergency.
Hopkins said the time to discuss this issue was at budget time,
when the Council discusses salary and benefits for all
employees, and not in the middle of the year. The citizens
hold the Council fiscally responsible.
Council Member Hopkins moved that this item continue to be
tabled until budget discussion, Al£ord second the motion.
Council Member McAdams said that this issue could be rationally
discussed now. The dollar amount for the holiday will not make
or break the City's budget. When a generator went out, the
money was found to repair it, and money can be found for this
issue. We can and do find money for those items we find
important. McAdams moved that the item be removed from the
table. She said that she supports Martin Luther King's
Birthday as a sign of how far blacks and whites have come
together. It is a sign that the blacks can have hope for the
future. Blacks can strive for a better future as long as they
feel they have hope. Black children go to schools named after
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 16
people who fought to maintain slavery. You see white staff at
City Council meetings, white fireman, white paramedics, white
bankers, white doctors, etc., black unemployment, particularly
for young blacks, is higher than that of whites. The City
Council cannot change these things; they are a fact of life.
The fact that the Council cannot change these things has
nothing to do with whether we are or are not a racist society.
When the City of Denton was receiving CDBG grants to improve
southeast Denton many changes were made. We have done
significant things in southeast Denton but the work was stopped
when the federal money was stopped. Council Member McAdams
asked the Council to look through the eyes of the black people
of Denton. McAdams said that the regular City budget does not
usually cover improvement to southeast Denton.
Vocal leadership led to changes for blacks; Martin Luther King
was one of those leaders. He was not a violent leader. He
made whites see that they had been wrong and needed to change.
John F. Kennedy is a hero to many blacks, particularly to older
blacks. He was one of the first whites who said "we have been
wrong and we need to change." America now has room for a
holiday honoring a black man.
President Reagan spoke with civil rights leaders and said they
need to be doing something else. Council Member McAdams said
that is a disappointment. Blacks still hear the word "nigger",
not as often as they used to, but it is still heard. Blacks
still live in poor housing there is still work to be done.
McAdams said she wants a sign, and that the Martin Luther King
holiday could be an opportunity for all of us. The blacks
celebrate the Juneteenth holiday alone, but Martin Luther King
belongs to all of us, the white and the black. Some of the
things that go on in South Africa are no different from the
things that go in Denton now. You cannot convince a black
person that you are not a bigot unless you speak to them one on
one. By setting aside Martin Luther King's birthday, the
Council can speak to blacks in general, letting them know that
they are not bigoted. This will keep blacks' hope alive that
someday American society would be truly integrated. Two Denton
churches recognize Martin Luther King's birthday. Martin
Luther King had a dream. McAdams said that we say keep the
faith, but we are still hopeless because equality has not been
achieved. We are now at a plateau in civil rights. Blacks do
not want to remember the things that have happened, the
children that were blown up in the church. Take one small
step. Not everything can be judged in dollars. Council Member
Mchdams said to stop and think about when this odyssey started;
when Rosa Parks refused to move; when the four went to the
lunch counter; when in 1954, the Brown vs. Board of Education
case came to court and the decision was handed down. This was
thirty years ago. Someone could have been born and grown up in
the time we were only talking about civil rights and not doing
anything.
If we can say to young blacks, "we support you; we give you
this; join hands with us," this will be a sign of our
commitment. This sign of what has been accomplished far
outweighs any dollar figure we can talk about. I move that we
lift this item from the table.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew seconded the motion to remove from the
table. Mayor Stewart said that the motion to leave the
resolution on the table must be voted on first because there
was already a motion on the floor.
The motion to leave the resolution amending City of Denton
policies and procedures for holidays on the table passed 5-2,
Council Members Chew and McAdams casting the "nay" vote.
City o£ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 5, 1985
Page 17
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked the Mayor if he would give the people
in the audience permission to stand to signify that they want
this item removed from the table. Mayor Pro Tem Chew said that
tabling this item will not kill the issue; it still must be
dealt with. He asked for a time limit. The Mayor said until
the budget hearings. The Mayor gave permission for the people
in the audience to stand up, which they did. Mayor Pro Tem
Chew announced that he would run for City Council again so that
he could see this issue through. Council Member Hopkins told
Chew that this issue would be discussed by the Council in
August. McAdams said that the City of Denton only has eight
holidays. The City of Fort Worth has nine holidays plus two
personal days. McAdams reminded the Council that this Council
will probably not be discussing this issue, since there may be
new members discussing the issue.
Council Member McAdams asked staff members to find out if we
have an ordinance on the books that would assist people who pay
utilities in with their rent payments, but the apartment did
not pay their utilities, as in the Sun States case in Dallas.
McAdams asked what protection is there for residents in this
matter.
Council Member McAdams asked the Personnel Department for a
report on the current status of the affirmative action hiring
plan. She wants the information of the number of blacks
interviewed and hired. Plus the types of positions blacks held
in the City of Denton.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments.
The Council reconvened into open session. The Council
officially announced their decision to hire a City Attorney,
Debra Drayovitch.
With no futher business, the meeting was ad)ourned.
¥ - v
\ . c, RD o. STEWART, MAYOR
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
0676s
City Council Minutes
February 12, 1985
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 7:00 a.m. in
the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Stephens
1. The Council received the recommendation of the Bond
Committee regarding the proposed street bond election.
Mr. Keith Appleton, Chairperson of the Street Bond Committee,
reported that the committee had been working in four groups, one for
each quadrant of the city. A study had been done of the streets in
each quadrant and a value for distress points had been assigned to
the streets as well as a cost for repairs. These streets had then
been ranked by each subcommittee according to use and importance.
The entire committee had reviewed the ranking, made changes and made
a final list for recommendation to the Council. The committee was
recommending a total bond issue of $10,000,000 which would allow
approximately 14 1/2 miles of streets to be built and 20 miles of
streets to be repaved and overlaid. This amount would not require
an increase in taxes, had no political ramifications and all four
districts of Denton were included. (A copy of the Street Study
Ranking is attached to and made a part of these Minutes.)
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that his only concern was that $10,000,000
would not be adequate to meet the street repair needs.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that this would be a good start
and that perhaps other means of funds would be accessible in the
future. The intent was to arrive at a point where the repairs could
be done on a "pay as you go" basis. Future Councils might have to
approach the voters again for another bond issue.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the $10,000,000 would get things
going and the Council could consider an increase the the street
budget over the next few years.
Mayor Stewart stated that this bond issue would be a start. With
normal expansion and growth, more funds could be dedicated in the
budget in the future which might offset the need for a future bond
issue.
Mr. Appleton stated that everyone on the committee as well as the
Council would have liked to have repaired or rebuilt all of the
streets, but the situation had to be viewed realistically and in
conjunction with the upcoming school bond election.
Council Member Alford stated that this had been a very good working
committee on the street problem and hoped that it might be the
beginning of more community involvement with city issues.
Council Member McAdams stated that the Council should keep in mind
that funding for projects without a tax increse was a normal
operating procedure. The bond issue would allow the city to do more
with the street sooner and was a good way to operate.
Council Member Hopkins stated that a long term concern was that the
city was going to need a north/south and east/west corridor. These
cross-city thoroughfares should be considered soon. This was not
the intent of this particular bond issue but should be kept in mind.
Mr. Appleton stated that the street committee did not look at
extensions of streets, only repairs.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to receive the recommendation of the
Bond Committee. Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 12, 1985
Page Two
2. The Council considered setting a date for a street bond
election.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that staff had checked
with First Southwest Company, the city's legal advisors, and the
City Attorney's office regarding advertising requirements prior to
the bond'election. An ordinance calling the bond election could be
placed on the February 19 Council agenda. The earliest date on
which the election could be held would be March 16. The Bond
Committee's recommendation was to hold the election as soon as
possible and there was a legal requirement that the election must be
held within 90 days from the date the ordinance was approved calling
the election.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he wanted to be sure that all
those concerned with the bond election were absolutely ready to go.
He further stated that staff should proceed with taking bids to
expedite the actual repairs.
Council Member McAdams asked if an election date of March 16 would
give the Bond Committee ample time to advertise and promote the
election.
Mr. Keith Appleton responded that March 16 was the first day of
Spring Break .for the public schools and the two universities. The
consensus of the Bond Committee was that March 30 would be the best
date.
Council Member McAdams stated that March 30 was only one week before
the City Council election on April 6 and felt there was some merit
to a larger spacing.
Council Member Hopkins asked for the thoughts of the other Council
Members on having both elections on April 6.
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting.
Council Member Alford stated that he did not believe the bond
election should be held with the Council election.
City Manager Hartung stated that the bond election should not have
political overtones.
Council Member Stephens stated that the street bond issue was a
political one and would it not be more objectionable to spend money
for two elections rather than just one.
Council Member Hopkins stated that a recent seminar hosted by the
NationaL League of Cities had stated that holding this type of joint
election was not advisable.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked about holding the bond election in
mid-April.
Council Member Hopkins stated that this would coincide with the
income tax filing deadline and might not be an appropriate time for
the bond election.
Mr. Appleton stated that if held in mid- to late March, the Bond
Committee would endeavor to reach students and faculty and encourage
them to vote absentee if they were going to be away during Spring
Break.
Dr. Darrell Bulls, member of the Bond Committee, stated that the
emphasis would be on reaching those voters who were interested in
the streets and encouraging them to vote absentee.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to set the date for the street bond
election for March 23.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 12, 1985
Page Three
Council Member Stephens asked if the election had to be held on a
Saturday.
City Manager Hartung responded that city elections were typically'
held on Saturday.
Motion to hold the election on March 23, 1985 carried unanimously.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
0724j
STREET STUDY RANKINGS #1
Boundaries Distress
Street Name From To Costs Points
Hillcrest Scripture Emery 47,018 60
Avenue C Mulberry Oak 15,798 44
Bolivar Congress University 40,054 44
Kings Row Stuart Sherman 40,445 44
Elm Prairie Highland 7,899 46
Magnolia New Asphalt Hinkle 14,445 47
Elm Congress Oak 26,588 SO
Stuart Kings Row Coronado 34,667 52
Elm Mulberry Prairie 15,798 55
Hercules Picadilly Sheraton 17,334 55
Carroll Northridge Ross 29,040 57
Oak Austin Bolivar 17,424 61
Hercules Redstone Stuart 26 400 62
Stuart Hercules Kings Row 23 112 66
Locust Hickory Oak 5 628 42
Withers Oakland Mingo 17 334 43
Robinwood Emerson University 34,668 44
Paisley Woodford Hettie 8 085 45
Locust Oak McKinney 4 431 46
Paisley Frame Ruddell 13 857 46
First Bolivar Locust 8.667 46
Greenwood Laurel Wood Cherrywood 40 445 47
Kings Row Sherman Yorkshire 23 118 49
Mockingbird McKinney Oriole 100' 28 889 51
Locust McKinney Congress 15 798 51
Emerson Freedom Wilsonwood 86 669 52
Austin McKinney Mulberry 8 66~ 53
Audra McKinney End of Divide 29 480 54
Locust Mulberry Hickory 5 628 55
Mingo Withers Mockingbird 116 160 58
Old North Road University Mill Pond 27 720 59
Frame RRX S. McKinney 17 424 61
Nottingham University Windsor 57 869 62
Greenwood Cherrywood Sherman 11 616 64
Locust University Sherman Drive 5 662 64
Elm University Congress 55 440 66
Paisley Hettie Ruddell 4 356 66
Pertain Mingo Wayne 4 356 66
McCormick Parvin Wiltowwood 17 334 49
Hollyhill Ridgecrest Tennyson 63 557 51
Avenue D Highland IH-35 14 445 54
Hobson Lane Teasley FM-1830 50 094 56
Bonnie Brae Riney Windsor 397 876 75
Bonnie Brae Windsor University 301 557 77
~ture
Bonnie Brae University Scri 899 984 90
Scripture IH-35 Bonn e Brae 347 907 99
West Oak IH-35 Y 207 876 114
Hickory Avenue C Bonnie Brae 372 479 72
Oak Bolivar Jagoe 461 440 70
Hickory Avenue C Welch 200 547 72
Magnolia New Asphalt Bolivar 176 991 74
Bolivar Northridge University 471 615 76
Fry Scripture Oak 113 740 78
Stuart Selene Hercules 123 595 78
Hickory Carroll Cedar 105 045 ?9
Welch Mulberry Hickory 55 694 79
Pershing Stuart Atlas 79 020 97
Avenue C IH-35 Mulberry 556 781 85
Locust Sherman Orr 473 218 79
Audra End of Divide Paisley 61 244 83
Glenwood Windsor University 387 739 85
Avenue A Highland McCormick 210 028 75
Acme Bernard Fort Worth Dr. 61 302 94
Elm Highland Eagle 314 516 85
Locust Eagle Mulberry 47 916 57
West Oak Bonnie Brae Jagoe 321 295 71
Congress Oakland Ponder 55 176 69
Hickory Cedar Austin 116 950 74
Teasley Lane Dallas Drive Ryan Road 1,060 000
Locust Congress University 682 095 82
Total Street Cost for Rank #1 $9,735,044
20.0 Miles Repave and Overlay 14.45 Miles Rebuild
City Council Minutes
February 19, 1985
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Mayor Stewart was attending a meeting with TM?A
financial advisors in New York
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, board appointments and personnel. No
official action was taken.
Due to interested members in the audience, agenda item ~4 was mowed
forward in the agenda order.
4. Receive a status report on Kerley Street bird roost and
consider approval of alternative solutions.
Harlan Jefferson, Administrative Assistant in the Public Works
Department, reported that staff was recommending habitat
modification for the Kerley Street roost. Two methods were
suggested. One would be to trim one-third of the trees and the
other method was the removal of the trees with the exception of
leaving 1 tree per 20 feet radius. Tree removal was the superior
alternative to modify this habitat. An ordinance had been developed
which would require trees in a roost area be spaced 15 feet apart
and the property be clear of debris and vegetation. An exception
would be an area of 4 or more acres which was zoned agricultural,
under single ownership and more than 200 feet from any adjacent
property, with houses, under different ownership and more than 200
feet from a public street or right of way. Notice would be given to
owners to abate. After proper notification, if the owner did not
clear the property, the city would cut and clear the land and the
owner would be charged the cost of the clearing plus an
administrative fee of ~80. The property owner could appeal the
charge (within 15 days) to the City Council. Failure to comply with
the provisions of the ordinance would constitute a misdemeanor and
carry a fine of not less than ~10 or more than ~200. The ordinance
was being reviewed by the City Attorney's office and would be placed
on the March 5 agenda for approval.
Council Member Stephens stated that under this habitat modification
plan, clear cutting might be done of a sizeable area and trees meant
money. Had the staff worked out that problem.
Jefferson responded the proposed ordinance was the same as the
existing weed abatement ordinance.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that the problem with this type of
bird roost was that it was always on private property.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that the Kerley Street roost had been partially cleared in 1983,
with the permission of the property owner.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked how much time a property owner would have
to clear the land after receiving notification.
Jefferson responded 10 days.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew then asked when would the notices be sent.
Jefferson replied 14 days after approval of the ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked when the birds would return to the Kerley
Street roost.
Angelo responded in early May.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Two
Council Member Riddlesperger asked how many property owners were
involved.
Jefferson responded only 1 at the Kertey Street egret roost.
Trimming would be done at various blackbird roosts.
Council Member Stephens stated that previous experience was that the
birds just moved to another location.
Jefferson reported that the egrets would stay near water and staff
felt the habitat modification might cause them to move out of Denton.
Council Member McAdams stated that the Council should be sure about
the ordinance as there were several blackbird roosts in town. The
Council should be sure that this was what they wanted to enforce
throughout the city.
The Council recognized Ms. Lillie Clark.
Ms. Clark stated that she was a resident of Kerley Street and the
problem with the roost was not only the roost area, but the birds
would wander into residents's yards. Ms. Clark also stated that the
birds would return in March, not May and after 1 bird had come in,
the roost was established. She asked the Council to give the matter
consideration now.
The consensus of the Council was to have the proposed ordinance on
the agenda for March 5.
The Council then returned to the regular agenda order.
2. The Council considered revision and update of the City's
four single member election districts (Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4) to
account for annexations.
Acting City Attorney Joe Morris reported that he had reviewed
materials for the upcoming election and problems had been discovered
with the ordinance which established the single member districts.
The districts were set out by census tracts and some were incorrect
in the last ordinance. No revisions had been made to accommodate
annexations since 1982. The annexations on the Council agenda for
this meeting would have to be included. The timing was unfortunate
as any changes before an election required preclearance from the
Justice Department and the changes required a public hearing before
submission. There had been 19 annexations since the last pre-
clearance; however, most involved few people. Morris then presented
a map of the city with the district lines, precinct lines and census
tracts included. He then reported that the first problem was in
District 1. The description of Mingo Road was incorrect. The
district line should have followed the precinct line which would put
the area in District 1 instead of District 3 as was shown on the
map. The second problem was that census tract 207 between Oak and
Hickory appeared in District 4 on the single member district map but
the ordinance called for the tract to be in District 1.
Council Member McAdams asked if staff would need to prepare a
breakdown of the population changes due to the annexations by
percentages of minorities.
Morris responded no; there were no significant changes.
Council Member McAdams asked if census tract 207 could be added to
District 4 in the ordinance so as not to split the County precinct
lines.
Morris responded yes.
Council Member ~Riddlesperger stated that it had been attempted in
the redistricting in 1982 to follow the precinct lines.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Three
Morris added that the intent was to preserve minority distribution
throughout all the districts. He further stated that the Council
could meet on February 26 to hold the public hearing and approve t'he
new district ordinance.
3. The Council considered setting a time and date for a
special meeting to hold a public hearing and approve an ordinance
revising and updating the City's four single member districts
(Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4) to account for annexations.
The consensus of the Council was to hold a public hearing at 5:30
p.m. on Tuesday, February 26 regarding the addition of the
annexations to the district map and to approve a new district
ordinance.
5. The Council received an update on the City of Denton's
Affirmative Action Program.
Kathryn Usrey, Director of Personnel, reported that the information
furnished to the City Council in the agenda back-up material was
current. Since the Affirmative Action Program had been initiated,
improvements had been made but there was still room for more
improvement. Time was being spent in new employee orientation
explaining the Affirmative Action Program and the open door policy.
The City was currently using a program of developmental tracking to
advance personnel in-house and a significant increase in time had
been made to coach supervisors and managers on the Affirmative
Action Program. The Personnel Department was providing career
counseling to allow all employees the opportunity to move up in the
organization. Staff was constantly monitoring procedures for EEO
compliance and had located a minority radio station on which to
advertise for open positions with the City. Increased training was
being done with supervisors to eliminate discrimination.
Council Member McAdams stated that the information provided showed
the hiring done by the City from a County work pool of individuals
and she would like to see just the available work pool for the city
only.
Usrey responded that the Texas Employment Commission furnished data
on the available work pool of the entire County and not just the
City. One reason was that many City of Denton employees did not
live in the city limits.
Council Member McAdams asked for the title and department of all
minorities in the city organization.
Usrey stated that she would furnish Council Member McAdams with that
information.
6. Discussion of the City of Denton City Council strategic
plan.
Due to lack of time, this item was not discussed.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
- PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Mayor Stewart was attending a meeting with TMPA
financial advisors in New York
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of January 15, 1985; the Special Called Meeting of
January 24, 1985; the Special Called Meeting of January 26, 1985;
and the Special Called Meeting of January 29, 1985.
McAdams motion, Alford second to approve the Minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Four
2. Consent Agenda
City Manager Chris Hartung asked the Council to pull item 2.C.1 from
the Consent Agenda.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented with the exception of item 2.C.1. Motion carried
unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9372 - Power transformer
2. Bid ~ 9385 - Asphalt distributor
3. Bid ~ 9391 - Loop 288 water line
4. Bid ~ 9314 - Developer/participation streets
Weston Development Corporation
5. Bid ~ 9402 - Miscellaneous electrical hardware
6. Purchase Order ~ 66837 to Niedermeyer-Martin
Company in the amount of ~31,551.24
7. Purchase Order ~ 67026 to AMP Special Industries
in the amount of ~16,255.00
B. Plats and replats:
1. Approval of preliminary and final replat of the
Claude Hill Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of final replat of the Allan Estates
Mobile Home Park. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. Approval of preliminary and final replat of the
John A. Hann's Addition, Block 1, Lot lA
(formerly King Addition). (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approva,1 of preliminary and final replat of the
W. W. iWright Addition, Block 2, Lot 3R. (The
Plannin~ and Zoning Commission recommends
approvail.)
PULLED BY C. Change Orders:
STAFF
1. Consider approval of Change Order ~1 with Hogan
and Rasor on the design phase of the high service
pumping facility to serve the higher elevations
of the northwest Denton area. (The Public
Utilities Board recommends approval.)
The Mayor Pro Tem then presented a Proclamation for Patriotism Week
beginning on February 18 through 24.
Charles Hopkins, member of the Americanism Committee of the Elks
Club, accepted the Proclamation.
3. The Council redognized Mr. Carl Young requesting aproval
for the use of Fred Moore Park on June 19, 20, 21 and 22 for the
purpose of a Juneteenth celebration, a waiver of the fee for the use
of the park and an extension of the curfew to 12:00 midnight.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Five
Mr. Carl Young, President of the Denton County Viet Nam Veterans
Association, appeared and requested the use of Fred Moore Park for
the Juneteenth celebration. Mr. Young stated that there would be a
parade, slow pitch ball tournament, domino and spade tournaments as
well as free cokes and hot dogs for the children.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to grant the request for the use of
Fred Moore Park on June 19, 20, 21 and 22;, a waiver of the fee for
the park and an extension of the curfew to 12:00 midnight.
Mr. Young then stated that the association had planned for the
summer to institute a job program to match kids with jobs. There
would also be an Easter egg hunt in April. Mr. Young then read a
list of the merchants who had donated goods to the Juneteenth
celebration and expressed his thanks for their support.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. The Council recognized representatives of the North Texas
State University Student Association requesting approval to collect
contributions for the United Way from City of Denton streets and
medians.
Mr. Jud Richards, representing the North Texas State University
Student Association, stated that donations would be solicited from
streets and medians on March 2 from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. All
collected money would be given to the United Way.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to approve the request to
collect contributions from the streets and medians. Motion carried
unanimously.
5. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and service
plan annexing a tract of land consisting of approximately 31.027
acres of land beginning at the southwest corner of Ryan Road and
Teasley Lane (FM 2181). A-8
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that 1 reply form had been mailed with 0 returned. This was the
last step in the annexation process.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-28
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 34.173
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PA~ OF THE ELI PICKETT
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1018, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
6. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and service
plan annexing a tract of land consisting of approximately 5.70 acres
beginning north of Highway 380 West and adjacent and west of Masch
Branch Road. A-9
The following ordinance was presented:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Six
NO. 85-29
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 5.70
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATS OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE S. HUIZAR
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 514, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING
THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and service
plan annexing a tract of land consisting of approximately 131. 761
acres beginning south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin Road.
A-10
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-30
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TR3kCT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 130.55
AC]lES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE B. MERCHANT
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 800, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING
THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and service
plan annexing approximately 112 acres beginning west of 1-35 N
service road, north of Marshall Road, and east of the Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad. A-12
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-31
AN ORDINANCE. ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 111.71
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND B,]ING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE B.B.B. &
C.R.R. CO. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 141, AND THE R. WHITLOCK
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1403, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tern Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
The Council left the regular agenda order and considered the
addendum.
1. The Council recognized representatives of the North Texas
State Fair Association to present an update report on the
possibility of development of a North Texas State Arena nd
Exposition Center.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Seven
Mr. Weldon Burgoon, President of the North Texas State Fair
Association, reported that he wished to clarify the present
situation. A meeting of the association had been held on February
14 and 55 new members were accepted. The total membership now stood
at 203. The purpose of this appearance before the Council was to
give a status report on the proposed arena and exposition center and
to request the 1% unallocated hotel/motel occupancy tax. The
present facilities at the fairgrounds were too small. A steering
committee had looked at arena in other cities and were recommending
one similar to the complex in Austin. Available sites had then been
researched. A suitable site had been located and the association
was attempting to purchase the parcel. Mr. Burgoon concluded by
stating that the association felt they had met all of the guidelines
to qualify for the 1% hotel/motel occupacy tax as a means to assist
in the funding of the project.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he thought this was one of
the best things that had been presented for the citizens in Denton.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the report was very impressiw~
and he was enthusiastic about the project.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that he wanted to make the
Council aware that the staff was preparing a similar request for the
1% unallocated hotel/motel occupancy tax to be used for renovations
to the Civic Center.
9. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Charles S. Watkins representing B. L. Archer (owner) requesting the
establishment of a planned development district (PD) under article
11 of the Denton Zoning Ordinance in respect to a tract of 31.02'7
acres of land situated at the southwestern corner of the Ryan Road
and Teasley Lane intersection. If approved the planned development
district (PD) would permit the following developments:
17 acres of single family housing (SF-6) with a density of
approximately 5.6 units per acre
10 acres of multi-family cluster housing with a density of
17 units per acre
4 acres of general retail and general service type uses
Z-1702
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, representing Mr. Archer, spoke in favor stating
that to the north of the property was an existing mobile home park,,
to the south was vacant land, to the east was a mobile home park and
to the west was vacant. There would be 956,000 square feet lots for
site built homes and cluster housing at a 17 unit per acre density.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that 4 reply
forms had been mailed with 0 returned. This was a low intensity
area and the proposed planned development complied with the Denton
Development Guide. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to approve the petition with the
conditions as attached by the Planning and Zoning Commission..
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Sight
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Myers Development Corporation requesting the establishment of
planned development (PD) zoning on a 131.7 acre tract of land
located on the east side of Nowlin Road approximately 2,200 feet
south of Robinson Road. If approved, the planned development would
permit the following land uses:
Multi-Family - approximately 221 units on 12.3 acres with a
density of 18 units per acre
Cluster Homes - approximately 252 units on 42 acres with a
density of 6 units per acre
Neighborhood Shopping - 2.6 acres
Single Family - approximately 6 units on 2.1 acres with a
density of 3 units per acre
Patio Homes - approximately 83 units on 12.6 acres with a
density of 6.5 units per acre
Estate Homes - approximately 45 units on 15.1 acres with a
density of 3 units per acre
Two Family Garden Homes - approximately 60 units on 9.2
acres with a density of 6.5 units per acre
Golf Course - approximately 34.4 acres Z-1706
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Mr. Craig Curry, representing Nelson Corporation, spoke in favor of
the petition stating that this proposal had previously been before
the Council during the public hearings on annexation. A portion of
this development was on Interstate 35 and the petitioner was now
asking for zoning on the remaining parcel. Mr. Curry then presented
conceptual maps of the development for the Council's information.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that 8 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0 returned in
opposition. This petition was for a portion of the larger Oakmont
Development. A portion of Oakmo~t was located within the city
limits of Denton and a portion within the city limits of Corinth.
The property had been annexed by Council action earlier in the
agenda and the petitioners were now requesting zoning. This
development added a new dimension to diversity of available housing
types for Denton due to the golf course occupying approximately 20%
of the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Burke Engineering, representing Tri-Steel Structures, requesting the
establishment of office (O) district zoning classification on a
tract of five (5) acres of land situated west of and abutting Masch
Branch Road and north of U. S. Highway 380 and more fully described
as lot 1, block l, Tri-Steel Headquarters Addition. If approved,
the site might be used for any type of development permitted in an
office district by the Denton Zoning Ordinance. Z-1709
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that 7 reply
forms had been mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0 returned in
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Nine
opposition. This was a low intensity area and the proposal was for
5 acres of office use. The site was within the Denton Municipal
Airport approach zone so that noise considerations and building
heights would have to be regulated. The Planning and Zoning
Commission had recommended approval.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing, on the petition of
Walter DeRonde requesting the establishment of light industrial (LI)
zoning on a 111.7 acre tract in the B.B.B. and C.R.R. Company
Survey, Abstract 141, and the R. Whitlock Survey, Abstract 1403.
The tract was located north of Westgate Hospital and Medical Center,
aproximately 600 feet west of the Interstate Highway 35 north
service road, and adjacent and east of the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad. Z-1712
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, representing Mr. DeRonde, spoke in favor of the
petition stating that there were 3 owners of the tract of land. The
property was bounded on the south and east by light industrial zoned
land and on the west by a railroad track. It was located in a
moderate intensity node and the petitioner felt that light
industrial land use was consistent and appropriate due to the
proximity of the railroad tracks.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that the zoning
change would be from agricultural to light industrial. The
annexation of the property had been approved by the Council earlier
in the agenda. The southern portion of the property was located in
a moderate intensity area and a portion was located in a high
intensity area. That portion of the tract already within the city
limits was zoned light industrial. The Planning and Zoning
Commission felt it was unlikely that any low density land use would
be possible for this tract. Two reply forms had been mailed with
none returned.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the petition.
Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Charles Watkins, representing the owners, requesting a change in the
current zoning classification from agricultural (A) to the planned
development (PD) district on a tract of approximately 37.6 acres
situated west of and abutting Loop 288 and north of and abutting
Audra Lane and more fully described in the R.B. Longbottom Survey,
Abstract #A-775. If approved, the planned development (PD) would
permit the following mixed uses on the site:
10.7 acres of two family residential (2-F) with a density
of 11.2 units per acre
9.8 acres of multi-family housing with a density of 20
units per acre
4.1 acres of warehouses
6.7 acres of retail/offices and showrooms
4.4 acres of offices and warehouses Z-1715
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, representing STRATA Properties, spoke in favor
of the petition stating that his client was proposing duplexes on
the west side on 10.7 acres and multi-family on 10.8 acres. There
was an existing single family development to the west of the
proposed development. To the north, the developer was proposing 4
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Ten
acres of warehouses. This was a low intensity area and the tract
was located in a moderate intensity node at Highway 380 and Loop
288. Of the total 65.5 acres, 12 acres were required for
right-of-way for the 288 and 380 interchange and 10 acres was an
existing single family neighborhood. Given the location and the
intersection, and the character of the land in this moderate
intensity node, the proposed petition would not be so bad.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that this
petition would be changing the boundaries of the moderate intensity
area. The calculations used regarding intensity/density were the
sale for all developments in Denton; however, this area was at the
intersection of two primary streets and staff felt there would be
traffic flow problems.
Council Member Stephens asked if the city did not want to have
businesses along this street, where would we put them.
Persaud responded that there were other locations for high intensity
uses and felt this development at this location would create traffic
congestion.
Council Member Stephens stated that since the Denton Development
Guide had been written, Loop 288 and University Drive were subject
to major improvements.
Council Member McAdams stated that she was not so sure. University
Drive was nearly impossible to use to move traffic and the Golden
Triangle Mall was a monster. She further believed that for this
location, the development would be too much.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the proposed Loop 288 would not
go to the mall but would cut off and go to Mayhill Road. University
Drive was akso scheduled to be widened.
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the petition.
Motion carried 5 to 1 with Council Member McAdams casting the "nay"
vote.
F. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
T. £. Uland requesting a change in zoning from the multi-family
(FM-1) district to the office (O) zoning classification at 501
Parkway Street. The lot is located at the southwest corner of
Parkway Street and Carroll Boulevard and more particularly described
as lot 8, block 2, of the First Amendment to the First Installment
of the Carroll Park Addition. Z-1719
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Mr. T. E. Uland, the petitioner, spoke in favor and distributed
information to the Council. Mr. Uland stated that he felt that the
city staff had not been objective and the Planning and Zoning
Commission had recommended denial due to potential parking
problems. Mr. Uland presented slides of the location of his
petition and other office uses on Carroll Boulevard. The problem
with Carroll Boulevard was the private driveways which required
people to back out onto a major arterial. There was an article in
the statutes which stated that persons cannot back onto a major
arterial street. In addition, most people drove faster than the
speed limit which added another hazard. Mr. Uland summarized by
stating that he did not feel it was fair for people living on
Carroll Boulevard to not be able to sell their property for the
highest and best use.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Eleven
Mr. Steve Griffin, 607 Parkway, spoke in opposition stating that he
was concerned about the traffic which would be generated by an
office zoning designation and did not feel it would be appropriate
in a neighborhood. The Red Cross building was located on this
section of Parkway and already created parking problems. He also
voiced concern regarding additional curb cuts on Parkway and stated
that there was no place for traffic to go. He did not feel this
would be an asset to the neighborhood.
Ms. Patti Griffin spoke in opposition stating that the homeowners on
Parkway were adamantly opposed to this petition. Parkway dead-ended
into Denton Street by the Junior High School. Carroll Boulevard had
problems with traffic but so did Parkway. She concluded by stating
that she felt the approval of this petition would ruin the
neighborhood and residents were restoring these homes and wanted to
maintain the residential flavor of the area.
Ms. Becky Crow spoke in opposition stating that she lived on Parkway
and was very proud of the neighborhood. No amount of money would
replace the homes located here if the.area were to go commercial.
The traffic was a problem due to the ~arking situation created by
the proximity of the Junior High School..
Mr. Cook, 606 Parkway, spoke in opposition stating that he felt the
Planning and Zoning Commission was correct in recommending denial
for the petition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
The Mayor Pro Tem allowed Mr. Uland five minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Uland stated that he appreciated the thoughts and concerns of
the people in the neighborhood but that the property was currently
zoned for apartments and he felt the office use would be less
offensive to the neighbors.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that 20 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 2 returned in
opposition. This was a low intensity area and current land uses
already had exceeded the limit. The Denton Development Guide
encouraged the maintenance of older, existing neighborhoods. The
Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denial of the
petition.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to deny the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
G. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Robert J. Caraway, represented by Charles Watkins, requesting a
change in the current zoning classification from agricultural (A) to
planned development (PD) district on a tract of 6.34 acres situated
south of U. S. Highway 380 in the vicinity of Cindy Lane and shown
in the William Bryan Survey, Abstract ~148, City of Denton. If
approved, the proposed planned development would permit the
following type of uses:
_ 2.17 acres of multi-family apartment development with a
density of 20 units per acre
4.17 acres of commercial type uses Z-1722
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Mr. Charlie Watkins, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor
stating that this parcel was 6 acres of land located in a large
moderate intensity area on the south side of Highway 380. The
Council had recently approved light industrial zoning in this area.
His client had opted to request a planned development due to a
church which was located adjacent to the property. The proposed 43
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Twelve
units of multi-family housing would be located next to the church to
buffer the commercial uses. This multi-family development would
provide screening and open space. The commercial land use on 4
acres would be set back from the multi-family use. Mr. Caraway had
agreed to the exclusions as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if there was 60 feet of
right-of-way between the church and the street.
Watkins replied this was dedicated right-of-way.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that 4 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 0 in opposition.
This was a moderate activity center and was recommended for diverse
land uses. This petition included multi-family and commercial. The
43 units of multi-family was far below the acceptable density. The
parcel was within the established horizontal zone of the Denton
Municipal Airport and as such had conditions attached to the planned
development.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the petition.
Council Member Stephens asked if the conditions which the neighbors
had requested in the reply forms had been attached.
Persaud replied that these requests for conditions had been
responded to by the Planning and Zoning Commission and as many as
feasible had been considered.
Motion carried unanimously.
H. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
David Spalding, representing Real-Tech, requesting a change in
zoning from the single family (SF-10) district to the planned
development (PD) classification on a 19.8 acre tract in the R.
Beaumont Survey, Abstract 31. The property was located on the east
side of Hinkle Drive approximately 800 feet north of University
Drive (U.S. Highway 380). If approved, the planned development
would permit the development of a retirement campus with the
following land uses:
Single Family Attached - 67 units on 9.5 acres with a
density of 7 units per acre
Multi-Family - 183 units on 5.7 acres with a density
of 32 units per acre
Health Care Facility - 60 bed facility on 1.3 acres Z-1724
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dave Spalding, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor
stating that the proposed development was located north of Denton
Center, south of Good Samaritan Village, west of the fairgrounds and
east of a residential subdivision. He had met with staff and with
individuals from the adjoining neighborhood. Real-Tech was
proposing a retirement campus type development. This site had many
amenities, such as trees, and proximity to a bank and Good Samaritan
Village.
Mr. Larry Good, architect, spoke in favor and presented slides of
other retirement campus developments with which his firm had been
associated. Most of the residents of these retirement campuses were
between the ages of 65 and 85. The development would have a central
dining room and activity center.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985 '
Page Thirteen
Mr. Charles Starnes, engineer, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that a hydraulic study had been performed. A portion of the
property was in the flood plain; however, channelization and
retention ponds would alleviate the problem. There was no problems
with utilities. A market study had been completed regarding the
traffic and no problems were anticipated.
Council Member Stephens asked if the petitioner had tried to work
out to have a street outlet to Carroll Boulevard north of the
fairgrounds.
Starnes responded that this had been discussed with the staff and
was given some consideration. This could be handled during the
platting process. His firm would perfer not to do this due to
security concerns. They would like to have only 1 access in and out.
Council Member Riddlesperger complimented the petitioner on the
proposed development plan.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that this
planned development was for a retirement center and the density and
intensity would not be violated. The potential drainage problems
had been addressed and the petitioners had met with the neighbors°
The proposal was consistent with the Denton Development Guide°
There had been 17 reply forms mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0
returned in opposition. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
recommended approval.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
I. The Council held a public hearing to consider an
ordinance amending Article 26 of Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton to provide for referral and review
of the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to deny a
request for a change in zoning to the City Council.
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, spoke in
favor stating that this ordinance would make official what had been
practiced for a long time. Any denial by the P&Z must be appealed
to the City council within l0 days.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Article 26 of Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Denton.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-32
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 26 OF APPENDIX B-ZONING OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PROVIDE FOR
REFERRAL AND REVIEW OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL ONLY UPON THE TIMELY REQUEST OF THE
APPLICANT; A_ND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Fourteen
3. The Council held a public hearing to consider an
ordinance repealing Article l0 of Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton; enacting a new Article 10 to
provide for the issuance of specific use permits; providing for a
penalty in the maximum amount of ~1,000 for violation thereof;
providing for a severability clause, and providing for an effective
date.
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Jeff Meyer, .Director of Planning and Community Development, spoke in
favor stating that the ordinance would be an improvement in the
existing legislation as it provided a better criteria. A request
for a specific use permit would expire within 1 year. Ail in
violation would pay a penalty.
Mr. Burch spoke in opposition stating that he believed the ~l,000
should not be charged in existing violations and that they should be
"grandfathered" in.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
repealing Article 10 of Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Denton and enacting a new Article 10.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-33
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE 10 OF APPENDIX B-ZONING OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; ENACTING A NEW ARTICLE 10 TO
PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIFIC USE PERMITS; PROVIDING
FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF ~1000 FOR VIOLATION
THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE D~E.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
K. The Council held a public hearing to consider an
ordinance amending Article 12 of Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton to provide for an amended
definition of "Kindergarten or Nursery;" declaring all existing
kindergarten or nursery facilities legal uses; and providing for an
effective date.
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that the Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously approved the
ordinance which was based upon a previous action of the Council in
an effort to straighten out the problem with day care centers. If
an existing day care center followed state regulations, they would
be legal; if they did not adhere to state regulations, they
technically were not day care centers.
Council Member Hopkins asked if persons who kept children in their
homes were legal day care centers.
Meyers responded the existing ordinance stated that 5 or more
children being kept by a non-parent constituted a day care center.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he knew of some citizens who kept
10 to 15 children in their home.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Fifteen
Meyer responded that he suspected that these people would be in
violation of the state regulations; however, the staff's only
interest was that of land use.
No one spoke in opposition.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Article 12 of Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Denton.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-34
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 12 OF APPENDIX B-ZONING OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDED DEFINITION
OF "KINDERGARTEN OR NURSERY," DECLARING ALL EXISTING
KINDERGARTEN OR NURSERY FACILITIES LEGAL USES; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE~
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
10. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts
for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services;
providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for
an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-35
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.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts
for public works or improvements; providing for the expenditure of
funds therefore; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-36
_ AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WO~S OR IMPROVEMENTS:
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE: AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Sixteen
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of
materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the
provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements
of competitive bids; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-37
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a proposed pro rata and oversize agreement with Greenway
Plaza (Tony Raposa, owner and/or his assigns) for a new 12" water
line from Thunderbird Street south along IH-35 service road to
University Drive approximtely 1900 feet to connect to the existing
12" water lille on the south side of University Drive.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was as routine
oversizing for a development north of IH-35 and University.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-38
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY'S
PA~?ICIP~ION IN THE COST OF INSTALLING OVERSIZE WATERLINE
FACILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT;
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Stephens stated that several property owners were
between the existing and extended water line. He then asked if the
development would have a street which would connect to Payne to give
an access out of Greenway in addition to the one to the IH-35
service road..
Nelson responded that Rick Svehla would have to respond to that
question.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would like to see an addition
access road back into the Greenway addition.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
~. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving participation in a water shed environmental assessment
study with the North Central Texas Council of Governments and six
metroplex utilities.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reporting that the city was
working actively with the North Central Texas Council of Governments
in assessing and analyzing any pollution problems in area leakes.
The City had already done some research in this area but this study
would be much more in-depth.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Seventeen
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-39
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AN
AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY'S PA~PICIPATION IN A NORTH CENTRAL
TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT'S (NCTCOG) RESERVOIR WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye. Motion
carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Appendix A, Article III, Section 4.09, extensions of water
and sewer mains, sub-section G, service from existing substandard
size lines.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this amendment to
the existing ordinance dealt with substandard water line. In the
case where a water line was substandard, the current policy was not
to allow people to tie on. With commercial development, the next
larger size line was required to be used and extended across the
frontage of the property. Individuals have been allowed to tie on
to substandard lines. This amendment stated that a person
requesting approval of a development (if the lot was within 300 feet
of an existing fire hydrant) where an existing water line was
determined to be substandard, could pay to the city a pro rata
charge in an amount that would have been charged for tapping a water
line of sufficient capacity in lieu of installing an additional
water line. Upon approval of the development and the payment of the
pro rata charges and other applicable tapping, etc. charges, the
person could then connecting to the existing substandard water line.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-40
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A (DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE)
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PROVIDE
FOR PAYMENT OF PRO RATA CHARGES IN LIEU OF INSTALLATION OF
REQUIRED WATER LINES TO SERVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT
DEVELOPMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
calling a street bond election for the City of Denton to be held
March 23, 1985.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, reported that the ordinance was
presented in the agenda back-up material and would call the election
of March 23. The election would be for ~10 million for street
improvements for those street which were ranked as priority 1
streets by the bond committee.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-41
ORDINANCE CALLING A BOND ELECTION
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Eighteen
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
calling and ordering an election for the City of Denton for the
purpose of electing four Councilpersons for Places 1, 2, 3 and 4 to
be held on April 6, 1985.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-42
AN ORDINANCE CALLING AND ORDERING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD IN
T~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ON APRIL 6, 1985, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ELECTING FOUR COUNCILPERSONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS FOR PLACES 1, 2, 3 AND 4;
ORDERING THAT THE PUNCH CARD ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM
ADOPTED BY DENTON COUNTY BE USED IN SAID ELECTION;
PROVIDING FOR VOTING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION
OFFICIALS AND PROVIDING FOR ELECTION SUPPLIES.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
Council Member Alford left the meeting.
I. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving a contract
between the City of Denton and Charles Willis and Associates.
Bill Angel(), Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that approximately two month earlier, the Council had tentatively
chosen WiliLis and Associates to prepare the master plan for the
Denton Municipal Airport. The grant award had been received from
the F~ and staff was now asking to formally approve the contract.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-43
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND CHARLES WILLIS & ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES REGARDING AN AIRPORT
MASTER PLANNING STUDY; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
CONTRACT; APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
J. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending and reenacting in its entirety Article III of Chapter 18 of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton establishing a Police
Reserve Force; providing for manner of appointment, minimum
qualifications and status of Police Reserve Officers; repealing all
ordinances in conflict herewith; and declaring an effective date.
Council Member Alford joined the meeting.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the present ordinance was
out of date and did not comply with state statutes. Chief Lynch and
Police staff had worked with the legal department to amend the
existing ordinance to bring it into compliance.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Nineteen
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-44
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A~D REENACTING IN ITS F~NT IRETY
ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING A POLICE RESERVE FORCE;
PROVIDING FOR MANNER OF APPOINTMENT, MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
AND STATUS OF POLICE RESERVE OFFICERS; REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
11. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving the submission of an application to the Texas Criminal
Justice Division requesting funding for~a Juvenile Police Officer.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this was a continuation of
an existing grant.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Council of the City of
Denton to authorize the submission of an application to the Texas
Criminal Justice Division requesting funding for a Juvenile Police
Officer to augment the City's Juvenile Law Enforcement Program; and
WHEREAS, Article 4413 (32a), V.T.C.S. was amended to enable
the Criminal Justice Division of the State of Texas to allocate
grants and administer criminal justice programs on a statewide
level; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is eligible to receive such
funds and desires to promote the public safety and well-being of its
citizens through increasing the effectiveness of the Denton Police
Department in its law enforcement relating to juveniles;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
certifies that the City is eligible to receive a funding allocation
from the Texas Criminal Justice Division for a Juvenile Police
Officer to augment the City's Juvenile Law Enforcement Program and
hereby authorizes the staff to submit an application for such funds.
SECTION II.
That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
City Manager, or his designee, to represent and act on behalf of the
City of Denton in working with the Criminal Justice Division in
regard to such grant application.
SECTION III.
That a copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the
Texas Criminal Justice Division and the North Central Texas Council
of Governments.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Twenty
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 19th day of February, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving t~he submission of an application to the Texas Criminal
Justice Division requesting funding for the city's Crime Prevention
Program.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this also was a
continuation of an existing grant.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Council of the City of
Denton to authorize the submission of an application to the Texas
Criminal Justice Division requesting funding for the City's Crime
Prevention Program; and
WHEREAS, Article 4413 (32a), V.T.C.S. was amended to enable
the Criminal Justice Division of the State of Texas to allocate
grants and administer criminal justice programs on a statewide
level; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton is eligible to receive such
funds and desires to protect the safety and well-being of its
citizens through the reduction of crime; NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
certifies that the City is eligible to receive a funding allocation
from the Texas Criminal Justice Division for the City's Crime
Prevention Program and hereby authorizes the staff to submit an
application for such funds.
SECTION II.
That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
City Manager, or his designee, to represent and act on behalf of the
City of Denton in working with the Criminal Justice Division in
regard to such grant application.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Twenty-One
SECTION III.
That a copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the
Texas Criminal Justice Division and the North Central Texas Council
of Governments.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 19th day of February, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution to
amend the Fox-51 lease at the Denton Municipal Airport.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that on January 15 the Council had approved an amendment to the
Fox-51 lease at the airport for additional hangars. It had been
found that a portion of the property to be used for the hangars had4~
been covered in the first lease agreement. This resolution was
amend the first lease to include all of the property.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the City of Denton leases land upon the Denton
Municipal Airport to Fox-51 Limited by lease agreement dated July 1,
1980; and
WHEREAS, Fox-51 Limited, acting by and through its
President Mr. F. D. Strickler, on January 15, 1985, exercised its
option to lease additional property on the Airport at three and
one-half cents per square foot per year for the purpose of building
an aircraft hangar and related aircraft ramp; and
WHEREAS, during subsequent planning and development of that
hangar it was found that an additional 5,500 square feet of property
is required to accommodate the needs of Fox-51 Limited; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
believes it to be in the interest of efficient Airport Operations to
lease additional property to Fox-51 Limited;
NOW, THEREFORe, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The attached amendment to the airport lease agreement of
July 1, 1980, between the City of Denton and Fox-51 Limited is
hereby approved.
55 r
City Council Minutes
Meeting Of February 19, 1985
Page Twenty-Two
SECTION II.
The Mayor is -hereby authorized to execute the attached
amendment on behalf of the City and the City Secretary is hereby
directed to affix this Resolution, with the executed amendment
attached, to the original airport lease agreement dated July l,
1980, inscribing on the original agreement the fact it has been
amended and the effective date of such amendment.
SECTION III.
The Resolution passed and approved on January 15, 1985
which amended the airport lease with Fox-51, Limited is hereby
rescinded.
SECTION IV.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 19th day of February, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWARP, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving plans and specification for the Fox-51 hangar.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that the staff had received and reviewed the plans and specification
for the Fox-51 hangars. The material was the same as the existing
hangars.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the engineering specifications had
been approved.
Angelo responded no. The approval of this resolution did not that
the plans would not have to go before the Building Official.
Council Member Hopkins stated that his concern was that the hangars
be structurally sound.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L O T I O N
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has leased land upon the Denton
Municipal Airport to Fox-51 Limited by lease agreement dated July 1,
1980; and
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Twenty-Three
WHEREAS, Fox-51 Limited desires to construct a 100 X 142
foot aircraft hangar and related office, storage and ramp facilities
upon the leased premises; and
WHEREAS, the lease agreement provides that the plans and
specifications and the location of the improvements, the estimated
cost of such construction, and the agreed estimated life of such
structure be approved by the City Council of the City of Denton
before any such construction may commence; and
WHEREAS, the plans and specifications, the location and the
estimated cost and life of such construction have been reviewed by
the appropriate offices of the City staff and the Airport Advisory
Board and found to be in compliance with applicable City Ordinances
and policies; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The plans and specifications for the proposed construction
of an airport hangar and related office, storage and ramp facilities
by Fox-51 Limited, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, at the location shown thereon, are hereby approved.
SECTION II.
The estimated cost of such construction of ~60,330.30 and
the estimated life of the proposed structure of thirty (30) years is
hereby approved.
SECTION III.
T~ Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 19th day of February, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing members of the City of Denton Police Reserve Force.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this resolution was to be
approved in conjunction with the ordinance previously considered.
The members of the Police Reserve Force must be approved by
resolution.
Council Member Stephens asked what type of training the reserve
received.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Twenty-Four
Lt. Paul Carberry responded that the reserves must qualify the same
as other officers including qualification with weapons.
The following resolution was presented:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, by
Ordinance No. 85-44, has created and established a Police Reserve
Force pursuant to Article 998a., V.T.C.S; and
WHEREAS, Article 998a., V.T.C.S., requires that the City
Council approve persons appointed to the Police Reserve Force before
those persons may carry a weapon or otherwise act as a peace
officer; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best
interests of the public safety and security of the citizens of
Denton to authorize members of the Police Reserve Force to exercise
the full authority allowed by statute; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
Section I.
The following members of the Police Reserve Force are
hereby approved:
Pam Allen Kerry Jones
Mike Barrow Dana Kaisner
Art Behrens Chuck Kull
Linda Cagle John Lassiter
Alice Gore Shirley Jean Lawson
Louis Heath Robert Lockett
Brian Joseph Horn Ivey Price
Ronald H. Hull Shep Scogin
Mike Hupp
Section II.
The members of the Police Reserve Force approved in Section
I hereof may carry weapons only when authorized by the Chief of
Police and when discharging official duties as duly constituted
peace officers.
Section III.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 19th day of February, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATT E ST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
ROBERT B. HUNTER
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 19, 1985
Page Twenty-Five
Stephens motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
12. The Council considered revisions to the FY 85 Capital
Improvements Plans (Utility Department).
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that as the year
progressed, staff reviewed the Capital Improvements Plan with an eye
to priorities and schedules. In FY 84 certain projects had been
programmed in but could not be accomplished as bonds had not been
sold. Several of these project would be moved forward this year.
The revised CIP called for the sewer lines on Eagle Drive, Carroll
Boulevard and Locust Street. Approximately ~250,000 less than
projected would be expended this year than had been programmed in.
This would help the profit picture at the end of the year.
McAdams motion, Alford second to approve the revisions to the FY 85
CIP. Motion carried unanimously.
13. The Council was to consider authorizing the use of
explosives for blasting at the new landfill site.
This item was removed from the agenda by staff.
14. There was no official action on Sxecutive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
15. The following items of new business were suggested by
Council Members for future agendas:
1. Council Member Riddlesperger asked that documents be
prepared to be sent to the State legislature opposing the proposed
legislation requiring publication of notice of intention to annex
property.
2. Council Member Stephens asked staff to prepare a proposal
to establish a corridor for the southern extension of Loop 288.
3. Council Member Stephens asked for a report on cost
estimates for new sidewalks and repairs to existing sidewalks for
the Carroll Boulevard, Eagle Drive and Highland Street area.
4. Council Member Hopkins asked for a report of the impact on
the City of Denton by loss of Federal revenues.
5. Council Member Hopkins asked that a meeting be arranged
with the Flow Hospital Board of Directors to look at the situation
with Flow.
6. Council Member Hopkins asked for a report in the near
future regarding the Parks and Recreation master plan.
0751j
City Council Minutes
February 26, 1985
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 5:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
P~SENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Hopkins, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
Assistant City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City
Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Alford was out of town on business
1. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing to consider the
adoption of an ordinance establishing four single member districts.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, reported that the information on the
four districts had been recreated from the 1980 census and all
annexations since 1982 had been added. In the District 4 there had
been an increase in the minority break-down of the population;
however, this had been the only significant change.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked what was the formula used to arrive the the
percentages.
Carson responded the breakdown was taken from the 1980 census. The
block divisions of the census tracts were the combined percentages
of the minority breakdown by districts.
Mayor Stewart stated that there was an increase in the population in
District 1.
Carson responded there were increases in two census tract areas.
Mayor Stewart stated that there was an increase in population of 335
in District 1.
Carson replied that annexations had been added to the previous
census tract information.
Council Member Stephens stated that the new information did include
all annexation from 1982. The original census had considered a
certain vacancy rate for apartments and asked if staff had
considered a lower vacancy rate in these calculations.
Carson responded that staff was legally required to work from census
information only.
Mayor Stewart stated that it was possible to petition the Census
Bureau at mid-term for new data and asked if that had been
considered.
Carson responded that it had been considered but staff was working
under a time deadline to submit the revised information to the
Justice Department prior to the April elections.
2. Ordinances
The following ordinance was presented:
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 26, 1985
Page Two
NO. 85-45
AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND DESCRIBING FOUR SINGLE MEMBER
ELECTION DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS;
DETERMINING THE POPULATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND OF
EACH SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING THAT THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF
PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Resolutions
Ar The Council considered' approval of a resolution
approving an Airport Lease Agreement with Mr. Benjamin Bennitt.
Clint Lynch, Airport Manager, distrilbuted an attachment to the
proposed lease agreement. Lynch reported that the area in question
was approximately 11 acres of property south of the FAA ramp and the
lease would be for a full Fixed Blase Operator facility. The
agreement was the standard 20 year lease with four 5 year extensions
provided. Cost of the lease would be 3 1/2~ per square foot per
year. Also the lessee would pay to the City 10% of all hangar and
tie-down rental fees and a 5% fuel flow fee.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that there would be some costs incurred by the city. An entrance
road would have to be constructed as well as the extension of a
water line. The total cost would be approximately ~47,000. These
two improvements would also serve approximately 29 acres surrounding
the lease property. With 2 FBOs at the airport, the city could
assume control of the Unicom. This would mean an additional staff
member. The payback of all costs for improvements would take
approximately 3.6 years.
Council Member Stephens asked where the water line would come from.
Angelo responded that there was a 12" water line on Airport road.
Council Member Stephens asked regarding the cost stating that it
initially was very expensive.
Clint Lynch responded that the line would be extended 1600 feet.
Cost figures had been obtained from the Water Department and
included the line and hydrants.
Council Member Stephens asked if the construction would be done by
City crews or contracted.
Angelo responded the work would probably be contracted out.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the design work
would be done in-house.
Lynch presented a map of the prospective lease proprty and water
lines.
Council Member Hopkins asked what size the water line would be.
Lynch responded 8".
Council Member Stephens asked if this would accommodate future
growth.
Lynch responded yes.
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 26, 1985
Page Three
Angelo reported that the area could be served from the water main on
Airport Road but in order to meet City codes regarding fire safety
requirements, staff was asking for an 8" line.
Mr. Benjamin Bennitt and Mr. Gerald Smith were recognized.
Mr. Bennitt stated that he was happy to have an opportunity to
provide this service to the community.
Mayor Stewart asked if Mr. Bennitt was to be a Piper aircraft
representative.
Mr. Bennitt responded that the Piper organization had factory direct
sales and representative sales. He had good rapport with the Brown
Piper organization in San Antonio who were distributors and Mr.
Brown was looking forward to having representation in Denton.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Airport Advisory Board had met
and approved this lease.
Angelo responded the Airport Advisory Board had met and had voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the lease.
The following resolution was approved:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the City of Denton owns property available for
lease at the Denton Municipal Airport; and
W~EREAS, Benjamin A. Bennitt, doing business
as , desires to lease property at the
Denton Municipal Airport and to use the same for a fixed base
operation; and
WHEREAS, fixed base operation services are essential to the
proper accommodation of general and commercial aviation at the
Airport; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Advisory Board has reviewed and
recommended approval of the attached proposed lease agreement; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The Airport Lease Agreement (Fixed Base Operator) between
the City of Denton and Benjamin A. Bennitt, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved.
SECTION II.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the attached
lease agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION III.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED A~ND APPROVED this the 26th day of February, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWAR~, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City Council Minutes
Meeting of February 26, 1985
Page Four
ATTE ST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the resolution. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried.
unanimously.
4. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further items of business ~~~~ /
, the meet' as journe .
~ C~RD -~ .IST~. W~ ~- ~[AYOR~
CHARLOTTE IALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
0752j
City Council Minutes
March 5, 1985
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room to hold a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation
Board.
COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager~ Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
PARKS BOARD
PRESENT: Members Travelle, Kirchoff
1. The Council received a report on the Parks and Recreation
Survey and Master Plan.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, introduced Susan
Hudson from North Texas State University to present the report.
Ms. Hudson reported that an accurate sampling of the community was
the goal of the sample size of the survey. A random sampling using
the Cole Directory was used as the directory covered all streets and
geographical locations of the city. Only those persons without
telephones were not listed. Five hundred fifty names were selected
from the directory and four hundred were included in the survey. A
comparison of known population in the areas and the survey sample
population did correspond. Demographic information was obtained to
determine if the geographical locations also included other
variables among the sample space, such as years in the city, etc.
Ms. Hudson stated that the survey did reflect the entire community.
Results of the survey showed that the parks most used by adults were
North Lakes, the Civic Center and McKenna Park. These parks were
considered to be more community rather than neighborhood
facilities. Mack Park and Denia Recreation Center were primarily
sports complexes. Also, adults tended to use the smaller parks less
while children use them more. Those persons surveyed whose yearly
income was between $20,000 and $30,000 used the parks the least of
those questioned. Geographical location did not seem to be a factor
in park usage. The number one facility mentioned as needed as
additional facilities in the parks was another municipal swimming
pool. In general, the survey showed a very high attitude towards
the city parks. Those persons who have lived in Denton for 16 or
more years were inclined to disagree with the purchase of more land
for parks.
Regarding recreation centers, only 50% of the adult sample space
responded that they used the centers. This could be misleading due
to the fact that this was a very small sample space and many people
do use the centers. Respondents indicated that the most frequently
used method of learning about the activities offered in Denton was
through the newspaper. Attitude statements were highly favorable
and there was agreement that the fees assessed were reasonable.
Those residents who have lived in Denton 5 years or less tended to
be non-users of the recreation centers. This could be due to lack
of information regarding activities available.
Regarding the swimming pools, while 92% of those responded were
aware of the public swimming pools in town only 25% used the Civic
Center pool. The use of the pool depended on geographical location
and the availability of private pools.
Respondents to the survey were asked to rank the four possible
directions the Denton Parks and Recreation Department would take
over the next ten years with the following results:
1. to maintain and beautify current parks
2. to expand recreational programs/activities
3. to acquire and develop additional park land
4. to construct recreation facilities
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Two
One reason for the first choice could be that maintaining existing
facilities and expanding programs was less costly.
The survey next asked for a ranking of various facility development
proposals with the following results:
1. construction of a centrally located community center with
an indoor pool, teen center and fitness center
2. expansion of the Senior Center
3. construction of swimming pools for the north and south
areas of town when the population in the areas warranted
4. construction of a gym located at an elementary school in
the northeast section of town
5. expansion of the Tennis Center at North Lakes
6. construction of a gym located at an elementary school in
the southeast section of town when the population warranted
There was a conflict regarding the issue of acquisition of new park
land and the development of existing park land with 54.4% chosing to
acquire new land and 30.8% chosing to development the existing parks.
Regarding programs, the first choice was for a year-round swimming
program for the handicapped as well as development of senior citizen
programs at locations in addition to the Senior Center.
In response to questions regarding beautification proposals, the
first choice was to improve and beautify the median on University
Drive and second choice was for landscaping and beautification of
those highly visible public areas in Denton.
A profile had been drawn of those who would either support or not
support a bond issue to expand and improve current parks and
facilities. Most non-supporters wanted to maintain and beautify
first and then expand programs. The major difference between
supporters and non-supporters was that non-supporters were also
non-users of parks and recreation centers.
The conclusions which had been drawn from the survey were as follows:
1. there is widespread support of the parks and recreation
programs
2. parks were used more often than the recreation centers
3. the parks most frequently used by the citizens were
McKenna, North Lakes and the Civic Center
4. the majority of those surveyed did not use the recreation
centers
5. the newspaper was the most effective method of publicity
used by the Parks and Recreation Department
6. only 25% of the citizens use the Civic Center pool
7. citizens want to take care of what they have before
embarking on a capital expansion program for additional
facilities and parks
8. if additional development does take place, the highest
preference would be for construction of a centrally located
Community Center with an indoor pool, teen center and
fitness center
2. The Council held a discussion of a mandatory dedication
ordinance.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, reported that
staff had met with Denton Independent School District
representatives regarding a cooperative agreement with reference to
park sites. Staff was trying to enhance an already good cooperative
arrangement with the school district and the DISD had looked very
favorable on the proposal. The survey which had been presented was
to determine which portions of the Parks master plan had the support
of the citizens. Future neighborhood park sites had been a priority
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Three
in the survey. With the growth Denton was experiencing, these park
sites were becoming more and more difficult to obtain. One method
for obtaining suitable neighborhood park land was through mandatory
dedication. The Parks and Recreation Board was interested in this
method and would like to give a report on their philosophy.
Gary Kirchoff, Parks Board, stated that mandatory dedication had
been ruled as unconstitutional as it was felt that it was the taking
of property without recompense. The only avenues available to
obtain park land was as a gift from an individual, for the city to
purchase the land, or by mandatory dedication. The feeling of the
board was that as developers came into the city to build
neighborhoods, they should plan for park sites in the development.
The city needed to have parks and needed to have the land committed
for this use through mandatory dedication.
Council Member Hopkins asked if there would be a time limit set for
the development of the parks.
Kirchoff responded that after 3 years, if undeveloped as a park, the
city would either return the land or pay for it.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would not like to see the city
take the best portion of development land for a park site.
This concluded the joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board.
The Council then convened into the work session at 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council held a discussion of the City of Denton Council
strategic plan.
Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager, stated that this discussion
was to walk through the plan and to get feedback from the Council°
McKean asked if staff needed to do further work on the Mission
Statement as this represented the philosophy of the City of Denton°
This statement would be distributed down to all types of people.
All of the goals for the city should fit into the Mission
Statement. McKean then asked the Council if the data was complete
or if more information was required.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that 1985 estimates could be
added to some of the categories.
Council Member McAdams asked if the Council could have up-to-date
information on revenue sharing.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that the city had potentially a
very important document. This would be an extremely useful tool in
maintaining continuity for the staff and future Councils.
2. The Council adjourned into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members
Alford, Hopkins, McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager, Acting City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Four
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of FeDruary 5, 1985 and the Special Called Meeting
of February 12, 1985.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor then read a proclamation for National Professional Social
Work Month for March of 1985. The proclamation was accepted by Ms.
Judy Watkins.
2. Consent Agenda
Staff asked that item 2.A.6 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to approve the Consent Agenda with the
exception of item 2.A.6. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9403 - Herbicides/insecticides
2. Bid # 9404 - Animal Control unit
3. Bid # 9407 - Remote terminal unit
4. Bid # 9408 - Air compressor
5. Bid # 9409 - Roof for new addition to the
Municipal Building
REMOVED BY
STAFF 6. Bid # 9400 - Property to value City fixed assets
7. Purchase Order # 66388 to Crane Packing Company
in the amount of $3,226.40
8. Purchase Order # 66959 to Interstate Equipment
Rental in the amount of $3,260.27
9. Purchase Order # 67002 to Heil Company in the
amount of $3,244.71
10. Purchase Order # 67080 to Boyd Excavation in the
amount of $7,020.00
11. Purchase Order # 67203 to Jagoe Public
Construction Company in the amount of S27,375.00
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of preliminary plat of the Fletcher's
State Fair Corny Dog Addition. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of preliminary plat of the Infinity
Strata Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
3. Approval of preliminary plat of the Mack Park
Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of final replat of the Owsley Park
Addition, Block 11, Lot 12A. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Five
5. Approval of final replat of the Thompson
Addition, Phase I, Lot 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
6. Approval of preliminary plat of Sunburst, Phase
II. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Brian Kruger requesting a change in zoning from the multi-family
(MF-1) classification to the planned development (PD) classification
for office use at 614 West Hickory Street. The property was more
particularly described as lot 3 of the McKennon Addition. Z-1701
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Brian Kruger, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that the
proposed planned development was located at 614 West Hickory. A
complete historic renovation would be accomplished and he would then
apply for historic landmark designation for the structure. A wood
fence on the north property line would screen the parking lot from
the adjoining property. Mr. Kruger then presented a plat of the
area. Surrounding zoning was multi-family with older homes
presently located on the lots. He stated that he felt this petition
would be helpful to the Hickory/Oak Street corridor as renovation of
the structure as a home would not be feasible.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what was located on lot 8.
Mr. Kruger responded that this was a planned development with an
attorney's office on the lot.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that lot 6 was the location of a
bakery.
Mr. Kruger stated that lot 10 was a multi-unit apartment complex.
He further stated that renovation was one way to preserve the
history of the neighborhood. The remodeled structure would not
evoke an office building feeling. There would be no detached signs
in the yard and the parking lot would be screened. The home would
be restored to its original character.
Ms. Barbara Russell, realtor, spoke in favor stating that she had
worked with Mr. Kruger on previous occasions and that he had the
best intentions for this development and did quality work. The
renovation would be an asset to the neighborhood which was an area
in transition.
Mike Cockran, resident of block 328, spoke in opposition stating
that he owned lot 2 as shown on the plat. THis was an older home
which had been used as a five-plex. When he had moved into the
neighborhood five years ago, he had checked the zoning and found it
all to be multi-family. He had his property rezoned to single
family and now had a designation as an historical landmark. His
objection was to changing the rules in the middle of the game. The
multi-family zoning was at least protection that people would live
in the neighborhood as opposed to office use. Mr. Cockran stated
that he believed the remainder of the block should stay
multi-family. The house in this particular zoning case had been a
residence until recently. Mr. Kruger had stated at the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting that he loved this neighborhood but if he
could not get the office zoning for the property, he would remove
the house and build apartments or condominiums. This was an oddly
shaped lot which required a variance to allow for a parking lot.
The lot had the correct square footage to be zoned multi-family but
it did not have the correct configuration. Mr. Cockran stated that
he felt it was asking too much of the City to bend the rules and to
City of Denton City Council MinUtes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Six
lessen the requirements so as to allow Mr. Kruger the maximum return
on his investment. Mr. Cockran then presented an overhead
projection of the plat and spoke to the issue of the parking lot.
There would not be adequate room for automobiles to back out and the
lot backed up to other residences with a joint driveway. There was
also a concern regarding what type of office use would only require
4 parking spaces. There was a potential future problem with an
office in the building being used by a business which generated high
traffic. Mr. Cockran concluded by stating that he was asking for
the Council's protection.
Council Member McAdams stated that the property as well as the
adjoining lot were currently zoned multi-family. It would be easy
to purchase both lots and develop as multi-family use. She asked
Mr. Cockran if he had considered this future risk and if he was
willing to gamble that the property would not be developed as all
multi-family.
Mr. Cockran responded that he was willing to gamble.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked Mr. Cockran which lots he owned.
Mr. Cockran responded that his home was on lot 3 and he also owned
lot 2.
Council Member Hopkins asked what was on lot 4.
Mr. Cockran responded that a small apartment complex was on lot 4.
Council Member Hopkins asked if Mr. Cockran did not feel that
planned development zoning was more restrictive.
Mr. Cockran replied yes but he did not want this area to turn into a
strip of office uses.
Ms. Paula Carpenter, resident of block 329-1ot 2, spoke in
opposition stating that she was concerned about the precedent which
would be set if this petition was granted. The only people who
decided if an area was in transition was the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council. This area had been residential for
100 years and the current residents liked it. She had a substantial
investment in her home and had taken a chance when she moved into
this neighborhood. If the zoning were granted, she would prefer the
facade of the house in the petition be restored.
Council Member McAdams asked Ms. Carpenter if she understood that
the current zoning was multi-family and if the petitioner wanted to
develop apartments, the City Council would have no control over that.
Ms. Carpenter responded yes; she would prefer the multi-family
zoning and have the house restored as a residence.
Mark Smith distributed maps and spoke in opposition stating that
several of the neighbors attended the Planning and Zoning Commission
public hearing for this petition. The map which he distributed had
the proposed historical district locations indicated as well as
those homes which currently held the historic landmark designation.
Also shown were the lots which were zoned for multi-family uses.
The fabric of the neighborhood was overwhelmingly residential. Mr.
Smith stated that he felt it would be viable and cost effective to
renovate the house and use as rental property. On Hickory Street,
houses rented for $350 to $725 per month. There was a nice mix in
the neighborhood and the residents did not want the property to
devaluate. He believed the approval of this zoning request would
set a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Fairchild, 625 West Hickory, spoke in opposition stating that he
was interested in the historical value of the neighborhood and felt
that renovation of this structure for rental purposes was feasible.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Seven
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Kruger to speak in rebuttal.
Mr. Kruger restated that he loved this neighborhood. There had been
talk of encroachment of commercial and office uses; however, the
structure would appear as residential from the street and the
exterior of the house would not be changed. It did not seem cost
effective to him to pay $60,000 for the structure and an additional
$30,000 for remodeling and then to rent the house.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that the office
use had been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the
provision that the original front of the house be restored.
Relating to parking, 4 spaces were required - 1 for every 300 feet
of floor area in the office. The P&Z had granted a variance. The
P&Z recommended approval with conditions. Sixteen reply forms had
been mailed with two returned in opposition and one in favor.
Mayor Stewart asked if a majority vote was required to approve.
Spivey responded yes.
Council Member McAdams stated that it was pleasant to hear of the
plan to renovate and rent the house as it would not be so much of a
gamble for the residents. However, given that the current zoning
was for multi-family, she believed that she would prefer the planned
development as proposed. The current residents had the greatest
amount at stake.
McAdams motion, Alford second to deny.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Denton Development Guide was
in opposition to the invasion of older, existing neighborhoods. He
would personal~y like to see the structure look and be used as a
residence.
Council Member Riddlesperger complimented those appearing in
opposition for their efforts to defend this area.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he did not believe the property
should have been designated as multi-family in the first place;
however, a small office in the structure would be preferrable to
multi-family.
Council Member Stephens stated that he was concerned about the
proposed parking space for the office use and felt the area was too
narrow.
Motion to deny carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Charles Watkins, representing Denton-Tedi, Inc., requesting a change
in the current zoning classification from residential single family
(SF-7) to residential single family (SF-10) on a tract of 6.714
acres situated in the F. Batson Survey, Abstract ~43, Denton
County. The said tract is part of a 44.10 acre tract being
developed as Westgate Heights located east and adjacent to Greenway
Club Estates. Z-1726
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie War,ins, representing Denton-Tedi, Inc., spoke in favor
stating that the intent was to develop as single family residential
use. The petition was requesting to down grade from SF-7 to SF-10
as it was felt there was a market for this classification. This
would add 20 S]?=10 lots and offer a buffer area.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Eight
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if there would be a connection
between Greenway and Payne Drive.
Watkins responded yes.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that this was a
case of a change to a more restrictive zoning. The Planning and
Zoning Commission had unanimously approved the petition.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts
for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services;
providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for
an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-46
Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive
bids and providing for the award of contracts for the
purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services;
providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and
providing for an effective date.
Chew motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive Dids and providing for the award of contracts
for public works or improvements; providing for the expenditure of
funds therefore; and providing for an effective date.
This ordinance was removed from the agenda by staff.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of
materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the
provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements
of competitive bids; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-47
Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the
expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of materials,
equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the
provisions of state law exempting such purchases from
requirements of competitive bids; and providing for an
effective date.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Nine
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the eradication of established wild Dird roosts which
are inhabited Dy protected species of migratory birds by means of
haDitat modification.
Harlan Jefferson, Administrative Assistant, reported that the object
of the haDitat modification was to eliminate the nuisance caused by
the bird roosts. Staff's concern was the timing of the modification
procedures. If the ordinance was approved, it would not go into
effect for 14 days and there was also a 10 day notification period.
Staff was requesting permission to use interim harrassment
techniques to prevent the establishment of the roost until the
ordinance could be enforced.
Council Member Stephens asked if the birds would be back before
March 29th.
Jefferson responded the birds traditionally had returned in late
March or early April.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-48
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY REPEALING AND REENACTING
ARTICLE VI THEREOF DECLARING THE ROOSTS OF PROTECTED
MIGRATORY BIRDS A PUBLIC NUISANCE WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SUCH BIRD ROOSTS WITH
PROCEDURES FOR ABATEMENT AND APPEAL; ADDING A NEW ARTICLE
VII TO BE RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE; ADDING A NEW ARTICLE
VIII TO PROVIDE FOR A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Chew motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
E. ~Phe Council considered adoption of an ordinance
repealing the existing Article 17 and other provisions relating to
signs and reenacting a new Article 17 of Appendix B-Zoning of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas to provide for the
regulating of signs and the permitting thereof; providing for a
penalty not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00) for violations
thereof; providing for a severability clause; repealing all
ordinances in conflict thereof; and providing for an effective date.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Council had requested a list
of the signs which would be affected by the 10 year limit.
Chartie Watkins, consultant, stated that he believed he had verbally
given the listing of those signs. A discussion had been held on the
major signs on all major arterial streets.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would want to look at this
list of the signs and go look at the signs themselves.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the Council was aware of
the effect of the proposed ordinance and it had been discussed in
great length at several meetings.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to table the ordinance until a list
of the effected signs was provided and a tour set up to look at the
signs. Motion carried 4 to 3 with Council Members McAdams,
Riddlesperger and Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" votes.
Council Member McAdams stated that specific direction needed to be
given to the consultant regarding what the Council wanted.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Ten
Council Member Hopkins stated that he wanted a list of the signs
which would be effected by the 10 year amortization, who this would
effect and now and wanted to look at the signs.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting the date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of the City of Denton for annexation of approximately
136.58 acres beginning approximately 500 feet east of the center
line of U. S. Highway 377 and south of Brush Creek Road. A-11
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that staff was recommending
the public hearings be held on March 19 and April 2.
Council Member Stephens stated that he has leased pasture for
livestock grazing on this property since 1979 and had no financial
interest in the property.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-49
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vole, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
G. ?he Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting the date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of the City of Denton for annexation of approximately 93.67
acres beginning 350 feet south of and perpendicular to the center
line of U. S. Highway 380 and east of Geesling Road (Capricorn
Mobile Home Park and surrounding property). A-13
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-50
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of R. O. McDonnell for annexation of approximately 34.60
acres of land situated in the M. Forrest Survey, Abstract No. 417,
and beginning approximately 250 feet south of and perpendicular to
the center line of FM 426 and approximately 2,000 feet east of
Mayhill Road. A-14
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this was a voluntary
annexation and a petition to change the zoning to multi-family had
been received. The petition had been modified to down grade the
commercial portion to general retail and had been readvertised.
Public hearings would be held on March 19 and April 2.
The following ordinance was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Eleven
NO. 85-51
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting the date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of the City of Denton for annexation of approximately 42.35
acres of land being part of the S. Huizar Survey, Abstract No. 514,
beginning approximately 500 feet north of and perpendicular to the
center line of U. S. Highway 380 and west of Masch Branch Road.
A-15
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this was an involuntary
annexation of the remainder of the Tri-Steel, Inc. property. While
involuntary, Tri-Steel had no objections to the annexation.
Council Member Stephens asked if this would count against the City's
allotment for annexation because it was involuntary.
Ellison replied that this was not a significant amount of acreage.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-52
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
J. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting the date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of Hammett & Nash, Inc. and the City of Denton for
annexation of approximately 150 acres of land located west of
Mayhill Road approximtely 4,000 feet north of 1-35 and beginning at
the northeast corner of the D. Hough Survey, Abstract No. 646. A-17
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this was a joint
voluntary annexation. Upon completion of the final action, the city
would have incorporated all of the areas on the west side of Mayhill
Road. Currently there was 1 house and 2 persons in the annexation
area and there was no opposition to the proceedings.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-53
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Twelve
K. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting the date, time and place for public hearings regarding the
petition of Redditch Investments Corporation for annexation of
approximately 60.38 acres situated in the G. Walker Survey, Abstract
No. 1330, and beginning adjacent and east of Edwards Road. A-18
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this was a voluntary
annexation. No developments or population would be affected. Staff
had received a tentative request for a zoning change. Public
hearings would be held on March 19 and April 2.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-54
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON THE PROPOSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
McAdams motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
5. The Council considered removing petition Z-1675 from the
table.
Council Member Stephens stated that he had some questions regarding
the request and asked if it could be discussed prior to removal from
the table.
Mayor Stewart replied that a discussion of the petition could not be
held until it was removed from the table.
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second to remove Z-1675 from the
table. Motion to remove from the table failed 4 to 3 with Council
Members Hopkins, Stephens, Alford and Mayor Pro Tem Chew casting the
"nay" votes.
6. The Council was to consider the petition of Christopher
Bancroft requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on a
19.39 acre tract located on the south side of Parvin Road
approximately 1,500 feet east of Bonnie Brae Road. If approved, the
planned development would permit 71 lots for single family detached
use (minimum lot size 7,000 square feet) and a two acre tract
reserved for a private school. Z-1675
This item was not removed from the table.
7. The Council considered approval of disposition of public
property described as lots 9 and 10, Meadowbrook Subdivision, (north
of Windsor Drive and west of Sherman Drive.) D-39
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that this
property was deeded to the city for an easement and was no longer
required.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the disposition. Motion
carried unanimously.
8. The Council considered approval of disposition of
approximately 17 acres of public property located in the M. Austin
Survey, Abstract 4, (north of Spencer Road and east of Woodrow
Lane. D-40
Harry Persaud, Development Review Planner, reported that this
location was east of Woodrow Lane and west of the water treatment
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 5, 1985
Page Thirteen
plant. If developed, it would enable the area to receive
transportation lanes and public streets.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to approve the disposition. Motion
carried unanimously.
9. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel or board appointments.
10. No items of New Business were suggested by Council Members
for future agendas.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel or board appointments.
The Council reconvened into open session. The following official
action was taken on Executive Session board appointments.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to nominate Charles Hopkins to
replace Jack Barton on the Denton County Housing Finance Corporation
board. Motion carried unanimously.
With no further items of business, the meeting wgs adjourned.
CHARLOTTE'ALLEN, CItY SECRETARY
l105g
City Council Minutes ~'~
March 19, 1985
The Council was to take a tour of the new landfill site at 4:00 p.m.
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Mayor Stewart was attending a United States Conference
of Mayors meeting
1. The Council held a discussion of mass transit planning.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that staff was trying to monitor mass transit problems in the city
as they related to other area cities. It did not appear that the
people who wanted mass transit were willing to pay the price. Mass
transit via Handi-Hop and SPAN was already available for the elderly
and the handicapped. From a planning viewpoint, when the population
of Denton reached 100,000, the city would have to devise some method
of mass transit as building more streets was not the answer.
Cooperative agreements could be worked out. Goals for this project
would be identified at the planning retreat. At the present, staff
was maintaining the systems for the elderly and handicapped and
monitoring other systems. In connection with transportation, Denton
was experiencing a problem with air pollution which was generated by
Dallas and Fort Worth.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that it had been stated that
when the ozone level incresed in one area it increased in all areas.
Meyer responded that a task force had look at this issue. The
Environmental Protection Agency was looking at all means available
to control emissions. The state agencies were suggesting carpooling
and monorail systems.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the reason he had asked for this
report was that it had been stated in several recent zoning cases
that small areas were becoming "grid locked" and he wished to bring
this to the attention of the other Council Members. The city must
begin to plan on where future bus routes would be placed. An
article in the paper had stated that Denton was not doing anything
regarding this type of planning. Also, the city should be sure that
traffic signals were being used to move instead of impede the flow
of traffic.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he was concerned by the
failure of the County to coordinate a County-wide transportation
plan.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla responded that the County was
moving forward on that project and a consultant had been retained.
The possibiity of a bridge crossing Hickory Creek had been approved
by the Commissioners Court and the consultant would be considering
this.
Meyer stated that a linkage needed to be kept open from Denton to
Dallas Fort Worth airport. At the present time, Lewisville was
expanding in a helter skelter fashion.
Council Member McAdams asked what the transportation committee at
the County was trying to accomplish.
Svehla responded the committee was trying to coordinate all current
transportation plans for area cities and the North Central Texas
Council of Governments.
Council Member Stephens asked if mass transit would be the
thoroughfares for Denton.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Two
Meyer responded that mass transit would not serve the cities.
Although everyone liked the concept, the system would not pay its
own way.
Council Member Stephens stated that this problem should be a
consideration in zoning cases. The thoroughfare map should De
updated and bro~ght back to the Council within the next 2 months.
Meyer reported that mass transit was by and large for working people
and as such must have a common point of origin and common
destination, such as the work place. In conjunction with future
development, the Denton Development Guide should be upgraded to
include planning for mass transit.
2. The Council considered proposed changes in the Federal
budget and proposed regulations affecting municipal bonds.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that he was seeking a consensus
of the Council prior to the National League of Cities conference in
%~ashington, D.C. Regarding the Federal budget, the City of Denton
did not have many grants other than Revenue Sharing and Community
Development Block Grant funds.
Council Member McAdams stated that Mayor Bolain of Fort Worth had
issued a very strong statement regarding the reduction of Revenue
Sharing and CDBG funds.
Hartung stated that these reductions in funding would necessitate
the raising of local taxes.
Council MemDer McAdams stated that the budget cuts would not raise
the Federal taxes but would increase taxes at the local level. Most
felt that the city could not afford to do without the programs
funded by these monies but could not afford to raise taxes either.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the Council should direct
the City Manager to fight to retain the Federal funds as the city
would either have to forego the services or raise taxes.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that the best the cities could expect was to freeze future cuts.
City Manager Hartung stated that the issue of the tax exempt status
of municipal bonds was very serious. The current proposal was to
remove the tax exempt status from all bonds. If a city benefitted
more than 1% from the product of bonds, they were taxable. The
concern was that due to the attention given to the Federal budget
cuts, this issue would be ignored. If approved, this would deeply
affect the entire state of Texas. Hartung concluded by stating that
the City of Denton should place this issue on the table at the Texas
Caucus at the National League of Cities conference.
3. The Council received a report on cost estimates for
sidewalks.
Assistant City Manager Rick Svehla reported that there were many
sidewalk problems in Denton and significant amounts of money could
be spent on sidewalks. Council Member Stephens had asked for a
report on costs for sidewalks in the Eagle/Highland/Bernard area.
On the north side of Highland, approximately 90 feet of 4 feet walk
would have to be replaced and an additional 45 feet of walk would
have to be built to reach Bernard Street. Approximately 100 feet of
new or replacement sidewalk would need to be constructed on the
south side. The cost of walks on the south side of Bernard would be
approximately $1,000 and the north side would be approximately
$1,215. The sidewalk along Carroll Boulevard between Highland and
Eagle would be approximately 1000 feet at a cost of $9,000. In
addition to the sidewalk situation on Eagle which Council Member
Stephens had brought to staff's attention, Evers school was asking
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Three
for sidewalks at Windsor and the traffic signal which would also be
approximately 1000 feet.
Council Member Stephens stated that this was a safety factor and
should be examined closely during the budget hearings.
The Council then convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of February 19, 1985 and the Special Called Meeting
of February 26, 1985.
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Chew; Council Members Alford, Hopkins,
McAdams, and Riddlesperger
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: Mayor Stewart was attending a United States Conference
of Mayors meeting
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of FeDruary 19, 1985 and the Special Called Meeting
of February 26, 1985.
Stephens motion, HopKins second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew presented a proclamation for Billy Ryan Day on
March 23, 1985 which was read by Council Member Hopkins.
The proclamation was accepted by Mr. Otis Mitchell and
2. Consent Agenda
Council Member Stephens asked that items 2.A.3, 2.A.8 and 2.C be
removed from the Consent Agenda.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to approve the Consent Agenda with
the exceptions of items 2.A.3, 2.A.8 and 2.C. Motion carried
unanimously.
Council Member Stephens stated regarding Bid # 9411 for Police
dictation system that was a problem with a cost difference between
the bid sheet and the cover memo on item 2.A.3 and asked if it were
simply an error in addition.
John Marshall, Purchasing Agent, reported that the the $23,000 was
the purchase price while the $40,000 included a maintenance
agreement. ~ne specifications had called for new equipment.
Several things were taken into consideration in evaluating the total
cost of the equipment. The back-up included the bid as presented.
It was found that a lower interest rate could be obtained through
lease/purchase.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to approve item 2.A.3. Motion
carried unanimously.
Council Member Stephens asked regarding Bid # 9420 for the purchase
of golf equipment and supplies why this was needed.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the Parks and Recreation
was establishing a driving range and this was needed equipment.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve item 2.A.8. Motion
carried unanimously.
City ot= Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Four
Council Member Stephens stated that on Bid ~ 9417 regarding the sale
of City property, no square footage was specified and there was no
map of the area in the back-up material.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to table item 2.C. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9394A - Pathological incinerator
2. Bid # 9398A - 30 cubic yard containers
3. Bid # 9411 - Police dictation system
4. Bid # 9413 - Office furniture
5. Bid # 9414 - Water treatment chemicals
6. Bid # 9415 - Office operating supplies
7. Bid 9 9419 - Landfill fencing
8. Bid # 9420 - Golf equipment and supplies
9. Bid # 9422 - Truck bed and bodies
10. Bid # 9423 - Line stringer
11. Bid # 9424 - 8 inch water meter
12. Bid # 9425 - Padmount switchgear
13. Bid ~ 9429 - Air paks
14. Bid # 9418 - Demolition and clearing of lots
15. Bid # 9426 - Cleaning and painting of ground
level water storage tanks
B. Plats, Replats and Site Plans:
1. Approval of preliminary plat of the Creekside
Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of preliminary plat of the Kelsoe-Pitner
Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
3. Approval of preliminary and final replat of the
John A. Hann's Addition, Block 2, Lot 4-R1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
4. Approval of site plan revision of PD-22 (John
Knox/Lake Forest Village Retirement Center).
(~ne Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
TABLED C. Bid on Sale of City Property:
1. Bid ~ 9417 Sale of City owned excess right-of-
way on Carroll between Prairie and
Highland
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Five
3. Public Hearings:
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
the City of Denton for annexation of approximately 136.58 acres
beginning approximately 500 feet east of the center line of U.S.
Highway 377 and south of Brush Creek Road (A-11).
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that this
property had been discussed by the City Council at a work session in
July of 1984. The city was trying to control land use in this
area. Two reply forms had been mailed with one returned stating
that the property had been sold.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to proceed with the annexation.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
the City of Denton for annexation of approximately 65.12 acres
beginning 350 feet south of and perpendicular to the center line of
U.S. Highway 380 and east of Geesling Road (Capricorn Mobile Home
Park and surrounding property) (A-13).
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor reporting that this
annexation had been initiated by the City of Denton and was
involuntary. The goal was to impose city standards on any future
extensions of the mobile home park. A preliminary plat for an
extension nad been submitted to city staff. This annexation was
critical since the city would be annexing residents and existing
utility problems.
Council Member Hopkins stated that most of the surrounding property
was already within the city limits.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Stephens motion, Alford second to proceed with the annexation.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
R. O. McDonnell for annexation of approximately 34.60 acres of land
situated in the M. Forrest Survey, Abstract No. 417, and beginning
approximately 250 feet south of and perpendicular to the center line
of FM 426 and approximately 2,000 feet east of Mayhill Road (A-14).
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor reporting that this
was a voluntary annexation. The intentions of the owner were to
have the parcel annexed, petition for appropriate zoning and to
develop the property with duplexes, some general retail and some
warehouses. No roads would be affected. One reply form had been
mailed and zero returned.
Brian Burke, civil engineer, spoke in favor stating that this was a
voluntary annexation and zoning would be requested. A plat of the
property nad been submitted.
Council Member Stephens asked what type of general retail uses would
be developed.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Six
Burke responded some retail offices with storage in the back and
miniwarehouses.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to proceed with the annexation.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
the City of Denton for annexation of approximately 42.35 acres of
land situated in the S. Huizar Survey, Abstract No. 514, and
beginning approximately 500 feet north of and perpendicular to the
center line of U. S. Highway 380 and west of Masch Branch Road
(A-15).
The Mayor Pro ~3em opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that this was
the remaining balance of the property owned by Tri-Steel, Inc. One
reply form had been mailed with zero returned.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro 9?em closed the public hearing.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to proceed with the annexation.
Motion carried unanimously.
E. ~he Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Hammett & Nash, Inc. and the City of Denton for annexation of
approximately 150 acres of land located west of Mayhill Road
approximately 4,000 feet north of 1-35 and adjacent and north of the
MK&T Railroad (A-17).
The Mayor Pro '~em opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that this was
a joint petition for annexation. Hammett & Nash, Inc. had requested
annexation and nad begun the process for zoning. This was a high
intensity area as designated Dy the Denton Development Guide.
Council Member Stephens asked Ellison to trace the Loop 288 corridor
on the overhead projection.
Ellison stated that the proposed Loop extension would connect at the
Mayhill Road overpass. This would be studied during the platting
process. It would affect this tract.
Mr. Cliff Stebbins, representing Andrews Corporation, spoke in
opposition stating that he believed Andrews owned 8 acres of this
property and that this should be cleared up.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to proceed with the
annexation. Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Redditch Investments Corporation for annexation of approximately
60.38 acres situated in the G. Walker Survey, Abstract No. 1330, and
beginning adjacent and east of Edwards Road (A-18).
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor reporting that this
was east of the Allen Estates Mobile Home site. The intent was to
annex the property for development purposes and zoning. One reply
form was mailed and zero were returned.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Seven
Council Member Hopkins asked if this property was just south of the
landfill.
Ellison responded it was not adjacent to the landfill. Edwards Road
was a point of controversy as far as staff was concerned. The
street was really Foster Road; the County map had the road
inaccurately named.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to proceed with the annexation.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts
for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services;
providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for
an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-55
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.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting
competitive Dids and providing for the award of contracts for public
works or improvements; providing for the expenditure of funds
therefore; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-56
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddtesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement between the City of Denton and American
Appraisal Associates, Inc. for inventory and appraisal services.
Council Member Stephens asked if the County Tax Appraisal performed
this function.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded no; this inventory and
appraisal was for city property.
John McGrane, Director of Finance, reported this was for city owned
land, equipment and buildings.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Eight
Council Member Stephens stated that he thought it was a good idea
but did not want to duplicate efforts.
McGrane reported the goal was to effect a property management system
and to insure a correct inventory. Bid information had been
forwarded to 3 organizations with 2 responding.
Council Member HopKins stated this was the fixed asset inventory
which had been discussed and felt it was needed.
Council Member Stephens stated that in the future he would like to
see more complete information in the back-up materials on all bids.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-57
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND AMERICAN APPRAISAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL SERVICES, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the establishment of light industrial (LI) zoning on a
111.7 acre tract in the B.B.B. and C.R.R. Company Survey, Abstract
141, and the R. Wnitlock Survey, Abstract 1403. The tract is
located north of Westgate Hospital and Medical Center, approximately
600 feet west of the Interstate Highway 35 north service road, and
adjacent and east of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad.
Z-1712
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-58
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 111.710 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED NORTH OF WESTGATE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER,
APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35
NORTH SERVICE ROAD, AND ADJACENT AND EAST OF THE ATCHISON,
TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASS-
IFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL "LI" DISTRICT CLASSIFI-
CATION AND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) district for light
industrial (LI) uses on an approximately 94.3 acre tract in the
Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract 1330. The property is located on the
east side of Mayhill Road approximately 1600 feet south of FM 426
(East McKinney Street) and is more particularly described as Tracts
1F, 1Fl, lC, lA and 1E of the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract 1330.
Z-1717
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Nine
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-59
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 94.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAYHILL ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET
SOUTH OF F.M. 426 (EAST MCKINNEY STREET), AND IS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN
ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
"PD" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL "LI" USES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district with
a specific use permit for a mobile home park to the general retail
(GR) zoning district on a 2.9 acre tract situated in the Stephen
Hembrie Survey, Abstract 643. The property is located at the
northeast corner of Robinson Road and FM 2181 (Teasley Lane).
Z-1720
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-60
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 2.989 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROBINSON ROAD AND F.M. 2181
(TEASLEY LANE), AND tS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN;
TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION
TO GENERAL RETAIL "GR" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the single family (SF-7) district
to the planned development (PD) classification on a 4.4 acre tract
situated in the Alexander Hill Survey, Abstract 623. The property
is located at 1213 Bernard Street. Z-1721
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-61
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 4.4275 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT 1213 BERNARD STREET, AND IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY "SF-7" DISTRICT CLASSI-
FICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD"
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Ten
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change in zoning from the single family (SF-10) district
to the planned development (PD) classification on a 19.8 acre tract
in the R. Beaumont Survey, Abstract 31. The property is located on
the east side of Hinkle Drive approximately 800 feet north of
University Drive (U. S. Highway 380). Z-1724
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-62
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 19.8454 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HINKLE DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 800
FEET NORTH OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE (U.S. HIGHWAY 380), AND IS
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE
IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM SINGLE-FAMILY "SF-10"
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the expenditure of funds by the City of Denton, Texas
for the purchase of real property situated in the B.B.B. & C.R.R.
Co. Survey, Abstract No. 185, City and County of Denton, Texas,
being all of lots 11, 12 and 13, Block 2 of the Oatman Addition to
the City of Denton, accepting a warranty deed therefore from
Infinity Energy, Inc., and declaring an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-63
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY
SITUATED IN THE B.B.B. & C.R.R. CO. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO.
185, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF LOTS
11, 12 AND 13, BLOCK 2 OF THE OATMAN ADDITION TO THE CITY
OF DENTON, ACCEPTING A WARRANTY DEED THEREFORE FROM
INFINITY ENERGY, INC., AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
J. The Council considered adoption of a ordinance
approving an agreement providing for the sale of electric power by
the cities of Denton, Bryan, Garland and Greenville and Brazos
Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (referred to as "TMPP") to Texas
Utilities Electric Company (referred to as "TUEC") and authorizing
the Mayor to execute the agreement.
This ordinance was removed from the agenda by staff.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Eleven
5. Resolutions:
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution by the
City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, relating to the approval
of the issuance of certain refunding bonds by the North Texas Higher
Education Authority, Inc.; approving the issuance of such bonds and
making certain findings in connection therewith.
Mr. Ralph Rushing, representing the North Texas Higher Education
Authority, Inc. reported that the Authority was requesting approval
to proceed with a refunding bond issue of the outstanding bonds. In
May of 1982 in conjunction with the City Council of Arlington
authorizing the issuance of $25,000,000 of student loan revenue
bonds. Since that date the Authority had acquired approximately
$19,000,000 of student loans from banks made to students in this
area. That issue matured on June 1, 1985 and the Authority was
taking steps to refund this 3 year issue. They had an opportunity
to extend the issue for an additional 10 years which would allow the
Authority to perserve the student loan portfolio and to continue
service. In addition, there were two extra series of bond (1983A
and 1983B). The Authority expected to refund these sometime during
1985.
The following resolution was presented:
A RESOLUTION by the City Council of the City of Denton,
Texas, relating to the approval of the issuance of
certain refunding bonds by the North Texas Higher
Education Authority, Inc.; approving the issuance of
such bonds and making certain findings in connection
therewith.
WHEREAS, the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.,
has heretofore authorized the issuance of three series of bonds
known as "North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. Student Loan
Bonds, Series 1982B;" "North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.
Student Loan Bonds, Series 1983A;" and "North Texas Higher Education
Authority, Inc. Student Loan Bonds, Series 1983B;" and
WHEREAS, the directors of the Authority have advised this
Council that it would be in the best interest of the Authority if
the aforesaid three series of bonds were refunded in the manner
provided by Article 717k, V.A.T.C.S., with the understanding that
the proceeds of the refunding bonds and money or securities
(including income therefrom) held under the respective indentures
securing the outstanding bonds will be utilized for the payment of
expenses, debt service, reserves for the same or for the purchase of
student loa notes as contemplated by the said law and Section 103 of
the Internal Revenue Bode of 1954, as amended; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1: That all of the recitals contained in the
preamDle hereof are found to be true and are adopted as the findings
of this City Council;
SECTION 2: That the issuance of the proposed refunding
bonds in order to provide for the payment of the outstanding bonds
and the security for refunding bonds, and the utilization of the
money and securities held under the respective indentures securing
the outstanding bonds in the manner and for the purposes permitted
under Article 717k, V.A.T.C.S. and Section 103 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (as set forth in the preamble
hereof) is hereby approved and authorized.
SECTION 3: At such time as the refunding bonds are
approved b the Attorney General of Texas, a copy of the Attorney
General's approving opinion shall be filed (by the Authority) with
the City Secretary.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Twelve
SECTION 4: In no event does the City assume any
responsibility in connection with (i) the administration of this
student loan program; (ii) the issuance and delivery of bonds in
connection therewith; (iii) the payment of any of the bonds issued
by the Authority, it being understood these responsibilities are
being assumed by the Authority.
SECTION 5: ThiS resolution shall be effective from and
after its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED~ THIS THE 19th day of March, 1985.
Richard O. Stewart, Mayor
City of Denton, Texas
ATTEST:
Charlotte Allen, City Secretary
City of Denton, Texas
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
By:
Stephens motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the inclusion of the City of Denton, Texas, within the
"Eligible Loan Area" in connection with Denton County Housing
Finance Corporation Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Series
1985.
City Manager Hartung reported that the Denton County Housing Finance
Corporation had received an allocation under the Texas cap for
issuance of these bonds. $25,000,000 had been received and the
Authority had received requests for approximately $40,000,000 in
mortgage bonds from various mortgage companies. An allocation
process had been undergone to pare the figure down to approximately
$23,000,000 in actual mortgage money which would be made available.
In order to participate and have these funds used inside the City of
Denton, the resolution needed to be approved. This was similar to
resolutions approved in the past for single family housing issues.
The mortgage interest rates would be approximately 10 7/8%.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCLUSION OF
THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, WITHIN THE
"ELIGIBLE LOAN AREA" IN CONNECTION WITH
DENTON COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION
SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1985
WHEREAS, the Denton County Housing Finance Corporation (the
"Corporation") was created by a Resolution adopted by the
Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas (the "County") pursuant
to Article 1269~-7, Vernon's Texas Civil Status, as amended (the
"Act"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Corporation intends to
issue on or before April 12~ 1985 its Single Family Mortgage Revenue
Bonds, Series 1985 (the "Bonds") in order to provide funds to
purchase mortgage loans from participating lenders that have been
made to eligible borrowers to finance owner occupied single family
residential housing within the County; and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Thirteen
WHEREAS, the Act requires that the governing body of any
city located within the County, the population of which exceeds
20,000, must approve the use of the proceeds of the Bonds to
purchase home mortgages for homes located within such city; and
~HEREAS, it is found and determined that it is within the
Dest interest of the inhabitants of the City of Denton, Texas (the
"City") and will promote the public welfare and public purposes of
the Act for the proceeds of the Bonds to be used to purchase home
mortgages for homes located within the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the
City of Denton, Texas, that:
1. The use of the proceeds of the Bonds to purchase home
mortgages for homes located witin the corporate limits of the City
is hereby authorized and approved, and the inclusion of the City
wihin the "Eligible Loan Area" as used and defined in the Sale,
Servicing and Administration Agreement, to be entered into by and
between the Corporation, the party named as Administrator-Servicer
therein, the party named as Trustee therein, and the participating
lenders named therein, is hereby approved.
2. The Mayor, the City Manager, the City Secretary and
any member of the City Council and any other officers of the City
are hereby authorized, jointly and severally, to execute and deliver
such endorsements, instruments, certificates, documents or papers
necessary or vital to carry out the intent and purposes of this
Resolution.
3. This Resolution shall be effective from and after its
passage, and it is so resolved.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 19th day of March, 1985.
Mayor
City of Denton, Texas
ATTEST:
City Secretary
City of Denton, Texas
McAdams motion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Chew "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council was to consider approval of a resolution
authorizing the closing of a portion of Fry Street between Oak and
Hickory streets from 8:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, April
20, 1985 for the Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity annual Spring
Rennaissance.
This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the Sigma
Alpha Mu Fraternity.
6. The Council considered a request for funding from Flow
Memorial Hospital Board of Directors.
Mr. Stanley Monroe, Flow Hospital Board of Directors, stated that he
was appearing in place of Mary Williams, Chairperson of the Board.
Mr. Monroe stated that the Council had received a letter dated March
5 requesting immediate consideration for additional funds for the
support of Flow Hospital. These funds would be mainly used for the
payment of past due obligations for the hospital, all of which were
60, 90 or 120 days old. The hospital was having a major problem in
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Fourteen
this respect. The Board had made a request to the County
Commissioners Court that the balance of the $500,000 alloted to the
hospital in the 1984-85 budget be paid immediately and without any
restrictions. The funds had previously been earmarked for capital
improvements; this was now not the major problem. The major problem
was the past due bills. The County Commissioners had approved to
give the hospital immediately the $250,000. Information had been
received that the check would be received within the next few days.
The County Commissioners Court, after considerable discussion, had
agreed that Flow needed the $250,000 and indicated that it was their
intention to furnish their half of the $400,000 extra funds
requested, provided that the city did the same. The letter from
Mary Williams was requesting that the Council consider this.
Unfortunately, the Hospital Board had been wrestling with an almost
impossible situation - how could they take care of the people who
were unable to pay their bills. Flow Hospital was one of five
remaining city/county hospitals in the state. All of these
hospitals had the same problem. The legislature was going to deal
with the problem but it was hard to tell what the outcome would be.
The Board had forwarded copies of the Flow Hospital position paper
to the Denton Representatives and Senator in Austin. The Board had
requested that this legislators assist Flow in every way possible.
It was hoped that the Council would take care of this matter at this
meeting as the hospital needed the money to assure their creditors
that the funds were forthcoming. If the creditors could be assured
that the City and County were firmly behind the hospital, the
problem would be temporarily solved.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that all that was needed was the
assurance that the Council would, at the proper time, meet the
$200,000 obligation.
Monroe stated that the hospital needed the funds as quickly as
possible but he realized that the city had budget requirements.
Council Member Hopkins asked if it was possible for the city to do
this in mid-year.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he thought all of the Council was in
favor of helping to support Flow Hospital and asked for a statement
from the City Manager on what could be done.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that under the City Charter
there were two provisions for modifying the budget in mid-year. One
provision related to budget amendments which could be done at any
time if 5 members of the City Council indicated that an emergency
which could not have been foreseen earlier in the year when the
budget was approved had taken place. Under this provision, the
budget could then be amended. This would require the City Manager
to tell the Council that there were additional revenues to allow the
Council to do this. The position that he was in was that he could
not tell the Council that. A quick review of sales tax revenues had
been done and they were running slightly ahead of budget
projections; however, they were not significantly over the
projections. Staff was also concerned about forecasts of economic
downturns later in the year. The other provision to amend the
budget was by transfer of funds which had been appropriated for one
particular program to another program. The Charter limited these
transfers to the last 90 days of the fiscal year so this was not an
option at this time. This was the horns of a dilemma in terms of
the budget. Hartung then stated that what he would like to do, with
the concurrence of the Council, was to contact the County Judge to
see if the County Auditor and t~e Director of Finance from the City
of Denton meet with Mr. Hausler and the staff at Flow Hospital to
review some of the hospital's financial projections and financial
statements with an eye to the balance of the remainder of the fiscal
year. Then begin to prepare a recommendation to both the City
Council and the Commissioners Court that would not only deal with
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Fifteen
the immediate problem of the cash shortage, but also to forecast on
t~rough to the end of the fiscal year. His concern was the
additional requirements which the hosptial might have until the end
of the fiscal year.
Monroe responded that the ownership of Flow Hospital was a joint
ownership between the City and the County. Ultimately the
responsibility for the payment of the debts of the hospital would
lie between the City and the County. He had been on the Board for
almost a year as one of the city's representatives and there had
been too much time spent trying to handle what was an almost
impossible situation which was that 30% of the total income had to
be charged off as non-compensated care. Most hospital had 3% to 4%
in this area but Flow had experienced at rate as high as 29% to
30%. There was a question as to where the responsibility lay for
indigent care but he thought the legislation would settle that issue
this session. Once done, the problem which the City Manager had
brought up would be handled. It would be determined if this
responsibility lay on the state, county or city level but it
certainly was not the responsibility of the hospital. Flow could
not raise their rates sufficiently to make a profit as they were a
non-profit organization. The hospital should have $1,000,000 to
$1,500,000 a year to update the hospital and the equipment to make
it a viable institution that it had always been. He was afraid that
if the Council did not take a positive step at this meeting and say
that some way the $200,000 would be made available, the hospital
would not get the same support from the County. If not, then the
responsibility would have to be on the two governing bodies as it
could no longer by on the Hospital Board.
Council Member Stephens stated that he understood at right now the
hospital needed the requested funds and asked what were the
projections for May and June - would the hospital need the same
amount at that time or would these funds stabilize the situation.
Monroe responded t-hat the Board was taking every possible step to
get Flow Hospital on a break-even basis. The hospital was not going
to reduce the services which they were providing to the people of
Denton. Attempts had been made to make changes. The problem was
that when people were admitted by a doctor, they were taken in to
the hospital. There had been an article in the Dallas newspaper
recently regarding a burn victim who had been refused admittance to
Wysong hospital in McKinney, Collin County Memorial hospital and
Wylie Community hospital. He was finally admitted to Parkland.
Flow had never turned anybody down. If a doctor said to take the
patient into the hospital, they were admitted whether the patient
could pay or not. Flow had an income of $18,000,000 and could not
collect $4,000,000 of this amount. The Board was before the Council
to communicate that the hospital had to have the additional funds.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Collin County hospital was
now a private hospital.
Monroe stated that he was not criticizing these hospitals. There
were three hospitals within the area and the Council had to know
that these hospitals were referring patients who could not pay to
Flow and Flow would take them.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he knew it was asking too
much of Flow to try to make up the $4,000,000 that was not being
paid. The argument over whether this was charity or the patients
were just not paying their debts was academic. The money was not
going into Flow. There was no question in his mind if Flow was to
De maintained, that the County and the City must come to an under-
standing on a equitable distribution of the needs of the hospital.
The people would suffer a great deal more by going through the
process of leasing or selling the hospital, because somebody was
going to have to meet the needs of the indigents and it would be the
people of this area. It was unfair to tell those people who were
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Sixteen
ill and had to De hospitalized, that they not only had to meet their
own obligation but also had to pay for the indigents. He thought
that the Council could find a way to pass a resolution at this
meeting stating that the Council would, at the proper time (when it
became possible) meet this $200,000 obligation. He felt the Council
should act at this meeting as a statement to the Commissioners Court
that the City Council was interested and determined to make a viable
institution of Flow Hospitalu
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the Council promise, in
effect, that at the proper time, the city would make available for
Flow Hospital the sum of $200,000.
Council Member Riddlesperger further stated that he did not think
the city could do this right away due to the Charter provision.
Council Member Stephens asked Mr. Monroe if this would help.
Monroe replied that if he were a creditor of Flow Hospital and he
knew that the City of Denton and Denton County were going to make
available the proper funds to enable the hospital to pay the long
past due indebtedness in the very near future, that would be
sufficient assurance.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that, speaking as a member of the City
Council, the Council wanted the best for Flow Hospital. Whatever
the Council cou. ld do to guarantee that the needs were met should be
done.
Council Member Stephens expressed the gratitude of the City Council
to the Flow Board and the Hospital Administrator for the hard work
which had been done.
Council Member McAdams stated that she was a very strong supporter
of Flow Hospital and felt that what had happened in McKinney was
indicative of what happened when public hospitals closed. Indigent
patients were now being sent to Parkland and Parkland could not take
care of everybody.
Monroe stated that his understanding was that when Collin County
sold their hospital, they thought they could set aside a certain
amount of the purchase money for charity cases. This was not an
easy task. The City and County had tried to set a time to get
together to discuss the Flow Hospital issue and he felt it was
appropriate for the two governing bodies try to work out these
problems.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked Council Member Riddlesperger if he would
include in his motion the City Manager's recommendation regarding
the Finance Director and the County Auditor getting together.
Council Member Riddlesperger replied yes. What he wanted to do was
have the Council pledge that at the soonest time possible, to make
available the money which was absolutely needed to keep the hospital
afloat. The Council did not have the luxury of procrastinating for
another month or so.
Council Membe~ McAdams stated that she understood what Council
Member Riddlesperger was saying; however, she had some difficulty
with a resolution which committed the Council in advance to finding
that large a sum of money. That commitment might entail eliminating
some program which the Council had not even looked at and she had
some problems because they were not looking at the total budget.
She felt that the most important thing was to do some long range
looking. The Council had given $250,000 before and in the time
since that, no equitable means of meeting the funding
responsibilities for Flow had been worked out. She also had a
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Seventeen
problem with continuing to do an emergency funding of $200,000 or
$250,000 without the two governing bodies making a decision on what
was going to be done. The Council could $250,000 themselves to
death without ever getting to the heart of the problem which was how
was Flow to be funded. She felt this was critical.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he also felt that the Finance
Director and the County Auditor and the County Judge and the City
Manager should meet and could furnish the Council with the data
which was needed to make a decision. The Council would begin
looking at the budget at the end of the month. Council Member
Riddlesperger's motion was predicated upon the Council finding the
money in the budget.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that this Council would have a
hard time pointing their finger to someone else to blame. They were
to blame for this situation as much as anyone else. The problem was
the hospital faced a situati0n where they owned $400,000. This was
not a matter of saying "we should have" when they had not. The
Council should take a breathing spell and see what could be done.
It was certainly true that $200,000 was not a small amount of money
but the Council had a responsibility which they had not met.
Council Member Hopkins stated that one thing needed to be made very
clear and that was the fact that, should Flow go under, the City and
County would be paying anyway. The Council was also fiscally
responsible to look at not only the short term situation, but also
the long term situation. He absolutely refused as a Council Member
to continually approve large payments to a hospital which possibly
was dead. He wanted to know very soon what was to be done as the
City could not continue in this situation. There were 5
alternatives for the hospital presented in their position paper and
a decision needed to be made within the next month or so. The
payment of the $200,000 was not something which could be done in the
middle of the year. The City Manager had indicated that even if the
funds were to be transferred, this could only be done during the
last three months of the fiscal year. He was for looking for the
funds but he was also absolutely in favor of a long range solution
and if one could not be found, he felt the Council should look at
the five alternatives before them. He also felt that legislature
would be making some very important decisions this year and that
decision could be made in such a manner as to help Flow. In his
estimation, what action the Council would take was temporary until
the legislature made a decision on what would be recommended. At
that point, valuable data could be received and a proper decision
could be made.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if it could be said [hat all this
resolution meant was that the Council was counting on the
legislature of Texas making a long range decision concerning
indigent care. This would give the Council a breathing space during
that time to talk to the Commissioners Court about the long range
proposition. He personally was dedicated to the idea that a place
in the budget in cents per dollar of taxes from the County and the
City be dedicated to Flow so that the hospital could know all year
and years ahead what would be forthcoming. The legislature was
one-half way through this session which would give the Council some
time. This resolution would say that, when the time came, the
Council would make every attempt to find the $200,000.
Council Member Stephens pointed out that anytime the legislature
acted, it took effect 90 days later. The Council was realistically
looking at late August before any legislation would be in place
which would be in the next fiscal year and the concern was for now.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that the Council was voting both on the
main motion and the amended portion of the motion.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Eighteen
Council Member Stephens asked the City Secretary to read the motion.
Charlotte Allen, City Secretary, reported that the motion as made by
Council Member Riddlesperger was that the Council promised at the
proper time to make available to Flow $200,000.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked the City Secretary to read the amendment.
Allen reported that the motion was then amended to include the City
Manager's suggestion that the Director of Finance, the County
Auditor, the City Manager and the County Judge meet to discuss long
range financial projections for the hospital.
Council Member Stephens stated that his concern was if this motion
met the question that the Flow Board had brought before the Council.
Mr. Monroe stated that he felt that if the Board got into a
negotiation situation with the County at this time regarding the
$200,000 from the City and the $200,000 from the County, that it
would be held ~]p indefinitely.
City Manager Hartung reported that, if the motion were approved, the
Council would have stated its intent concerning the request for
funds. His concern was that this request was being made in the
middle of March and the City had the balance of the fiscal year to
look at. He would like to have the Director of Finance and the
County Auditor sit down with the Flow Hospital Administrator and his
financial staff and look at the hospital's financial projections
through the balance of the fiscal year to determine if there were
going to be additional requirements which the City would be facing
later on. This had nothing to do with this request for $200,000.
Monroe asked if the Council was going on record that they would make
the $200,000 available.
City Manager Hartung stated yes. He further stated that it wanted
to be clear that his suggestion was to deal specifically with the
cash flow problem which Flow had right now and through the balance
of the fiscal year. He was not taking it upon himself to meet with
the County Judge to settle any policy issues.
Monroe stated that he was insistent upon this being on record
because he was present at the Commissioners Court meeting in which
it was stated that the County would furnish the $200,000 to Flow if
the City would do the same thing. As long as the funds were
available during this fiscal year, Flow could get by.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the Council should vote on the
amendment first.
City Attorney Drayovitch reported to be technically correct, the
amendment sho~ld be considered first. However, on motions such as
this, it was acceptable to take one vote on the amended motion.
Motion carried 5 to 1 with Council Member McAdams casting the "nay"
vote.
Council Member Alford stated that he had received telephone calls on
this situation and believed that many citizens of Denton would be
pleased with this action. Tae hospital had become a very emotional
situation and he felt the citizens also wanted an indepth study
conducted to see what could be done. He also felt the citizens
wanted the City Council to make every effort to help the immediate
situation and then go from there.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he also had received calls also and
felt that the citizens did want to see Flow Hospital remain.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of March 19, 1985
Page Nineteen
Council Member Alford further stated that he felt the citizens also
realized that eventually there would have to be a definite
conclusion.
Council Member McAdams stated that she was not opposed to helping
Flow but she was very concerned about the approach that the Council
was taking. She wanted a much longer range look at the situation
and a permanent solution established because she did not feel it was
right that the Board should have to come before the Council when
they were in this type of financial bind. She did not feel it was
responsible of the Council to not do something on a permanent basis.
7. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, board appointments.
8. There were no items of New Business suggested by Council
Members for future agendas.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting~as~journed.~ ;
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
0780j