Minute Bk. 25 4/1985 - 2/1986 01
City Council Minutes
April 2, 1985
The COuncil convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
DefenSe ~oou.
PR~SB~T: Myor Stewart; ~ayor Pro Tam Chew; Council Members
Alford, 8ol)kins, McAdams, Riddleaperger end Stephens
1. T~ Council ~L~ a diEcussion of pro~sed ~6 lot single
family ~elide~t~al 8ubd*~io~o~ ~ocated south of FM 1830 and east of
Finc~e~ ~d for ~he ~8e of determining whether to beg~n the
annexation ~ceaa.
Davi~* Etliaoh~ ~emLoc PXmn~c, ~epo~ed ~ha~ ~he ~develeper o~ ~his
16 lo~ subdivision had ~bmi~ed a p~elimina~M and final pla~ o~ ~he
p~o~Cty, kte~ ~lle ~d septic lines vere proposed. The
vece located conai~ecably aou~h o~ ~he existing city limits.
annexe~ the City ~uld have Co p~ovide sani~a~ion service, animal
con~tOl~ 9olice, ~twe a~all o~e~ Ci~ ae~vicem.
Ellis0n =emended t~at the p~opomed subdivision was locate~ south
the ~tr~ Club ~ ~s in t~e fa~ sout~ of the
~yor S~e~,=t ~sked if ~ p=o~=ty was east or west of 1-35.
Ellis0n ~epl~ed it was west.
Council Me~r SteVens asked ~w fa= south of Brush Creek ~as the
The devel~= responMd to the question stated the pcoposed
subdiViaio~ vas appcoxi~tely 1 ~o 1 1/2 miles aou~h o~ ~he Denton
Country Club.
Council Me~= Stephens the~ stated that th. location was ve=y near
Mayor Stewa=t aske~ how fa= Denton would have to extend the city
limits line ~o enuoa~s ~ia ~evelopment.
Council ~e= Hopki~ ~ed if A~gyle would annex the p=o~rty.
City ~na~ Ch=is Hart~ res~nded that this pa=ticular parcel was
located wl~ ~thin ~ ~ne of agreement which the City of Denton
had ~th t~ Ci~ of Argyle. Argyle could ~ot annex the
however, ~f the p,=cel ~s ~n~xed by Denton, full services would
have ~o be prov~d~ and the area was quite a distance away from the
existent city limits.
Council Me~= H~in8 ~lted that unless the~e was some type of
agree~nt, ArgMle would ~nex the property.
/
was ~aide the City o~ ~nton strip or line of a~=ee~nt with
Ag=yl~. Arpyle could nut annex the parcel. Previously a concurrent
resol~ie~ .~h tke Ci~ of A~gyle h~d been ~pp~oved by the City
in m$~le~ l~atio~s ~ bee~ the motivmtion for ~he ~uncil'e
appEoWal of an ordi~e extending the Subdivision Rules and
Regul~tio~ into the eX~territerial jurisdicaton.
/
Hopki~ Io~ A~f~=d e~d ~ot to be~in the annexation p=ocess at
this ~ime. Motion car=ie~ unanimously.
02
City of Denton City ~ouncil Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Two
2. The Council held a discussion of mobile home park
development proposed in the extraterritorial Jurisdiction for the
purpose of determining whether to begin the annexation process (41.6
acres on Paige Road).
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this proposed
development was in the eastern or southeastern quadrant of the City
near the Rollingwood Estates subdl¥ieion. There was a large amount
of unannex territory in this area with existing mobile home parks of
varying quality. A great deal of technical information regarding
drainage, etc. had been forwarded in the agenda back-up material.
This was quickly becoming a manufacturing housing and mobile home
park area. On the north side of Peige Road was the proposed Roddy
mobile home park which the Council had denied. The Council might
consider taking in that portion and not all of the unaanexed area.
Council Member Stephens asked if the annexation would be involuntary.
~llison responded that staff had not received any inquiries
regarding voluntary annexation from the residents.
Council Member Hopkins stated that it appeared that, for protection,
the Council needed to look at annexing the small parcels.
Council Member Stephens stated that it had been the policy to annex
property to control development. The Council would instruct staff
to begin annexation when development activity began.
Stephens motion to begin the annexation proceedings.
Council Member McAdams stated that the Council should add the other
small parcels in this annexation.
Council Member Hopkins stated that he would amend the motion to
include the strip of land on Sherwood south of Paige.
Ellison reported that the tract which was owned by Mr. Roddy was for
sale.
Council Member McAdams asked if that meant mn annexation finger
should be extended across the road.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council could instruct staff
to include all of the area and the size could be reduced at a later
date. This would take in all of the small pockets of unannex land.
Council Member Stephens stated that the Council should move
cautiously.
Council Member Hopkins stated that if the City was to extend all
services to the Rollingwood subdivision anyway, the remaining ares
should be included in this annexation.
Riddlesperger second to the amendment.
Motion on the amended motion carried unanimously.
3. The Council held a discussion of zoning case on an 84 acre
tract located south of 1-35S and east of Lillian Miller Parkway
(Z-1435).
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Com~unity DeYelop~ent, reported
that the ordinance which had been approved for Z-1435 was not
approved by the Council according to the Minutes.
Denise Spivey, DeYelopment Review Planner, reported that this case
had been a mass of confusion. Orginslly the first zoning case was
for the entire 84 acre tract. Mr. George Hopkins wac representing
03
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Three
Henry S. Miller for the zoning change. The Planning and Zoning
Commission had held a public hearing and had reduced the density on
7.5 acres from multi-family 1 to multi-family restricted. This was
what was advertised for the public hearing of the City Council. The
Council had approved the multi-family restricted with an additional
restriction that 2 rows of duplexes be added and the remainder of
the 7.5 acres could be developed as MF-R. The ordinance as approved
shows the entire 7.5 sore tract to be zoned as MF-R. A legal
opinion stated that two family zoning was valid; however, two family
zoning was not what the petitioner wanted. Staff was asking for
guidance from the City Council.
Mayor Stewart stated that the ordinance differed from the Minutes.
The Legs1 staff was saying that the ordinance was valid until the
Council said differently.
Council Member McAdsms asked what the owner wanted.
Mr. McNeal, the owner, stated that he wanted MF-R on the entire 7.5
acres.
Council Member McAdams asked about the 2 rows of duplexes.
Mr. McNeal responded that it was not possible to have 2 rows of
duplezes and apartments and still have room for adequate parking.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that if the Minutes stated one
thing and the ordinance another, the ordinance was binding. If the
Council wished to reconsider the ordinance, the parcel must be
readvertised and public hearing held. The Council could waive the
fees for filing if they wished.
Council Member Stephens stated that he and Mayor Stewart were on the
City Council at the time of the zoning case. The reason the 2 rows
of duplezes had been added was to act as a buffer between the single
family residences and the retail area.
Council Member McAdams stated that it should be determined if the
parcel could accommodate 2 rows of duplexes and apartments.
Mayor Stewart stated that the petition should be taken back through
the zoning process with a waiver of the filing fees. Council could
then reconsider the case.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, asked for guidance on how the case
should be advertised.
Consensus was the petition should be readvertised as MF-R.
McAdame motion, Chew second to readvertlse and reconsider the 7.5
acre portion of Z-1435. Motion carried unanimously.
4. The Council received a report on Collins Street.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, reported that this particular
item had been before the Council several times. A public hearing
was held in May and the ordinance approved by June with the
condition that Mr. Bancroft pave both sides of Collins Street across
the frontage of his property. Council had asked staff to look into
some type of pro rata agreement to repay Mr. Bancroft for the paving
costs. The Legal staff had reported that this repayment must be
done by paving assessment. Attached in the back-up material was a
map of the street. A street assessment could be done, or the City
could pay for one-half of the paving or Mr. Bancroft could pay for
all of the paving.
Council Member Stephens stated that there had been a feeling of
inequity in requiring Mr. Bancroft to pay all of the expenses. It
appeared that the best solution was to leave the ordinance as it was
04
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting Of April 2, 1985
Page Four
and ask abutting property owners if they would want to pay a portion
of the paving costs.
Svehla stated that the current ordinance stated that Mr. Bancroft
must pave both sides of Collins Street. The City could not ask the
other property owners if they wanted to pay part of the paving
costs. The options available were to leave the ordinance as it was,
do a paving assessment or amend the ordinance to require Mr.
Bancroft to only pave the half of Collins Street which was in front
of his property.
Chew motion, Stephens second to leave the ordinance as it was.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if Mr. Bancroft would then have
to pave both sides of Collins Street.
Svehla responded yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew called the question.
Motion to leave the ordinance as it wes failed 4 to 3 with Council
Members Alford, Hopkins, Riddlesperger and Mayor Stewart casting the
'nay' votes.
Hopkins motion, Alford second to modify the Planned Development
ordinance and require Mr. Bancroft to pave only his half of Collins
Street down the frontage of his property.
City Attorney Drayovitch reported that if the PD ordinance was to be
· odified, public hearings would have to be held.
Motion to modify the ordinance to require Mr. Bancroft to pave only
his half of Collins Street carried 4 to 3 with Council Members
McAdams, Stephens and Chew casting the "nay" votes.
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 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 March 5, 1985 and the Regular Meeting of March
19, 1985.
McAdams motion, Alford second to approve the Minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Stewart announced that agenda items %7 and ~8 had been remoYed
from the agenda by staff.
2. Consent Agenda
Council Member Stephens asked that item 2.D.1 be removed from the
Consent Agenda.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda with the
e¥ception of item 2.D.1. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid # 9406 - Electrical Meter Test Board
05
City Of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Five
2. Bid ~ 9430 - Sewer Flushing Truck
3. Bid ~ 9432 - Material Truck Bed
4. Bid % 9434 - Trencher Trailer
5. Bid ~ 9437 - Sprigging, Bermuda Grass
6. Bid % 9436 - Carpet, Phase III
7. Bid ~ 9410 - Bell/Eagle Intersection and
Woodrow/Spencer Tie-In
8. Purohaae Order 67724 to Jagoe Public in the
amount of $6,525.00.
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of preliminary and final replat of
Schmitz and Ripy's Addition, Block D, Lot 9-R.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
2. Approval of preliminary plat of the Teasley
Cente~ Addition, Block 1, Lot 1. (The Planning
and ~oning Commission recommends approval.)
3. Approval of vacation of Wooded Acres Subdivision,
Second Installment. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
C. Tax Refunds:
1. Consider approval of a tax refund to Colonial
Savings and Loan in the amount of $953.86.
2. Consider approval of a tax refund to Beneficial
Stand~rd Mortgage Company in the amount of
$3,887.51.
3. Consider approval of a tax refund to Drew
Mortgage Company in the amount of $613.42.
4. Consider approval of a tax refund to The Goodman
Group, Inc. in the amount of $2,280.79.
REMOVED
BY
COUNCIL D. Bid on Sale of City Property:
1. Bid ~ 9427 Sale of City owned excess
right-of-way on Carroll between
Prairie and Highland
Council Me~tber Stephens mtated that he had asked the City Manager to
provide pa~ticular info~mation on this property. He seemed to him
that When this was disc~esed previously and asked that this excess
property acquired for the enlarge of Carroll Boulevard be placed
back on the tax rolls, there were two parcels (D-33 and D-35). The
D-35 parcel had already been sold. He thought that D-33 was 1 tract
and now it turned out to be 2. He had asked the Manager to provide
addit~onal information on the size of the property. There were two
different questions. One question was if there was adequate space
to est back from Carroll Boulevard along Highland, both from the
Carro~l curb and from the adjacent property line. The other
question wa~ if Tract A would require a new curb cut.
City Manager Chris Hartu~g responded that there was sufficient room
with a 20 feet eetback from the Carroll Boulevard right-of-way,
06
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Six
there was plenty of room to put a driveway on Highland. The answer
to the second question was that the Council would be required to
allow access to the property. There would be a requirement for type
a drive off of Carroll for Tract A. The additional question which
Council Member Stephens had asked concerned the addition of a
section of alleyway to Tract A and staff had remin4ed him that when
the Council had authorized the sale of D-35, the northern half of
that section of alleyway was included. This Just extended across to
meet the property that had already been dispose4 of.
Council Member Stephens asked if this had been a 20 feet alley
originally.
Hartung responded yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew asked if the lots were put together, would it
then necessitate a curb cut.
Hartung responded that the owner would have to have access to the
property.
Mayor Pro rem Chew asked if the 2 lots were put together to make 1
tract, would there be an additional curb cut on Carroll.
~artung responded no; there was an intervening piece of property.
Tract A, if developed along, would require a curb cut. You could
not prevent the owner from having access to their property. The
only way the owner could get access to the property was from Carroll
Boulevard, there would have to be a curb cut.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew then stated that it was the policy of the Council
for no curb cuts on Carroll Boulevard.
Hartung replied the policy was to try to minimize the curb cuts{
however, you could not prohibit someone from having access to their
property.
Council Member Stephens stated that was true if the property was
sold that way.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the Council had already agreed to
sell the property.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the City had agreed to sell
the proprty by bid.
Council Member Stephens stated that he did not know the property
would be sold as 2 tracts.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that his personal feeling was
that, if the City advertised the property for sale and accepted bids
and the bids were made in good faith, the Council had committed
themselves to sell the property.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that his problem was that he felt the
Council was contradiction themselves; if the City was selling the
property, they would give an additional curb cut on Carroll. If
someone else already owned the property and came in for a curb cut,
it was always denied.
Council Member McAdams stated that what had been done in the past
was when there was a tract of land that bordered on a side street,
the Council had insisted that entry to the lot be from the side. No
matter what about this particular piece of property, there was a
curb cut that went with it. Even if sold to the &d.Jacent property
owner, it was a tract of land that was saleable by itself and could
be resold and would still have a right to a curb cut. It was a
tract of land fronting on Carroll and the Council could not deny
that. It had been property advertised, bids had been taken and the
Council should sell it.
07
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Seven
Council Member Hopkins stated that he had questions regarding this
bid at the last meeting. His questions had been satisfactorily
answered.
Council Me~tber Stephens asked if Tract A could be separated from
Tract B. Could they be separated and voted on separately. Tract B
could be entered from Highland whereas Tract A would have to be
entered from Carroll with a new curb cut.
City Attorney Drayovitch reported that whether or not this could be
done would depend on how the bids were worded.
John Marshall, Purchasing Agent, reported that this was handled as 2
separate bids for 2 tracts and with 2 bidders.
Mayor Stewart stated that he was not in favor of this when the
Council started it and was still not in favor of curb cuts on
Carroll Boulevard; howeYer, this item had been duly advertised and
bids had been processed. The Council hsd an obligation now to sell
the property. The issue was that the Council had decided to dispose
of the property, it had been advertised, bids had been received and
should be awarded.
Council Member McAdams stated that it had been her preference not to
sell the property. However, the Council had agreed to sell it and
now the only action left was to sell it.
Council Me~ber Stephens stated that the reason he had brought this
up was to bring to the attention of the other Council Members that
there would be a need for a new curb cut on Carroll Boulevard.
Hopkins motion, McAda~ second to approve item 2.D.1 for Bid
# 9427. Motion carried U~animouely.
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 opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that staff had
no new information for the Council. This public hearing had been
advertised and 2 reply forms had been mailed with 0 returned. The
proposed land use was estate type housing with varying other uses
such as commercial. This was an involuntary annexation and would
count against the City's 1O% allowable annexable area.
Council Member Stephens asked if perhaps the owner would not be
opposed to voluntary annexation.
No on% spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, representing the owner, stated that the owner had
no preference as to whether the property was annexed or not.
Council Member Stephens stated that if the annexation were
voluntary, it would not count against the city's annexable area for
this year.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
the City of Denton fo~ annexation of approximately 65.12 acres
beginning 358 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
08
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Eight
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No ~ne spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this was the site of a
proposed expansion of the Capricorn Mobile Nome Park. One raply
form had been mailed with zero returned. The final annexation
action would be taken on June 4, 1985.
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 opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
Tbs Mayor closed the public hearing.
Da¥id Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this was a voluntary
annexation. A petition for a zoning change of this parcel had been
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. One reply form
had been mailed and zero were returned. The next Council action
would be the institution of annexation on April 23, 1985.
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, a~d
beginning approximately 500 feet north of and perpendicular to the
center line of U.S. Highway 380 and west of Masch Branah Road. A-15
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 this parcel was the
balance of the Tri-Steel property. One reply form had been mailed
with zero returned.
E. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Ham~ett & Nash, Inc. and the City of Denton for anne~ation 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 opened the public hearing.
Mr. Cliff Stebbins, representing Andrews Corporation, spoke in favor
stating that Andrews Corporation had no objections to the annexation.
Council Member Stephens asked Mr. Stebbins if the question of the
ownership of 8 acres in this tract had been answered.
Mr. Stebbins responded that the 8 acres did belong to Andrews
Corporation; however, there were no objections to the annexation.
09
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Nine
Mrs. Naggard spoke in opposition stating that her property was
agricultural and she would have a problem shooting coyotes if the
property were in the city limits.
Council Member Stephens asked .Mrs. Haggard if her property was
within thiz annexation tract.
Mrs. Haggard responded yes.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
David ~llieon, Senior Planner, reported that this was a Joint
annexation petition with a private petitioner and the City. The
petitioner had requested light industrial zoning on 50 acres of the
tract. Six reply forms had been mailed with one returned in favor
and one returned in opposition.
Council Member Stephens asked how many separate property owners
there were in the tract.
Ellison replied 6.
McAdama motion, Hopkins second to proceed with the annexation.
Motion carried unanimously.
P. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Redditoh Inveetl~ente Corporation for annexation of approximately
60.38 acres situated in the G. Walker Survey, Abstract No. 1330, and
beginning ad~acent and east of Edwards Road. A-18
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
Nc one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor cloaed the public hearing.
David Elliaon, Senior Planner, reported that 1 raply form had been
mailed with 0 returned. This was a voluntary annexation for the
purpose of zoning and land use control. The Council would take
final action on this annexation on June 4, 1985.
G. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Charles Watkins, representing Spencer-Loop Venture, requesting a
change in zoning from the planned development (PD) classification to
the co~tercial (C) district on a 12.1 acre tract located at the
northwest corner of ~pencer Road and Loop 288. The current planned
development will permit the construction of a private utility shop
and yard. If the request ie approved, the property may be used for
any purpose permitted in the co~mercial (C) district by the City of
Denton ~oning Ordinance. Z-1728
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlte Watkins, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor stating
that a portion of the site had originally been owned by the Denton
County Zlectric Cooperative. The planned development (PD-15) had
been specifically designed for the Co-op. When the property was
divided, this portion was left. His client was requesting
comme~olal moning with light industrial zoning to the north. Eight
acres to the south was ~oned commercial and was a high intensity
tract. The Capital Improvement Program would extend water lines to
the property and the developers felt that co~tmercial zoning was
consistent with the plan.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the p~blic hearing.
10
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Ten
Denise SpiYey, Development Review Planner, reported that 5 reply
forms had been mailed with 2 returned in favor and 0 in opposition.
PD-15 had been previously approved for the Co-op for 20 acres. The
Co-op had then built their facility at another location. Council
had approved an 8 acre section for commercial zoning in the original
tract. The petitioner was requesting to rezone the remaining 12
acres to commercial. This was a high intensity land use area and
the commercial zoning would be consistent with DeBton Development
Guide criteria.
Council Member Stephens asked if the City was reserving sufficient
right-of-way for the enlargement of Loop 288.
Spivey responded that the right-of-way issue would be addressed
durin~ the platting process.
Mayor Stewart asked if this was the area where the power lines went
through aa it had quite a large easement.
Ernie Tullos, Assistant Director of Utilities, responded yes.
MrAdams motion, Chew 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 uontracts
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. 85-64
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OP MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES
OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR TEE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, McAdame second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "ayes' Alford 'aye,'
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinanoe
accepting competitive bids and 9roviding for the award of contracts
fo~ public works or improvements; providing for the expenditure of
funds therefore; and providing for an effective date.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-65
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OP FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
voter McAdams "ayes" Hopkins 'ayes' Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlepperger "ayes' Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
C. 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.
11
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April Z, 1985
Page Eleven
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-66
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OP FUNDS FOR
EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OP STATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephsns motion, McAdama second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "ayes" 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
providing for the ezpenditure of funds regarding a contract with
Just Technical Associates, Inc. for a software package known as
Interactive Data Facility that will allow Data Processing to key
data from terminals.
Gary Collins, Director of Data Processing, reported that this was a
contract for software which would allow the Data Processing
Department to replace the keypunch cards and to key data from
terminals. This capability would be necessary because after an
anticipated upgrade to the computer system in June or July the
computer would no longer accept cards.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-67
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND JUST TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR AN
INTERACTIVE DATA COLLECTION FACILITY (IDCF), AND PROVIDING
~OR AN EFFBCTIV~ DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlespezger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart 'aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change of zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) district on a tract
of 31.027 acres of land situated at the southwest corner of Ryan
Road and Teasley Lane. Z-1702
Denise Spive¥, Development Review Planner, reported that this was
the ordinance for .a soning petition which had been previously
approved by the Council.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-68
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
T~XAS, 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 30.3595
ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE ELI PICKETT SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NO. 1018, DENTON COUNTYt TEXAS AND SITUATED AT THE
SOUTHWESTERN C. Xk~NER OF RYAN ROAD AND TE~SLEY LANE
INTERSECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A PLANNED DE%q~LOPMENT
DISTRICT ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR SAID
· ROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAda~ "aye,' Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,' Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
12
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Twelve
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change of zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the office (0) district on a tract of five (5)
acres of land situated west of and abutting Masch Branch Road and
north of U.S. Highway 380. Z-1709
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-89
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ~ONING 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 5.00 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 1, TRI-STEEL HEADQUARTERS ADDITION; TO PROVIDE FOR
AN OFFICE "O" DISTRICT ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION FOR SAID PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdsms second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "ayes' Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change of zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification 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. Z-1715
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-70
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ~ONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEKAS BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1 AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 37.600 ACRES OF LAND
SITUATED WEST OF AND ABUTTING LOOP 288 AND NORTH OF AND
ABUTTING AUDRA LANE; 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, 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
approving a change of zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) district on a tract
of 6.34 acres situated south of U.S. Highway 380 in the vicinity of
Cindy Lane. Z-1722
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-71
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE {ONING 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 63.40 ACRES OF LAND
SITUATED SOUTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 380 IN THE VICINITY OF CINDY
LANE; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
13
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Thirteen
DESIGNATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "RD" DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; 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," Riddleeperger "aye," Chew 'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a change of zoning from the residential single family
(SF-7) classification to the residential single family (SF-10)
district on a tract of 6.714 acres situated in the F. Batson Survey,
Abstract 43, located east and adjacent to Greenway Club Estates.
Z-1726
NO. 85-72
AN ORDINANCe AMENDING THE ZONING MAR 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 6.714 ACRES
OF LAND SITUATED IN THE F. BATSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 43,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY
"SF-7" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO SINGLE FAMILY
'SF-10" CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR SAID PROPERTY; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call .yore, McAdams "ayes' Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Rid~lesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
J. The Counoil considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 4, Section 4-33b of the Code of Ordinances to
provide for enhanced clarity of the Animal Control Ordinance.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this was a housekeeping item. The present practice at the
Animal Control Center was that before an animal was redeemed by its
owner, the pet must be vaccinated. As the City did not perform the
vaccination service, it was felt that the ordinance should specify
that the owner pay a veterinarian. A receipt from the vet would be
requi~ed before the animal was released.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-73
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
DENTON TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT AND PROOF OF RABIES
IMMUNIZATIONS O~ IMPOUNDED DOGS AND CATS AS A CONDITION TO
RELEASE OF SUCH ANIMAL; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAda~ second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call .vote, NcAdamS "aye,' Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,' Alford
"aye,' Riddleeperger "sye~" Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart 'aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
K. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for temporary no parking on both sides of North Carroll
Street from 250 feet north of Fain Street to Sherman Drive during
the Spring Fling on April 27 and 28, 1985.
Bill Angslo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this ordinance was similar to those approved by the Council for
the last 3 years to control traffic during the annual Spring Fling.
14
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Fourteen
Good Samaritan Village was located to the north of the fairgrounds
and this no parking ordinance would allow for a~ple room for
emergency vehicles if required.
Council Member Stephens stated that Mr. Mulkey had spoken to him
regarding persons parking at his business during the Spring Fling.
Angelo responded that this particular ordinance should alleviate
that problem.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-74
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON BOTH
SIDES OF CARROLL BOULEVARD TWO-HUNDRED FIFTY FEET (250')
NORTH OF FAIN STREET TO SHERMAN DRIVE DURING THE ANNUAL
SPRING FLING TO BE HELD APRIL 27 AND 28, 1985l PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO
HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN BFFECTIVE 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.
L. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
canvassing the election returns for the March 23 Street Improvement
Bond election.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that staff was particularly
pleased with this item. The vote had been 1,524 in favor and 193
opposed for $18 million in street i~prove~ent bonds. Staff had been
in contact with First Southwest Company regarding the first phase of
selling the bonds and planned to come back to the comncil on April
16 with preliminary schedules.
Mayor Stewart stated that he was pleased with the vote and felt this
was an indication that the citizens of Denton were behind the
efforts to repair the streets. He then offered spocial thanks to
those persons who had worked and served on the Street Uo~m~ittee.
Council Member Hopkins stated that, in conjunction with the money
com~itted to the streets through the bonds, the Council felt the
repairs could be handled on a 'pay as you go" basis. This would be
considered each year in the budget process.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-75
AN ORDINANCE CANVASSING ELECTION RETURNS O~ AN ELECTION
HELD ON MARCH 23, 1985 ON THE ISSUANCE O~ $10,000,000
STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams 'aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
'ayew" Riddlssperger 'aye," Chew "ayew' and Mayor Stewart 'aye.'
Motion carried unanimously.
M. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the expenditure of funds for the 1985 City of Dento~
Citizen's Survey.
Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager, reported that this ordinance
would authorize Dr. Jim Glass of North Texas State University to
conduct the annual citizen survey. Approximately 400 persons would
be contacted as a sample space.
15
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2w 1985
Page Fifteen
Council Member Stephens asked if Dr. Glass could appear before the
Council at a later date to review and revise the survey instrument,
if needed.
McKean responded yes; this action was simply to begin the process.
The st~£vey instru~ent fzom 1984 would be forwarded to the Council
for review. Discussion Of the instrument would be placed on a work
session agenda.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-76
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND JAMES J. GLASS FOR A 1985 DENTON CITIZEN SURVEY,
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdama motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, NcAda~a "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,' Alford "aye,"
Riddleeperger "ayes' Chew "ayes" and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanizously.
N. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement providing for the sale of electric power by
the Cities of Dentonw Bryan, Garland and Greenville and Brazos
Electric Rower CooperatiYe~ Inc. (referred to as "TMPP") to Texas
Utilities Electric Company (referred to as 'TUEC") and authorizing
the Mayor to execute the agreement.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this item had been
previously discussed. There hsd been a delay in meeting additional
requirements during the summer.
Mayor. Stewart asked if this sale would cover the revenues lost
during the shut down at TNPA.
Ernie Tulloe, Assistaat Director of Utilties, responded that it
would help but it would not cover all of the loss.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-77
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING AN
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF ELECTRIC POWER BY THE
CITIES OF DENTON~ BRYAN~ GARLAND AND GREENVILLE AND BRAZOS
ELECTRIC POWER C~)OPERATIVE, INC. (REFERRED TO AS "TMPP") TO
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY (REFERRED TO AS 'TUEC");
AUTHORIZING TNR MAYOR TO EXECUTE TEE AGREEMENT; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call .voter M~Adams "aYet" Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"ayes" Ridd~esperger "aye," Chew "ayes" and Mayor Stewart "aye.'
Motion carried unanimously.
5. Resolution
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
autho~izing 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
Rennatsaance.
Greg Barry, President of Sigma Alpha Mu , stated that the fraternity
was requesting the support of the Council. They did realize their
responsibiities and would honor fire lanes during the fair and would
also see to clean up after the event. Approximately 50 Denton
businesses had reserved booths for the fair with all of the proceeds
being donated to the United Way. The day of the fair had been
changed from Sunday to Saturday due to noise problems last year and
the close proximity of the Grace Temple Baptist Church.
16
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Sixteen
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the fraternity had considered
holding the Spring Rennaissance at another location.
Barry responded yes; however, it had proven to be too oostly.
Council Member Alford suggested the fraternity coatact NTSU
regarding use of parking lots on the university grounds.
Council Member Stephens asked if permission had been obtained from
the merchants and abutting property owners.
Barry responded yes.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the church had volunteered to
let the fraternity use the parking lots.
Barry responded no; even though the fair was being held on a
Saturday. The fraternity had volunteered to have 2 representatives
stay at the church parking lot and turn traffic away.
Council Member Stephens asked if the City could require the
fraternity to post 'ernest money" to defray the cost of clean up if
City crews had to do it.
Council Member McAdams stated that she had attended the Spring
Rennaisance in 1984 and the fraternity had done a very good job of
cleaning up Fry Street.
Council Member Stephens asked if the Council could have a verbal
com~itment from the group to clean up the surrounding private
property, such as the church lot.
Barry responded that the church property was already in the clean up
plan for this year and then asked if the Council had any other areas
which they might want included.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that if the Council received
complaints about this year's fair, they could always refuse to grant
the street closing next year.
Council Member McAdams stated that she felt the fraternity was
trying to resolve the problems which had Occurred last year.
Council Me~ber Alford stated that he would still like to see the
fair moved to the university campus.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the police ware on duty at the fair.
Barry responded that the University ;olice would be patrolling the
event.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the fraternity should
seriously consider moving the fair to another location. Fry Street
was a very confined area and the closing of the street would block
traffic.
Council Member Hopkins asked what provisions had been made for those
businesses on Fry Street which would be open during the fair.
Barry responded that these businesses had been offered the front
booths.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on Saturday, April 20, 1985, the Sigma Alpha Mu
Fraternity is sponsoring an Spring Renaissance to be held on Fry
Street between the intersection of Oak and Hickory; and '
17
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Seventeen
WHEREAS, all abutting property owners of the street have
given their permission to the temporary closing of said street/ 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 te~orarily close a portion of Fry Street between Oak Street and
Hickory StTeet from the hours of 8:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. on April
20, 1985; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE 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 20, 1985 from 8:00 A.M. until 7:00
P.M. for the purpose of holding the Sigma Alpha MU Spring
RenaiS~nce.
SECTION II.
That the portion of the above described streets shall
revert back to the City for normal traffic activity immediately from
and after 7:00 P.M. on April 20, 1985.
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 2nd day of April, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
'~'HARLO'I~E ALLEN, CI~Y SECi~TARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOViTCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ~ D~NTON~ TEXAS
BY:
McAdams motion that the resolution be approved. Motion died for
lack of a seoond.
Alford motion to deny. Motion died for laok of a second.
Council Member McAdams stated that the fraternity was asking for 1
year. They had tr~ed to secure another location but this year's
event was partially planned. They had shown initiative in changing
the day of the fair and were trying to work with the church
regarding the day and clean up activities.
Mayor Pro Tem Chew stated that he had reservations about closing a
public street on a business day.
McAdams motion, Riddle~=ger second that the resolution be approved.
Council Mmmber ~opkins stated that his primary concern was the
interference with the business trade on Fry Street.
18
City of Denton city Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Eighteen
On roll call vote, McAdams "ayes" Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Alford "nay," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "nay," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried 5 to 2 with Council Member Alford and Mayor
Pro Tam Chew casting the "nay" votes.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving a commercial operators lease agreement with Jay D. Rodgers
and Bruce Brown.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this proposed lease was for 4.14 acres st an approxi~ate cost
of 7~ per square foot. Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Brown intended to
construct large hangars to be sublet to businesses.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Denton Owns property available for
lease at the Denton Municipal Airport; and
WHEREAS, Jay D. Rodgers and Bruce Brown, a Texas
partnership, desire to lease property at the Denton Municipal
Airport and to use the same for hangar construction, hangar rental
and related aeronautical purposes; and
WHEREAS, tha City of Denton desires to lease property upon
the Airport for such purposes; 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 (Commercial Operator) between
the City of Denton and Jay D. Rodgers and Bruce Brown, 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 im~ediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 2nd day of April, 1985.
RICHARD 0. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHArlOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
19
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Nineteen
Hopkins motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call voter McAdams "ayet" 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 the North Central Texas Council of Governments's Standard
Specifications.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, reported that this was the
result of a lengthy process. The City of Denton specifications had
been incorpo~ated with those of many other area cities. Twenty
cities had already approved the standard specifications and
approzimately fifteen other cities were considering them.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he felt this was a step
forward. These standard specifications for the entire north central
Texas area would be an asset to contractors.
Council Member Stephens asked if the North Central Texas Council of
Governments was also looking at standard specifications for
buildings and electrical work.
SYehla responded that ~ost cities used the national building and
electrical codes.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it would be
advisable and be in the best interest of the City of Denton to adopt
specifications for public works projects consistent with
specifications used by other North Central Texas cities; NOW,
THEREFORE,
EE IT RESOLVED HY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
SECTION I.
That the ~ta~dard Specifications for Public Works
Constructionl North Central Texas be and they are hereby adopted as
the specifications for usm in connection with future public works,
water utility, and private development projects for the City of
Denton~ Texas.
SECTION II.
That the Paving, Drainage, Water and Sewer Specifications
presently in effect and used by the Department of Public Works
remain in effect for all public works projects advertised, bid upon
or under contract prior to the effective date of this resolution
until final acceptance by the City.
SECTION III.
That the Paving, Drainage, Water and Sewer Specifications
presently in effect and used by the Department of Public Works be
rescinded upon the final acceptance of all projects advertised, bid
upon, or under contract prior to the effective date of this
resolution.
SECTION IV.
That as official addendums to the Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction~ North Central Texas are published,
they are automatically adopted as addendums to the Specifications
for use in connection with future public works, water utility, and
private development projects for the City of Denton.
20
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Twenty
SECTION V.
That as future editions of the Standard ~ecifications for
Public Works Constru.c.tipn~ North Central Texas are published, the
most recent edition will hereby be adopted as the Specifications for
use in connection with future public works, water utility, and
private development projects for the City of Denton.
SECTION VI.
That as future editions of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction~ North Central Texas are published, the
edition of the Specifications in effect at the time that the next
edition ia published be in effect for all public works, water
utility, and private development projects advertised, bid upon, or
under contract prior to the effective date of the next edition; and
remain in effect for these projects until their final acceptance by
the City.
SECTION VII..
That as future editions of the ~tandard Specifications for
Public Works Construction~ North Centra~ Texas are published, the
edition of the Specifications in ef'kect at the time that the next
edition is published be rescinded upon the final acceptance of all
public works, water utility, and private development projects
advertised, bid upon, or under contract prior to the effective date
of the next edition of the Specifications. SECTION VI.I!...
That the effective date of addendums and the second and all
other future editions of the Star, etd Specifica~i~ns for Public
Works Construction~ North Central Texas be set for three months from ,
the day that the city receives official notification about the
existence of the addendum or the newest edition to be published.
SECTION IX.
That the City Secretary, the City Engineer and the Director
Of Public Works be and they are hereby directed to place a conformed
copy of the ~pecifications hereby adopted or any future addendums
of, or editions to, the specifications that will be hereby adopted
in their permanent files for public inspection.
SECTION X.
That this resolution shall become effective i~ediately
upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 2nd day of April, 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:
21
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Twenty-One
Riddlesperger motion, McAda~s second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Alford "aye," R£ddlesperqer "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor
Stewart 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution
opposing Senate Bill 134 regarding the publication of intent to
annex,
Council Me~ber Stephens left the meeting.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that this proposed legislation
was detrimental to those cities which were trying to control growth
and land use through annexation.
The following resolution was presented:
R E SO,UT I ON
WHF~EAS, Senate Bill No. 134 has been filed and is
currently before the Senate of the State of TeKas; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 134 would amend the Municipal
Annexation Act (Article 97Da, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes) to
requize cities to publish, one year before the date on which it
proposes to institute an~xation proceedings for an area, a public
notice of such proposed annexation; and
WEEREAS, a requirement that a city publish notice one year
in advance of any proposed annexation would greatly hamper a city's
ability to control and ~egulate future development and to plan for
the orderly growth of the city; and
WHEREAS, such a ~otice requirement would not be in the best
interest of the public or the municipal governments of the state;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
SECTION I.
That the City of Denton, Texas, opposes Senate Bill 134 and
hereby urges and calls upon its elected Representatives and Senators
of the State of Texas to OppOSe passage of said legislation.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 2nd day of April, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SBCRET~%RY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Hopkins motion, Alford second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdals "aye,' Hopkins "aye,' Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Twenty-Two
E. The Council considered approval of a resolution
supporting Senate Bill 1032 and Souse Bill 1634 regarding the
expansion of service areas for municipally owned electric utilities.
Council Member Stephens joined the meeting.
City Manager Chris Sartung reported that this particular issue had
not been a problem for the City of Denton. When Denton applied for
the Certificate of Convenience and Necessity, it was requested and
granted that the municipal utilities could serve those areas for 2
miles in all directions in the extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Other
TMPA cities, however, would suffer if these bills were not approved
by the state legislature.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Municipally owned electric utilities have been
totally unsuccessful in securing amended applications for
Certificates of Convenience and Necessity from the Public Utility
commission to serve their citizen owners in newly annexed areas; and
WSEREAS, Legislation has been introduced in the Souse and
Senate in the form of S.B. 1634 and S.B. 1032 which Legislation
would help alleviate the aforementioned problem; and
WSEREAS, the inability of municipally owned electric
utilities to expand service areas greatly impairs the financial
integrity of said municipally owned utilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF TSE CITY OF DENTON:
That the City Council of the City of Denton unanimously
supports the passage of H.B. 1634 and S.B. 1032.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 2nd day of April, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TSXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLENt CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEHRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCS, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY: . ..
Sopkins motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens 'aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye,w Chew "ayet" and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving an employment agreement with the City Attorney.
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
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Twenty-Three
WHEREAS, on February 5, 1985 the City Council of the City
of Denton appointed Debts Ademi Drayovitch, City Attorney of the
City Of Denton, Texas;
NOW, THER~FORE~ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON:
SECTION
The City Council of the City of Denton hereby engages the
emplo~ent services of Debts Adami Drayovitch as City Attorney of
the City of Denton, Texas, to perform the functions and duties
specified in the City Chdrter, the City Code, and the laws of the
State of Texas, and to i~erform 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 Debts Adami Drayovitch for
her services an annual base salary of S46,800.00 payable in
installments at the same time as other employees of the City are
paid and ~100.0O per month car allowance. The sum of $4,000.00
shall be paid for relocation expenses.
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
coneide~ation is given to other employees of the City.
S~CTION IV.
It is recognized that the City Attorney has to devote a
great deal of her time outside normal office hours to business of
the City, and to that end, the City Attorney will be allowed to take
compe~atory time off aa she shall deem appropriate during said
normal office hours; provided, however, the City Attorney shall
devote her 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
governmental 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 her
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 her
continuation and full participation, including the holding of
responsible offices in national, regional, state and local
associations and organizations necessary and desirable for her
conti~ued professional participation, growth and advancement, and
for the good of the City of Denton.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Twenty-Four
SECTION V.
Before voluntarily resigning her position, Debts Adami
Drayovitch, agrees to give the City Council at least thirty (30)
days notice in writing of her intention to resign, stating the
reasons therefore.
In the event of her involuntary separation as City
Attorney, she shall be entitled to receive a lump sum payment equal
to sixty (60) days aggregate salary; provided, however, that in the
event of her termination because of her conviction for any offense
involving moral turpitude or any illegal act involving personal gain
to her, 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 her
discharge or dismissal by the City Council or her 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 she resign, then, in that eveat, the City Attorney
~ay at her option be deemed to be "terminated" at the date of such
reduction or such refusal to comply within the meani,ng 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 lng working
conditions as they now exist or hereafter may be amended, shall
apply to the City Attorney as they 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 ae are accorded other department h~ads, including
provisions governing accrual and payment therefore on te~mination of
employment.
SECTION VII.
This agreement shall be effective for a period of one year.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 2nd day of April,-1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, 'MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Hopkins motion, Alfo~d second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdame "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddleepergsr 'aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye.'
Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 2, 1985
Page Twenty-Five
The Council considered authorizing the Spring Fling
Committee to hang banners over various City streets advertising the
1985 Spring Fling.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the Council traditionally
had ap~ove~ the hanging of banners over City streets to advertise
the Spring Fling.
McAdams motion, Chew second to authorize the Spring Fling Co~ittee
to hang banners o~er various City streets to advertise the 1985
Spring Fling. Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council wes to have considered removing zoning case
Z-1675 fro~ the table.
This item was removed from the agenda by staff.
8. The Council was to have considered the petition of
Christopher Bancroft requesting a change in zoning Xrom the
agricmlturel (A) classification to the planned development (PD)
district on a 19.$9 acre tract located on the south side of Parvin
Road approximately 1,500 feet east of Bonnie Brae Road. If
approved, the planned development will permit 71 lots for single
family detached use (miaimum lot size 7,000 square feet) and a two
acre tract reserved for a private school. Z-1675
This item was removed from the agenda by staff.
9. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel, or board appointments.
10. New Business
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 items of business,
CHARL-OTTB ALL~N, CITY SEC~BTARY
0774s
26
City Council Minutes
April 9, 1985
The Council convened into the Special Called 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, City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
Mayor Stewart recognized Mr. J. P. Phillips, Mayor Pro Tem of the
City of Carlsbad, New Mexico who was in the audience.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance canvassing
the results of the April 6, 1985 City Officer election.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-78
AN ORDINANCE CANVA~ING THE RETURNS AND DECLARING THE
RESULTS OF THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IH THE CITY
OF DENTON ON APRIL 6, 1985
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance.
Nayor Stewart read the election results as follows:
PLACE 1:
Harry Eaddy 137
Mark R. Chew 281
PLACE 2:
Joe Alford 480
Virgil C. Adams 321
PLACE 3:
Jim Riddlesperger 261
PLACE 4:
Ray Stephens 171
Ray Mackin 1
The following candidates were declared to be elected:
FOR PLACE 1: Mark R. Chew
PON PLACE 2: Joe Alford
FOR PLACE 3: Jim Riddlesperger
FOR PLACE 4: Ray Stephens
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye,' Hopkins 'aye," Stephens "aye,"
Afford "aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye,' and Nayor Stewart
"aye.' Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council then held the administration of the oath of
office to the newly elected City Council members.
Charlotte Allen, City Secretary, administered the Oath of Office to
Mark R. Chew, Joe Alford, Jim Riddlesperger and Ray Stephens.
3. The Council considered selection of the Mayor Pro Tem.
Council Member Alford nominated Charles Hopkins.
27
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 9, 1985
Page Two
Riddlesperger motion, Chew second that the nominations cease and
~opkins be elected by acclamation. Motion to cease nominations
carried unanimously.
Motion to elect Charles Hopkins Mayor Pro Tem by acclamation carried
unanimously.
4. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board appointments. No
official action was tak~.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
CHARhOTT~ khh~, CITY
0775s
28
Council Minutes
April 16, 1985
The Council convened into the Work Session at 4:00 p.m., meeting in
the parking lot of the Municipal Building.
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members Alford,
Riddlespsrger and Stephens
A~SENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Chew and McAdams
1. The Council conducted a tour to view various billboards and
signs in conjunction with the proposed sign ordinance.
The Council then convened into the Work Session at 5130 p.m. in the
Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
In conjunction with the tour to view billboards and signs, Council
Me~ber Stephens stated that he felt the Council ought not act on the
proposed sign ordinance at the present time. The current session of
the state legislature was considering sign related issues and
perhaps the Council should delay action until the session was over.
Council Member Stephens further stated that whenever the Council did
take official action on the proposed ordinance, some members might
be opposed to the ordinance including existing non-conforming signs
at the time of passage of the ordinance.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that that would assume that the
only problem with the proposed ordinance was in regard to signs
which did not conform due to si~e.
Council Member Stephens stated that another problem would be
amortization.
Mayor Stewart stated that he believed the ordinance should be
approved before the end of the legislative session in Austin. The
Council could delete from the ordinance those issues about which
they were in doubt.
Council Members Stephens and Chew stated that they would rather wait.
City Manager Chris Nartung reported that the longer the ordinance
was delayed, more signs would be put up.
Mayor Stewart asked about the large signs on the interstate highway.
Hartung responded that the legal staff could give clarification on
where the city Jurisdiction ended and the Highway Beautification Act
jurisdiction began.
Council Member McAdams stated that she wanted an end to the signs.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that he felt the bill would pass the
state legislature; however, the city would then be responsible for
buying the signs.
Council Member McAdams stated that she wanted to see the proposed
ordinance passed and if the legislature acted, the city ordinance
would become invalid.
Charlie Watkins, sign ordinance consultant, stated that the city
ordinance would not be invalidated but some of the existing signs
would have to be relocated.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that 2 out of ] signs would have to be
moved. This would open the city up to an unimaginable number of
lawsuits.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Two
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that those signs that did not
conform to the proposed ordinance did not conform to the existing
ordinance.
The consensus of the Council was to place the proposed sign
ordinanoe on the agenda for approval as quickly as possible after
the state legislature acted.
1. The Council considered the scheduling of the $10,000,000
street bond project.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, distributed an updated schedule
for the Council's review. Svehla reported that this was the "first
cut" at the schedule of street projects and showed where there were
conflicts with major utilities such as water and sewer project.
Lengthy discussions had been held with the water and sewer
departments; some projects were in the design phase at the present
time. The Capital Improvements Program had $250,000 for water and
sewer replacement activities. The suggestion from staff was to pull
out those projects in conflict with the street bond program so as
not to pave and then have to tear up the streets for the laying of
water or sewer lines. Staff would be bringing back to the Council a
schedule for the funding. Those streets which conflicted with the
CIP util. ity improvements could be reprogrammed to 1986 or 1987 for
paving, etc.
city Manager Chris Hartung reported that this reprogramming would
not change the over-all timing of the street improvement project.
Svehla reported that there were no conflicts with water and sewer
projects in 1985 or 1986. The installation of major water lines was
scheduled for 1987; street repairs had been scheduled so as not to
conflict. Staff had also looked at the possibility of getting
developer participation. The locations of the street repairs had
been grouped together in order to get better bids. Timing of the
repairs had been viewed with an eye to spread the locations out
city-wide so as not to totally disrupt one section of town.
Svehla further reported that the overlay and repaying would be done
first. If delayed, some repaying would become rebuilding due to
deterioration. Some streets would have to be remixed before being
repaved ~ue to heavy use.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked about Bonnie Brae due to the
petition which had been received.
Svehla responded that Bonnie Brae was in a major growth area. There
was a concrete plant in the area whioh used Bonnie Brae. Also there
were large water lines to be put in place on Bonnie Brae was well as
the new water plant. Time was needed to give the utilities an
opportunity to gear up. Bonnie Brae was currently scheduled for
1987-88. Also there was quite a lot of vacant land in this area and
the staff would like a chance at getting developer participation.
City Manager Hartung reported that staff was working with First
Southwest Company on selling the street bonds. First Southwest was
aware that the city wanted to move as quickly as possible on these
projects.
2. The Council held a discussion of proposed restructuring of
current out-of-city fee structure for the Library.
Joella Orr, Librarian, reported that the Library had waited until
two quarters of the fiscal year had passed to gather adequate data.
During the 1983/84 fiscal year, out-of-city use represented
approximately 20% of the total circulation and the County had
reimbursed 10% of this cost. To date this fiscal year, the out-of-
city circulation was approximately 16% which represented a cost of
$47,410 of which only $6,809 was recovered through the sale of
City of Denton city Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Three
library cards at $11 each. While this recovered revenue was
helpful, it did not cover the cost of service. The staff was
looking at several options which included:
1. to continue providing the service with the taxpayers
of Denton subsidizing out-of-city use ~.
2. to discontinue the service to out-of-city patrons
3. to obtain funding from the County to recover the cost
of out-of-city patron use
4. to increase the fees to recover the costa
Council Member Riddlesperger asked If tbs increased fees would not
discourage use of the library.
Orr responded that the City of Dallas library had increased their
fees and usage had declined. It seemed that the County was ready to
rethink the funding issue. The cost would be $1.50 per capita and
the County would reimburse a portion of this for the actual use of
the library.
Council Member Riddleeperger stated that perhaps now was an
appropriate time to approach the Commissioners Court on this issue.
Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager, reported that the Library
budget was being prepared and costs had gone up. It was believed
that the City should approach the County and present these
alternatives,
Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins stated that perhaps this should be delayed due
to other problems between the City and the County.
City Manager Hartung reported that now would be the time as the
Co~iasioners court was working on thpir budget.
3. The Council reviewed and considered approval of proposed
changes to the 1985 Citizen Survey.
Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager, reported that the staff had
made some minor changes in the 1984 citizen s~rvey questionnaire for
1985. Items %4 and %5 from the 1984 survey had been deleted as they
dealt with street issues and the bond election had taken care of
this. On the 1985 survey, items %8.A and ~10.A had been reworded
while item %10.C was a new question relating to the crime prevention
program. Item %13.A ("Does the fact that you seldom or never see a
police patrol in your neighborhood concern you a lot, a little, or
not at all?") was a new question relating to public safety.
Council Member Stephens stated he felt this question could be
misconstrued and should be deleted.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the survey was only for
approximately 400 people and felt the Council should know how many
people were concerned about this issue.
McKean reported that the purpose of the survey was to get an idea of
how citizens felt about the co~unity.
Council Members McAdams, Alford, Riddlesperger and Mayor Stewart
felt the question should be left on the survey. Council Members
Stephens and Chew felt it should be deleted.
McKean further reported that new items %18 (regarding if the
respondent felt improvement was needed in city services and if so,
how much), ~17 (which services the respondent would be in favor of
reducing), ~18 (regarding the quality of service provided by Animal
Control) and %21 (regarding which city depaztments the respondent
had contacted about a complaint, request for service or information)
had been added.
31
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Pour
Council Member Stephens stated that item %18 said nothing about doge
and asked if the item could be worded to say something about the
leash laws.
McKean further reported that item 121 had three questions. The City
Attorney's Office and Court Clerks were not included in the list of
possible contact departments. Items j25 and %26 were new questions
on attitudes regarding traffic. Item %27 asked if enough was being
done to attract new induatry in Denton. Item #28 asked if the
respondent WaS aware that the city offered a free energy audit and
J29 asked if the respondent would be in favor of an additional tax
to support Flow ~ospital.
Council Member MoAdams asked on item %19 ("Generally, how effective
in zoning in Denton?") if people really understood the meaning of
effective zoning.
4. The Council discussed an ordinance prohibiting storage of
cars on ~esidential lawns.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the Council was being asked
to respond to tbs memorandal from the City Attorney on this issue.
Debts Dra~ovitch, City Attorney, reported that the Dallas ordinance
was lenient. The intent of the Dallas ordinance was to clean up
yards prior to the Repub~ican National Convention. The Denton
ordinance had been rejected by the Planning and zoning commission.
Council Member Rlddlesperger stated that Junk cars were already
prohibited by city ordinance but they were still there. The
ordinance was ineffective ~cause a citizen could move the oar 1
inch and not be in violation.
Drayovitoh responded that the Texas legislature was very protective
of citizen's rights to personal property. People could insure that
a vehicle had current license tags and a valid inspection sticker
and the vehicle would bo le~al.
Mayor stewart asked if it was the wish of the Council to have the
staff try to prepaxe an ordinance for Council discussion.
The consensus of the Council was to direct staff to prepare an
ordinance for discussion.
Drayovitch stated that the proposed ordinance would have to be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to coming
before the Council.
5. Due to lack of ti~e, the Council did not convened into the
Executive Sesaton to discuss legal matters, real estate, personnel
and board appointments.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Cha~W~ers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart~ Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins; Council Members
Alford, Chew, MeAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ASSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of April 2, 1985 and the Special Called Meeting of
April 9, 1985.
Rtddlesperge~ :~otion, McAda~ second to approve the Minutes as
presented~ Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Five
2. Consent Agenda
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to approve the Consent Agenda as
preeented. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid ~ 9324 - Vacuum pump
2. Bid # 9367 - Pickups and trucks
3. Bid # 9386 - VibFatory rollers
4. Bid ~ 9424 - 8" water line
5. Bid %9427 - Band held electronic meter reading
device
6. Bid ~ 9433 - Parkway Plaza - W&S participation
7. Bid # 9436 - Chip spreader and asphalt paver
8. Bid ~ 9440 Playground equipment
9. Bid # 9405 Raw water pump installation
10. Bid ~ 9435 - 2.0 MG ground storage tank
11. Purchase Order ~ 67248 to Floyd Glenn Smith in
the amount of $3,341.00
12. Purchase Order % 67420 to Butler and Land in the
amount of $3,776.00
13. Purchase Order J 67488 to Gilford-Bill American
in the amount of $4,758.00
14. Purchase Order J 67572 to Motorola Communications
in the amount of $6,948.00
15. Purchase Order J 67579 to A. P. Green in the
amount of $8,000.00
16. Purchase Order ~ 67719 to Vermeer Equipment in
the amount of $3,083.54
B. Plats and Replete:
1. Approval of preliminary plat of the Bell
Addition, Lot 1, Block 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
2. Approval of final replat of the A. E. Bell
Addition, Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 2. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
3. Approval of preliminary replat of the JBC
Addition, Lot 3A, Block 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
4. Approval of preliminary plat of the Life
Tabernacle Church Addition, Lot 1, Block 1. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
5. Approval of preliminary plat of the Naughton
Place Addition, Lot 1, Block 1. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
33
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Six
6. ApproYal of preliminary replat of the Redman
Addition~ Lot lB, Block 2. (The Planning and
~oning Commission recommends approval.)
7. Approval of preliminary plat of the Cedar Creek
Addition, Lots 1-16, Block 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
C. Change Order:
1. Consider approval of Change Order #1 for
water/sewer line relocation on Loop 288 to
Calvert Paving Company - Bid % 9364
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Charles Watkins requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural
(A) classification to the light industrial (LI) district on a .462
acre tract lo~ated at the D, orthwest corner of U.S. Highway 380 and
Cooper Creek Road. If the aching change is approved, the property
may be utilised for any la~d use permitted in the light industrial
(LI) district by the City of Denton Zoning Ordinance. Z-1729
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Charlie Watkins, representing Alan Thetford the owner of the
property~ spoke in favor stating that the property was located on
Highway 380 and Cooper Cree~ ~ad. This site was the location of an
existing facility which was a non-conform use. The petitioner was
requestiBg Light Industrial zoning as a manufacturing function was
presently being performed at the site. The owner would like to
expand am he currently must store materials at a rented facility.
Mr. Thetford wam requesting the parcel be rezoned so that he could
expand the existing structure to include room for storage. Three to
five people were currently employed and no more were expected.
No one s~)(~e in opposition.
The Mayor closed the p~blic hearing.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, reported that this was a small tract
of less than 1/2 acre which was a legal non-conforming use. Light
induetri&l zoning would be consistent with surrounding land uses.
Seven reply forms had been mailed with one returned in favor. The
Planning and ~oning Commission had recommended approve.1 by a vote of
6 to 0.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approvin~ a change in sorting on a .462 acre tract located at the
northwest corner of U.S. Highway 38~ and Cooper Creek Road.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85r79
A~ ORDINANCE AMENDING T~E ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
iTEXA~ AS SA~E WA~ ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCKS OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 0.462 ACRES
O~ LAND SITUATED IN THE M.E.P. & P.R.R. CO. SURVE¥~
A~STRACT NO. 1469, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST COR~ER O~ U. S. HIGHWAY 380 AND COOPER CREEK
~OA~; TO ~ROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFI-
CATION AND USE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 'LI" CLASSIFICATION AND
US~ ~OR SAID PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Counoil Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Seven
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.
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. 85-80
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR TeE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES
OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR 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," Stephens "aye,' Alford 'aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. 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 fro~ requirements
of competitive bids; and providing for an effective
The following ordinance was presented~
NO. 85-81
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 REQUIREMENTB OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; 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.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinanoe
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. 85-82
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS:
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR: AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On zoll call
vote, McAdams 'ayes" Hopkins "aye,' Stephens 'aye,' Alford "aye,"
Riddleaperger "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 regarding the
35
City of Denton City Counuil Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Eight
petition Of Hammett & Nash, Inc. for annexation of approximately
361.708 acres situated in the H. May Survey, Abstract 807, and the
V. E. Gallor Survey, Abstraot 452, and beginning west of FM 2164
(North Locust) approximately 7,000 feet north of Hercules. A-16
Marian Copeland, Administrative Intern, reported that the
petitioners were offering a voluntary annexation. Staff was
reco~mending May 14 an4 May 28 as the dates for the public hearings.
NO. 85-83
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR PUELIC
BEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN BY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND
AUTHORIZING AND DI~ECTIN~ THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF
SUCB PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Chew motion, MoAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdama "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlespe~er "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 Ha~ett & Mash, Inc. for annexation of approximately
180.9855 acres situate4 in the John A. Burns Survey, Abstract 130,
and the Thomas Polk Survey, Abstract 999, and beginning west of PM
2164 (North Locust) approximately 9,000 feet north of Hercules.
A-19
The following o~dinanca was presented:
NO. 85-84
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC
HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AS
DESCRIBED HER~IN BY T~E CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND
AUTHORIIING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLIS~ NOTICE OF
SUCH PUBLIC HBARIN~.
Chew motion, Mettdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, MoAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens 'aye," Alford "aye,"
Rlddlesperger 'aye," Chew Ways," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
repealing Section 25-~.1 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Denton, Texas; reenacting a new Section 25-6.1 to provide for the
average billing of utility ~ervices; and providing for an effective
date.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the Public
Utilities Board had reviewed this item. This ordinance would allow
for a techni~al adjustment in the average billing program.
Projected costa for the upcoming year has caused utility bills to be
larger than they should have been. This adjustment would allow
those pS,edna on the average billing system to have bills which were
closer tO the &etual coat. The ordinance would also allow customers
who were unable to bills and did not have 12 months of
pa~
large
good credit history, to be placed on the average billing system.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-85
AR ORDIMANC~ REPEALING S~CTION 25-6.1 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; REENACTING A NEW
SECTION 25-6.1 TO PROVIDE FOR THE AVERAGE BILLING OF
UTILITY SERVICES! AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
36
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Nine
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdame "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 proposed oversize agreement with Ridgeway Plaza Joint
Venture for a new water line of Lillian B. Miller Parkway along the
frontage of the property.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this wes merely a
name change on the contract as a new party had purchased the
property.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-86
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY'S
PARTICIPATION IN THE COST OF INSTALLING OVERSIZE WATERLINE
FACILITIES; AUTEORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE TH~ CONTRACT;
APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll c&ll
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "eye,' Alford "aye,'
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye.' Motion
carried unanimously.
5. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
closing Congress Street between Alice and Denton streets from 3:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Friday, May 10, 1985 for the annual Day of the I
Cougar fundraising event sponsored by the Calhoun Junior Sigh School
PTA.
Ms. Candy Hickerson, Vice-President of the Calhoun Junior High
School P-TA, stated that the street had been closed for this event
in 1984. Mr. Olyai, Traffic Engineer, had felt it best that the
P-TA come before the Council to request the closing. The Day of the
Cougar fundraiser involved the entire school and the closing of the
street would alleviate any potential safety problem for parents and
children who would have to cross the street many times during the
day.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, on Friday, May 10, 1985, Calhoun Jr. ~igh PTA ie
sponsoring an annual Day of the Cougar fundraising event, to be held
on Congress Street between the intersection of Alice Street and
Denton Street; and
WHEREAS, all abutting property owners of the street have
given their permission to the temporary closing of said street; and
WHEREAS, the Day of the Cougar fundraising Event is open to
the general public of the City and County of Denton; end
WHEREAS, in order to provide adequate apace for the said
fundraising event 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 Congress Street between Alice
Street and Denton Street from the hours of 3:00 P.M. until 7:00 P.M.
on May 10, 1985;
37
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Ten
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
SECTION I.
That Congress Street between Alice Street and Denton Street
shall be temporarily closed as a street or public thoroughfare of
any kind or character whatever on May 10, 1985 from 3:00 P.M. until
7:00 P.M. for the purpose of holding the Day of the Cougar
fundrais~ng event.
HECTiON II.
That the portion of the above described streets shall
revert bask to the City for normal traffic activity immediately from
and after 7:00 P.M. on May 10, 1985.
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 16th day of April, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY S~CRETARY
CITY OF ~BNTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DE~TON~ TEXAS
BY:
McAdams lotion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams 'aye,' Hopkins "ayes" Stephens "ayes' Alford
"aye," Rlddleeperger "aye,' Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart 'aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The CouBcil considered approval of a resolution
approving an agreement by the City of Denton Industrial Development
Authority to issue a bond for Glenn L. Hulcher and the bond
resolution providing for the issuance of such bond.
City Manager Chris Rartung reported that the Denton Industrial
Development Authority had ~et and approved the necessary documents
for this p~oJeot which would allow 3 new companies to move to
Denton. The Authority was now asking for Council approval of a bond
resolution to provide for the issuance of the bond.
Mr. Byron Hart, representing the petitioner, stated that Mr. Hulcher
would be moving his 3 corporations to Denton from Illinois. The
first company was a national leasing and financial corporation, as
well as lulcher Emergency Services and EV Systems which dealt with
oomputer software. The ool~any was very excited about coming to
Texas and would bring 22 families from Illinois. Approximately 15
new Jobs in the el0,000 to $40,000 per year salary range would be
generate6 with the ~ossibility of 25 more jobs over the next 3 to 5
years.
The following resolution was presented:
38
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Eleven
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BY
CITY OF DENTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TO ISSUE A BOND FOR
GLENN L. HULCHER
AND THE BOND RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BOND
WHEREAS, 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 Areas')
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, Glenn L. Hulcher desires to finance, pursuant to
the Act, the construction of an office building containing
approximately 14,500 square feet located at 611 Kimberly 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
co~ents 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 City of Denton
Industrial Development Authority and Glenn L. ~ulcher", in
substantially the form and substance as attached to this Resolution
and ~ade a part hereof for all purpoaes, is hereby approved, and the
Bond in the principal amount of $1,350,000, 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 herein.
Section 2. The 'Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of
City of Denton Industrial Development Authority Bo~d, ~e£ies 1985
and the Execution of Trust Indenture (Glenn L. Hulcher Project)", in
substantially the form and substance attached to this Resolution end
made a part hereof for all purposes, is hereby specifically
approved, and the Bond may be issued as provided for therein.
Section 3. The City hereby approves the issuance of the
aforesaid Bond in the aggregate principal amount of ~1,350,000 for
Glenn L. Hulcher, and further approves the Project aa 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 assetz be pledged to the payment of
the Bond.
Section 4. The City hereby assigns to the City of Denton
Industrial Development Authority its allocable portion of the state
private activity bond volume with respect to the reservation requeat
to be filed for the Bond by the City of Denton Induatrial Develop-
ment Authority.
McAdams motion, Alford second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdame "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 April 16, 1985
Page Twelve
¢. The Council consi~ered approval of a resolution
expressi~ the City of Dentonts intent to enter into a water sales
agreemenh with Argyle Water Hupply Corporation.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the Argyle Water
Supply Corporation served a large area in Argyle and in Denton's
extra-territorial Jurisdiction in the area south of Denton. Ms. Jo
Storer w~s developing pro~er~y on Brush Creek Road and was planning
On installing a 10" to 12' water line down Brush Creek. To serve
future developments in this area, a 16" water line would be
approprilte. The City would participate with this water line from
Robson ~ane to the railroad tracks on Wort Worth Drive. Before
Argyle would ~omit the f~Ade, they had requested assurance from
Denton that the city wuuld sell water to them. Denton currently did
sell water to Corinth and served the extra-territorial Jursidiction
areas. .corinth had asked for a resolution as assurance and had
expressed the intention t~t Denton would take the customers when
the property ~as annexed an~ would, at that time, take over the
system. The s~stem would ~ave to collect 50% of the water and
return it to the Denton system. The final contract would be
presented at a later date.
Council Me~ber Hopkins asked why Argyle was not willing to pay more
than for Just oversizing when this appeared to be a major water
system. Re then asked if th~ water would not have to go back into a
major collection system eueh ae ours.
Nelson responded yea.
Council Me~ber Hopkins then stated that most of the homes in Argyle
were on septic systems for sewerage. It seemed to him that the city
should require the lines to be run now to bring the water back into
the Denton system.
Nelson replied that the re~lution before the Council specified that
the system would conform to the Denton standards. One of these
requirements was that at least 50% of the customers be on the
collection system.
Council Member Hopkins state4 that the staff needed to watch this
situation Yery carefully f~ a fiscal standpoint.
Nelson reported that one problem was that the Argyle Water Supply
Corporation was chartered only as a water supplier. They were
funding a large portion of the water line as an incentive to
developers to install apprc~riate sewer lines.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHE~EA~, the Argyle Water Supply Corporation (AWSC)
provides water service to the City of Argyle and surrounding areas
including certain areas in the City of Denton's extraterritorial
Jurisdiction; and
WHE~HAB, AWHC has worked cooperatively with the City of
Denton to install lines in Denton'e extraterritorial Jurisdiction in
accordance with Denton'e standards in anticipation of Denton
eventually acquiring such facilities upon annexation of such
extraterritorial jurisdiction; and
WHKREA~, AWHC obtains their water supply from wells and
recognisea the long-term necessity to obtain a surface water supply;
and
WH~RHA~, AWSC has agreed to participate in oversising a
waterline for approximately 14,000' along highway 377 from the Santa
Fe Railroa~ south past Brush Creek Road, all in conjunction with the
Jo Storez Homes, Inc., development; and
40
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Thirteen
WHEREAS, AWSC has requested assurance of Denton's intent to
sell treated water to AWSC upon completion of such line and upon
meeting other certain criteria aa outlined in Exhibit I attached
herewith; and
WHEREAS, AWSC's intent is to transfer ownership at no cost
to the City of any AWSC lines located in benton's extraterritorial
Jurisdiction at the time Denton annexes such area(s) provided AWSC's
loop line system integrity is maintained;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
The City of Denton hereby expresses Denton~s intent to
enter into a contract with the Argyle Water Supply Corporation
(AWSC) to sell treated water upon completion of an appropriate
waterline to the AWSC certificated area, such line to be extended by
development interests or AWSC, and upon AWSC's meeting certain
service criteria as outlined in Exhibit I attached hereto and/or the
Dallas Water Utilities New Customer Service Policy. Terms of such
contract shall follow the principles outlined in Exhibit I.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 16th day of April, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEERA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
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.
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution
postponing the regular meeting of the City of Denton City Council
from May 7, 1985 to May 14, 1985.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a majority of the Counuil will be out of the City
of Denton on May 7, 1985, and it is necessary that the Council
~eeting for such date be postponed until May 14, 1985; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL dP TEE CITY OF DENTON:
SECTION I.
That the regular Council meeting to be held on May 7, 1985
be postponed until May 14, 1985.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 16th day of April, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWARTt MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
41
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 16, 1985
Page Fourteen
ATTEST:
CHA~LOTT~ ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF D~NTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEHKA AD, MI DRAYOVITCH~ CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, ~Adams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote~ MoAdams ~aye~' Hopkins 'aye,' Stephens =aye,' Alford
· ayes' ~iddlesperger =aye~~ Chew 'ayes' a~d Mayor Stewart 'aye.=
Motion ~rried unanimously.
6. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal ~tters~ real estate, ~rsonnel anO board appointments.
7. Naw Bu~l~es~
The ~ollowin~ items of new business were suggested by
Council Membere for future agen~as~
1. Council Member Hopkins requested a report on sales tax.
City Manage= Ch=is Hartun~ re~9onded that the Council would
~ receiving a gi~ancial report.
2. Council Mem~ Hopkins requested a street light study (the
Citise~s Traffic Safety Support Co~ission review the
t~affic lights).
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, reported that the
study was in process and was bein~ done by quadrants.
3. ~yor Stewart r~ested an item be placed on the next
agenda to consider charter revisions and/or amendments.
4. Council Nembe~ McAdams requested a resolution be placed on
the nezt agenda for Project TeJas and also a future work
eession item regarding the North Texas food bank.
5. Council Me~be~ Stephens ~equested a resolution for
discussion regarding the changing of election day f~om the
first Saturday i, April to the second Saturday if the first
Sunday in April was Easter.
The Council reconvened into the ~xecutive Session to discuss legal
matters~ real eetate~ personnel and board appointments. No official
action was taken.
With ~o,fu~t~e~ items of bu~i~ees~ the meeting was adjourned.
0827s
Council Minutes
April 23, 1985
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting .at 5:00 p.m.,
meeting in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Alford, Chew, Riddlesperger and Stephens
ABSENT: Council Member McAdame was out of town attending a
seminar
1. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting of
approximately 136.58 acres beginning approximately 500 feet east of
the centerline of U. S. Highway 377 and south of Brush Creek Road.
A-11
Council Member Stephens stated that it had been disouesed if this
particular annexation could be voluntary so as not to count against
the City and asked if there was any report.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that voluntary annexation
was discussed with all petitioners when applicable. The status of
this particular annexation had not changed.
The following ordinance was presented:
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 136.58
ACRES OE LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATHD ZN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE GEORGE W.
DAUGHERTY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 351, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A' DISTRICT PROPERTY;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATH.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,' Alford "aye,"
Rlddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings On a tract oonsisting O~
approximately 65.12 acres beginning 350 feet south of and
perpendicular to the centerline of U. S. Highway 380 and east of
Geeeling Road (Capricorn Mobile Home Park and surrounding
property.) A-13
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT ~O~,
TRACT OR PARCEL O~ LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 93.67
ACRES O~ LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE M. FORRHST
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 417, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; C~ASSIFYING
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.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting of
approximately 34.60 acres of land situated in the M. Forrsst Survey,
Abstract No. 417, and beginning approximately 250 feet south of and
perpendicular to the centerline of FM 426 and approximately 2,000
feet east of Mayhill Road. A-14
43
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 23, 1985
Page Two
The following ordinance wac presented:
NO. 85-
~/~ ORDINANCE AM~IBHING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACKNT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF hAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 34.60
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN TRE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE M. FORREST
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 417, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS/ CLASSIFYING
THY SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, M~pkins 'aye," Step½ens "aye," Alford "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," 'Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye.' Motion carried
unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting of
approximately 42.35 acres of land situated in the S. Euizar Survey,
Abstract No. 514, and beginning approximately 500 feet north of and
perpendi~ular to the centerline of U. S. Highway 380 and west of
Masch Branch Road. A-15
The follo~ln~ ordinance was presented:
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 42.35
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.
Chew motiont Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,' Riddlesperger
"aye,' Chew 'aye,w and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting 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 following ordinance wac presented:
NO. 85-
AN ORDINANCE ANNBXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO TBE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 150
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE D. BOUGH
SURVBY, ABSTRACT NO. 646, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING
THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND
D~CLARING AN EPPECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call voter Hopkins 'aye," Stephens "aye," Alford 'aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye.' Motion
carried ~animouely.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
instituting annexation proceedings on a tract consisting of
approximately 60.38 acres situated in the G. Walker Survey, Abstract
No. 1330, and beginning ad,scent and east of Edwards Road. A-18
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 23, 1985
Page Three
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXASl BEING ALL THAT LOT,
TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 60.38
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OP T~E G. WALKER
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1330, DHNTON COONTY, 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, Hopkins "aye," Stephens Ways,' Alfo~d "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye,' Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart 'aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
2. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
appointing an official Voting Representative of the City of Denton
to the North Central Texas Council of Governments General Assembly
for 1985-86.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the resolution and
appoint Jim Riddlesperger as official Voting Representative to
NCTCOG.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
SECTION I.
That Jim Riddlesperger is hereby appointed as the official
Voting Representative of the City of Denton to the ~orth Central
Texas Council of Governments General Assembly for 1985-198~.
SECTION II.
This Resolution shall become effective from and after its
date of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 23rd day of April, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON,TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHANLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETAR~
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
On roll call vote, Hopkins "aye," Stephens
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew 'aye,' and Mayor Stewart 'aye.' Motion
carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 23, 1985
Page Four
E. The Council considered approval of a resolution to
issue bonds by North Texas Sigher Education Authority, Inc.;
approving the issuance of one or more series of bonds; and making
certain findings in connection therewith.
Mr. Ralph Rushing, representing the North Texas Sigher Education
Authority, Inc., reported that he had appeared before the Council 4
to 6 weeks previously requesting authorization to refund the NTHEA
1982 bonds. The Authority had been working to put the refunding
togethe~ and hoped to be in the market place during the next week.
In the course of working on the refunding, the Sigher Education
Servici~g Corporation reported that co~itment for funds available
had exhausted those funds. Mr. Bernard would report and request for
authorization to proceed with the issuance of more bonds.
Mr. Mike Bernard, Executive Director of the North Texas Sigher
Education Authority, stated that the Higher Education Servicing
Corporation dealt with lenders. The corporation was conducting a
survey of lenders and had received responses back from all but
approximately 6. The corporation was looking at approximately
$35,000,000 needed capital over the next 3 years for the Dallas-Fort
Worth area.
Council Member Stephens asked about the prospects as far ss
Washington was concerned.
Mr. Bernard responded that he did not feel the program would be cut
out,
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if the Authority received block
grant funds.
Mr. Bernard answered that the banks loaned the money and the
Authority was self-sustaining through the proceeds of the bonds.
council Member Riddlesperger asked if there was any cost to the
federal government.
Bernard responded not for the servicing corporation. The federal
government did pay the interest on the student loans; however, the
cost to the federal government was less than to a bank.
council Member Riddlesperger asked if Mr. Bernard anticipated that
the higher tuition would affect the authority.
Mr. Bernard replied he felt there would be more demand.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if foreign students were eligible
for the loans.
Mr. Bernard responded that most foreign students were in the United
States on · student visa and one of the requirements for the loan
was that the applicant must be a permanent resident.
The following resolution was presented:
A RESOLUTION by the City Council of the City of
Denton, Texas, relating to the issuance of Bonds by
the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.;
approving the issuance of one or more series of Bonds;
and making certain findings in connection therewith.
WHEREAS, this governing body requested certain individuals
to proceed to re-organize and re-establish a non-profit corporation
pursuant to the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act, for the purpose of
furthering educational opportunities of students by providing funds
for the acquisition of student loans; that such has been accom-
plished, the corporation being known as the "North Texas Sigher
Education Authority, Inc." (the "Authority"); and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 23, 1985
Page Five
WHEREAS, the Authority has proceeded in the deYalopment of
· plan of doing business and has issued bonds for the aforesaid
purposes, but additional funds are needed to continue the program
and it is now appropriate for this governing body to approve the
issuance of additional bonds for such purpose; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS:
SECTION I: This governing body has been advised by the
Authority that such Corporation, upon approval thereof by the
governing bodies of the Cities of Denton and Arlington, Texas,
proposes to issue revenue bonds in order to provide funds for the
acquisition of student loans; that such bonds would be initially
issued as one or more series of Bonds (collectively, the "Bonds") in
the aggregate principal amount of up to ~50,000,000, and that such
Bonds would be payable from and secured by a pledge of revenues
derived from or by reason of the ownership of student loan notes and
investment income after deduction of such expenses for operating the
loan program as may be specified by the bond resolution or trust
indenture authorizing or securing such Bonds and the payment thereof.
The Bonds (up to the aggregate principal amount of
$50,000,000) are issued to obtain funds with which to purchase
Student Loan Notes which are guaranteed under the provisions of the
Sigher Education Act of 1965, as ·mended, to establish certain
reserves and for the purpose of paying certain expenses.
SECTION II: This governing body hereby approves the
issuance and delivery of such Bonds for the purposes aforesaid, and
in this connection requests that the said Authority exercise the
powers enumerated and provided in Section 53.47 of the Texas
Education Code; that such non-profit corporation shall, in this
connection, exercise such powers for and on behalf of the City and
the State of Texas, as contemplated by Section 53.47(e) of the Texas
Education Code.
SECTION III: The City does not agree to assume any
responsibility in connection with the administration of this student
loan program; it being understood this responsibility is being
assumed by the Authority.
SECTION IV: It is recognixed by this governing body that
the instruments which authorize the issuance of Bonds by the
Authority will specifically state that this City is not obligated to
pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds proposed to be issued
by the Authority. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as
an indication by this City that it will pay or provide for the
payment of any obligations of the said Authority whether heretofore
or hereafter incurred, and in this connection, attention is called
to the Constitution of Texas wherein it is provided that a City may
incur no indebtedness without having made provisions for its
payment, and this City Council hereby specifically refuses to set
aside any present or future funds, assets or money for the payment
Of any indebtedness or obligation of the Authority.
SECTION V: That the Mayor is authorized and directed to
assist the Authority in the preparation and execution of a request
for an allocation of the state "cap" under Section 103(n) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the assignment to the
Authority of any allocation made or to be made to this City in the
calendar year 1985 (with respect to such Bonds) is hereby made and
approved.
SECTION VI: This Resolution shall be effective from and
after its passage and approval.
47
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of April 23, 1985
Page Six
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the 23rd day of April, 1985.
MaYor, City of Denton, Texas
ATTEST:
City Secretary, City of Dentont Texas
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
BY:
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins 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.
Mayor Stewart asked st what point did Mr. Rushing feel the situation
would stabilise.
Mr. Rushing responded that the hope was to have a revolving fund and
to be able to recycle payments into new loans rather than to borrow.
3. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, personnel and board appointments. No
official action was taken.
4. The following items of New Business were suggested by
Council Members for future agendas:
1. Council Member Hopkins requested a report on investments.
2. Mayor Stewart requested a discussion or consideration of
the Sister Cities Program.
With no further items of business, the meeting wa adjourned.
0827s
8 City Council Minutes
May 14, 1985
The Council convened into the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the
council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
ABSENT: Council Member Alford was out of town
Council Member Chew
7:00 p.m.
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of April 16, 1985 and the Special Called Meeting of
April 23, 1985.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve the Minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
The Mayor then presented Resolutions of Appreciation for the 'Day in
the Life of American Cities" photograph contest winners Dane W.
Bass, Harold Ivey, Lindsay Stribling, Phil Thompson, Ann Weatherall,
and D. Dews.
The following resolution(s) were presented:
RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION
WBEREAS, "A Day in the Life of A~erican Cities" is a national
contest sponsored by the U. S. Conference of Mayors and
sponsored locally by the Denton Parks and Recreation
Department; and
WHEREAS, Donna Sagby, chief photographer of the Denton
Record-Chronicle; Emily Cunningham, owner of Cunningham
Studio; and Stent Phelps, Ph.D., Professor of Fine Arts at
North Texas State University Judged the photographs
submitted; and
WHEREAS, is a merit winner and will have his work
displayed in the Visual Arts Center and hie photograph will
be recommended for inclusion in the Center's permanent
collection; and
WHEREAS, will have his photograph submitted as an entry
in the national contest and be eligible for inclusion in
the book, "A Day in the Life of A~erican Cities;"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TNE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS:
that the sincere and warm appreciation of the City Council
be formally conveyed to Mr. Dane W. Bass 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 14th day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTONf TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page TWO
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second that the resolutions be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams "aye,' Hopkins "aye," Stephens
'aye," Riddlesperger 'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
2. The Council considered approval of a resolution approving
an agreement between the City of Denton and North Texas State
University for solid waste collection and disposal services.
Bill Angelo, Assistant Director of Public Works, reported that NTSU
had decided to get out of the solid waste business. The city had
submitted a bid and was the low bidder. Notification had been
received of the intent to award the bid. Another vehicle would have
to be pu=chased and 2 additional employees added to handle this
route. The total cost was covered.
Council Me~ber Hopkins asked if this would give the city additional
refuse handling capability.
Angelo responded yes; the a~4~roval of this agreement would
necessitate the purchase of a front loading refuse truck which could
be used for routes other than just NTSU.
The following resolution was presented:
RES. OL UT I ON
WHEREAS, the City of Denton owns a solid waste disposal
service; and
WHEREAS, North Texas State University and the City of
Denton ere desirous to entering into an agreement for solid waste
disposal service; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RE~OLYED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, THAT:
SECTION I.
The agreement for xolid waste disposal service between the
City of Denton and North Texas State University, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved.
SECTION II.
The Mayor ia hereby authorized to execute the attached
agreement on behalf of the City.
f~CTION ~Ii.
This Resolution shell be effective immediately upon its
passage and appcoval.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS THE 14th day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTT~ ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
50
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Three
Hopkins motion, McAdams second that the resolution be apgroved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins 'aye," Stephens "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Consent Agenda:
Item 3.A.1 (Bid % 9431A) was removed from the Consent Agenda by
staff.
McAdams motion, Hopkins second to approve the Consent Agenda with
the exception of Bid # 9431A. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
R~MOVBD BY
STAFF 1. Bid ~ 9431A - Modular furniture panels
2. Bid ~ 9441 - Distribution transformers
3. Bid ~ 9442 - Trailers
4. Bid % 9443 - Front load refuse truck
5. Bid ~ 9444 - Flail mower and tractor
6. Bid ~ 9446 - Traffic control cabinets
7. Bid % 9448 - Westgate Heights participa-
tion
8. Bid j 9449 - Wire, cutouts and pedestals
9. Bid % 9451 - Remote terminal unit/alarms
event printer
10. Bid # 9452 - Electrical terminators
11. Bid J 9455 - Water and sewer supplies
12. Bid ~ 9456 - Painting of trucks and
trailers
13. Bid ~ 9458 - Line puller tensioner
14. Purchase Order % 68974 to Borg-Warner Air
Conditioning in the amount of S8~791.88
15. Purchase Order % 67778 to Bitteroreek
construction in the amount of $6~500.00
16. Purchase Order % 67923 to Trane Tex Supply
Company in the amount Of $7,251.00
17. Purchase Order % 67979 to Watson
Distributing in the amount of $4,235.59
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval of final replat of the Bellaire
Heights Phase One Addition, Lot 16, Block
C. (The Planning and Zoning commission
recommends approval.)
2. Approval of preliminary plat of the Johnson
Addition, Lot 1, Block 1. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Four
3. Approval of preliminary and final replat of
the Northside Addition, Lots 6-15, Block 4.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
4. Approval of preliminary and final replat of
the W. J. Wheeler Addition, Lot 7A, Block
1. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
5. Approval of preliminary and final replat of
the Wimbleton Village Addition, Phase IV,
Tract A, Lot 1, Block 14. (The Planning and
zoning Co~mission recommends approval.)
4. The Council made a presentation of awards from the
Texas Safety Association to City of Denton departments.
Mayor Stewart presented the following awards:
Award Of Merit to the Library - accepted by Joella Orr
Award of Merit to the Parks Department - accepted by Bob Tickner
Award of Merit to the Police Department - accepted by Hugh Lynch
Award of Merit to the Electric Production Division - accepted by
Tom Chastain
Award of Merit to the Street Department - accepted by Bill Angelo
Award of Merit to the Water and Sewer Department - accepted by
Bob Nelson
Council Member Chew joined the meeting,
Award and plague for the City of Denton - accepted by Chris
Hartung
5. The Council received a presentation by the Chamber of
Commerce Convention and Visitors Bureau of their proposed budget and
plan fo~ the new year.
Mr. Tommy Caruthers reported that the Denton Convention and Visitors
Bureau was administered by the Chamber of Commerce and then
introduced the Directors of the Chamber who were present at the
meeting. Mr. Caruthere stated that this had been the best year the
Bureau had ever had and predicted that next year would be even
better. A new staff me~ber had been added. A tour bus program had
been implemented and while the Bureau had expected this program to
take 2 to 3 years to succeed, already several groups had made stops
in Denton. A copy of the proposed budget had been provided to the
City Council in the packets which were distributed.
Council Member Hopkins voiced his appreciation to the Bureau for the
work which they had done.
Mayor Stewart added his co~plimenta to the Chamber of Commerce and
the Visitors and Convention Bureau.
6. The Council received a presentation by the Chamber of
Commerce on the Leadership Denton Program.
Mr. Ricky Grunden, Chairperson of the Leadership Denton Program,
thanks the Council on behalf of the committee for the opportunity to
speak. The purpose of the program was to find people to fit into
the process of community efforts, to identify and motivate these
persons in the direction of community programs and to inform the
participants of Dsnton's history and potential.
Council Member Chew stated that he felt this was a very fine program
and would be an asset to the community.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Chamber of commerce was improving all
the time and the City of Denton depended on the Chamber.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Five
7. The Council was to consider approval of use of Mack P'ark
with fees waived for a softball tournament with all profits to go to
the Fred Moore Scholarship Fund.
As Mr. Williams was not present, this item was passed until later in
the agenda.
8. The Council considered approval of a request to hang a
banner across Avenue E to welcome students to NTSU.
Riddlesperger motion, McAdams second to approve the request to hang
a banner across Avenue E to welcome students to NTSU. Motion
carried unanimously.
9. Public Hearings:
A. The Council considered the petition of And Rocca Pens
requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) district on a 14.06
acre tract 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 the intersection of Riney
Road and Windsor Drive. If approved, the planned development will
permit the following land uses:
31 single family detached lots on 10.6 sores
with a density of 2.9 units pe~ acre
(minimum 8,000 square foot lots)
An 80 unit retirement center on 3.5 acres
with a density of 22.9 units per acre.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Edwards, Field, Edwards and Associates representing the
petitioner, spoke in favor of the petition stating that this tract
had been before the Council on 2 previous occasions and had been
denied due to problems with traffic and neighborhood buffering. Me.
Fens had approached his firm with the idea of buffering the existing
residences with single family units and proposing a retirement
center. His firm had felt that this proposal would solve the
traffic problems and the buffering problems which ha4 been addressed
before. This plan had been taken to the neighborhood and with their
help and consideration, had arrived at a plan which provide4
adeguate sized lots, discussed traffic patterns and types of
structures. This proposal had then be taken to the Planning and
zoning Comr~ission. The petitioner did have one change which she
would like for the Council to consider. Condition 12 did present
the potential to tie the development down more than they felt would
give them the amount of freedom to arrive at the best possible
solution to the problem. The idea was to phase oonstruotion and in
the last sentence of Condition 12 stated that the "actual cul-de-sac
must be installed when initial development occurs.' They ware
asking that the Council revise this to state that phasing of
improvements would be determined in the preliminary plat pr~ess.
This would send to whole picture back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission when they review the preliminary plat and they could then
get their idea on the entire proposal to send back to the Council.
The petitioner was not trying to get out of installing the
cul-de-sac first if that was what the neighborhood felt was the best
phasing of the development but would like to have that freedom to
bring to the Council the best possible plan.
Council Member Chew asked if the development was going to be done in
2 phases.
Edwards stated that was what was planned.
53
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Council Member Chew stated that what the petitioner was actually
requesting was that Condition 12 regarding the cul-de-sac be moved
to Phase 2.
Edwards responded no; Phase 1 might be the ideal place for the
col-de-amc. The petitioner would Just like for the Planning and
Zoning Commission to review that during the preliminary platting
process and ~ake their recommendation whether they felt it would
affect ~hase ! or Phase 2 instead of locking it into Phase 1.
Mayor Stewart asked if Mr. Edwards was only speaking of Condition 12.
Edwards stated that was correct.
Ms. Ann Rocca Pens, the petitioner, spoke in favor stating that she
was the sole owner of this 14 acres. The neighbors were in
agreement with the concept and asked that the Council allow her to
develop the property in 2 phases.
Mr. Ralph Morrison, 716 Nozthridge, spoke in opposition stating that
he represented a conoerned group of howeowners in this area. They
had he~d 5 meetings on this proposal. Ms. Pens had called these
meetings and presented to them a plan which, at that time, the
neighbors approved 100%. At the last meeting she had asked them to
support her in not opening up the new road into Highway 77. They
felt that the additional traffic would Justify the new road. Riney
Road was a Very dangerous road with a blind curve and with this
development, there was no doubt in the residents minds that they
would be in Jeopardy. They opposed the prolonged delayed opening of
this road but did not object to the phasing of the development. Ms.
Pens had come to them and proposed to ~pen .the r~ad; however, at the
last meeting she had asked the neighbors to support her to not open
the road at this time. The neighbors f~l.t the basics should be
addressed now and that was to open the road to eliminate the bad
curve. The neighbors had left the last meeting with the
understanding that they would not support her, that the Planning and
Zoning Co~ission did not support her and were appearing before the
Council to emphasize their position. The YMCA development would
increase the traffic in the area. Also this plan included a curb
cut on Windsor Street which they had understood would not be
permitted. The neighbors were asking that these items be decided
before ~he petition was approved.
council Member Rlddlesperger asked if Mr. Morrison saying no curb
cute on Windsor and that the residents wanted the opening of the
road in the first phase.
Morriaon stated that the residents wanted the opening in the first
phase because the construotion workers going in and out would
increase the traffic end the liability on that street.
Council ~ember Riddlesperger asked if that was the only opposition
that they had.
Morrison stated that the residents approved of the housing and the
retirement home.
council Member McAdams stated that she was confused and asked
exactly what it was that the neighborhood wanted opened. One of the
conditions in the request was for a cul-de-sac. Were the residents
saying that they did not wa~t the cul-de-sac.
Morrison referred to the map on the overhead projections stating
that the red marks on the map indicated the straightening out of
Riney Road. This was the point of the blind curve. Ms. Pens had
told them that this would be done first. Now she was saying that
this would be accomplished in Phase 2. The neighborhood did not
approve Of thia.
Mayor Stewart stated that the cul-de-sac referred to the old Riney
Road.
54
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Seven
Morrison pointed to the cul-de-sac which came off the new road end
to the cul-de-sac which would come off of old Riney Road. When
completed, there would be 2 cul-de-sacs. At the last meeting, Ms.
Pens was advised that the neighborhood did not approve the
development until she opened up the road. She ~had originally agreed
to do this.
Ms. Beverly Cottle, spoke in opposition, stating that the neighbors
had met with Ms. Pens and still felt that the new road should be
opened. If the area to the south was developed before the new road
was open, all traffic would have to travel either on Riney or
Northridge. It had been the understanding that the opening of the
road would the first thing that MS. Pens would do. The only
opposition was to the road.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Edwards 5 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Edwards stated regarding the curb cut on Windsor Drive, the City
Engineer had advised his firm that they would not be allowed a curb
cut on Windsor Drive. Lot I did have frontage on Windsor to meet
the subdivision rules and regulations. On Lot 2 there was a 20 feet
private access easement off of Riney Road to give access to Lots 1
and 3 and that easement was part of Lot 3 to get the frontage of the
lot on a public road. Concerning the extension of Riney Road, the
conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission did not
necessarily address that Riney Road be put all the way through. If
Condition 12 concerning the cul-de-sac was revised to the wording
which he had suggested, the Planning and zoning Co~ission and the
neighborhood could have input at the Rreliminar¥ ~plat-~roces~ ~o
resolve the problem and could come back to the Council with the
united support of the neighborhood.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if Mr. Edwards was asking the
Council to refer the petition back~ to 'the ~ Pla~i~9 an~' Zoning
Commission for action.
Edwards responded no; if the Council revised the last sentence of
Condition 12 as per his recommendation, the Planning and Zoning
Commission would review this and made a recommendation back to the
Council during the preliminary plat process.
council Member McAdams asked what exactly was the change which Mr.
Edwards wanted to make the the Planning and Zoning Commission
condition.
Edwards responded the change would be to the last sentence to read
"phasing of improvements to be determined in the preliminary plat
process." They were requesting the installation of the cul-de-sac
be reviewed during the preliminary plat process after the phasing
had been proposed to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the Planning and Zoning
Commission had said very plainly that the cul-de-sac must be
installed when the initial development occurred. Mr. Edwards and
his client apparently had agreed to that and it seemed that the
request to have this changed at this point would indicate a change
in their attitude.
Edwards stated that it was his understanding tha~ City Engineer
Jerry Clark had prepared the wording for the condition after the
meeting. He was not sure that the Pla~Ni~~ and~' ~on~hg: 'Cdmmission
had said that the petitioner had to install the cul-de-sac during
the first phase.
Council Member McAdams asked if the petitioner was asking for a
delay; why did they want to do this during the platting process.
Edwards responded that if allowed to look at the cul-de-sac during
the platting process, his firm could go back and meet with the
neighborhood and get a plan together to take back to Planning and
Zoning Commission. This plan could then be discussed with an eye to
resolve all problems prior to coming back to the Council.
55
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Eight
Council Member McAdams stated that it may have been more appropriate
to delay the request.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that this was as request for a planned
develo~ent and the petitioner would have to go back into the
preliminary plat process on the PD. Mr. Edwards was asking that
this issue be reviewed during the PD platting process.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked that could be done without
changing the request. In effect, he did not see any reason to
change the condition if the petitioner was going to take care of the
cul-de-sac during the platting process anyway.
Council Me~ber Stephens stated that there was the possibility of
delaying something until Phase 2.
Edwards responded that if a workable solution was found to satisfy
everyone's concerns and condition 12 was not reworded, the
cul-de-sac would still have to be constructed in Phase 1.
Council Me,her Stephens asked if the cul-de-sac on existing Riney
Road were delayed until Phase 2, that would mean that there would be
considerable building going on as well as the associated traffic.
This traffic would have to use the 45 degree angle on existing Riney
to access Highway 77. This appeared to present a considerable
traffic hazard. What if the property were sold during the
development? Who would get the surprise that they had to build a
new street?
Edwards responded that with the PD zoning, it should not be a
surprise to new owners. He and City Engineer clark had discussed
and somewhat agreed that if the residential portion of the proposal
were developed first, the major traffic flow would be on south Rlney
Road.
Council Me~ber Stephens asked about traffic to the north and asked
if Edwards did not think this would be quite a traffic hazard. It
appeared to him to be a serious consideration.
Mayor Pro Hopkins asked what Mr. Edwards was opposed to building
Riney ROad On out at this time when it appeared that that would be
the safest way from a development standpoint.
Edwards stated that there were several economical issues in the
phasing of the project. If the road were built all the way through
in the first phase, it would add to the first phase development cost
and initial financing. Also there were some existing rental
property structures which would have to be destroyed in the first
phase on which Ms. Pens would lose revenues.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that he could understand the phasing of
the project but did not understanding not building the roads in the
beginning of development.
Edwards stated that during preliminary platting, the petitioner
would have to show that adequate access to the addition was
provided. The intent of the request to change Condition 12 was to
allow the petitioner and the neighborhood to try to reach an
agreement on the timing of the putting in of the road.
Council Member McAdams stated the neighbors had attended meetings
where they understood that they had been told that the road would be
put through. This condition was in the Planning and Zoning
commission recommendation. Now in effect what was being asked was
to put that on hold so that the neighborhood still would not know
what they were going to get until the platting process. They would
then have to come back again and state their objections. It seemed
in fairness this would have been worked out at that point instead of
coming back now with a delay.
56
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Nine
Mayor Stewart asked Mr. Edwards if he would be in favor of
Jeopardizing the whole project for this one condition.
Edwards stated no; he had not attended all of the meetings with the
neighbors. It had been mentioned to the neighbors that the plan was
to phase the development. If it was a concern that the street go
through all the way in the initial phase, he had missed it. He felt
this could be resolved in the preliminary plat process and hoped
that the council would allow the petitioner that
Council Member McAdams stated that it see~e~ that the only reason to
delay this particular issue and defer it to the preliminary plat
stage was if it was a serious consideration to not require the
street to be completed through to Highway 77. If the Council felt
the need to require the street in the first place, she saw
absolutely no reason to delay it.
Mayor Stewart asked again if Mr. Edwards would be in favor of
delaying the entire development for this single issue.
Mr. Edwards requested a moment to check with his client, the owner.
Mr. Edwards stated that his client would rather have the ~etition
tabled rather than putting the street completely through with the
first phase as a condition of the planned development.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to table the petition.
Council Member Chew asked for what length of time was the petition
being tabled.
Mayor Stewart then stated that the public hearing was not completed.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, asked in light of the
current circumstances, did the Council wanted a complete report of
the analysis or just for her to respond to.any questions.wh~ch they
might have.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council had several choices:
approve the petition with the amendment recommended by Mr.
Edwards
approve the petition as presented
table the petition
Council Member McAdams asked, from a legal point, if the petitien
was approved as presented, did the petitioner co~e back with an
a~endment to the planned development or would they have to start
over.
Debts Drayovitch, city Attorney, reported that porhap8 it was more
appropriate to consider the motion to table. Was there a necessity
tO oontinue to the public hearing to receive additional input.
Mayor Stewart stated that the public hearing was completed. If the
~etition was tabled, it would be referred back to staff for a
recommendation.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if an ordinance were adopted
accepting the planned development petition was written, it see~ted
that it gave the people to go ahead and do what they had agreed to
do and to fulfill the plan. If tabled, it si~l~ly would mean another
hearing.
Council Member Stephens stated that thin had beeA
considerable amount of time and it seemed that both parties had
entered into the presented agreement in go~d faith and was approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a unanimous vote.
57
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Ten
Stehens motion, McAdanm second to approve Z-1730 with the
recom~endations as submitted by unanimous vote of the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered the petition of Ali A1-KhafaJi
requesting a variance of Article 4.15 of the City of Denton
Subdivision and Land Development Regulations with respect to
drainag.e requirements. This tract is 1.075 acres located on the
west side of Duncan Street between Smith Street and Dallas Drive.
The tract is described as Lot 1, Block 1, of the A1-KhafaJi Addition
and shown in the S. C. Hirers Survey, Abstract 616. The property is
zoned commercial (C). V-!4
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Edwards, Fields, Edwards and Associates representing the
petitioner, spoke in favor stating that this was a difficult piece
of property to deal with. It had been through the platting process
and had had some drainage facilities required. His firm had tried
to do an adequate design to address the city staff recommendations
on the tract. A design had been formulated and Mr. A1-KhafaJi had
obtained cost estimates. The off-site improvements which were
required due to the inade~uate facilities under Duncan Street were
cost prohibitive. A request for variance had been made to the
Planning and Zoning Commission; the Commission was informed that if
the petition did not meet all 8 of the items in the variance
request, they had no perogative but to recommend denial. At the
time this went to the Planning and Zoning Com~isaion, the 8 items
were very given to interpretation in his mind.
The first of the 8 items concerned the master plan of the city.
Granting the variance of not requiring drainage facilities for this
tract, would not prohibit in any way implementation of the city's
master drainage plan. The owner could attest to the financial
hardships in this case. This variance would in no way prohibit
orderly development. Mr. A1-KhafaJi had granted easements on the
tract prior to platting so as to have his neighbors gain access to
the sewer facilities. Adequate easements were p~ovided so that
orderly develol~ent would not be prohibited. It was Mr. Edward's
understanding that the spirit of the drainage ordinance was to
protect existing and proposed structures from being flooded. Se
felt the proposal in no way posed a drainage hazard to anyone. The
proposed development's structure would be raised high enough off the
road; ~his had never been questioned as a flood hasard problem.
There were some drainage problems in this area. The petitioner
wished to develop 1 acre. The master drainage plan had
approximately 500 acres in this entire drainage basin. The
development would increase the flow by 1 CFS; the master drainage
plan called for a flow of 623 cubic feet per second through this
area. .That additional 1 CPS was beyond the accuracy of their
calcula~ions. He did not feel that anyone would be able to measure
the difference in water surface elevation at a point downstream to
this development. Normally when requests for 1 lot subdivisions
have been submitted on ezistlng streets, drainage improvements have
been required wherever there are substandard drainage facilities.
His firm had not been required to make drainage improvements. This
was the only 1 lot subdivision on an existing street that he knew of
that required drainage requirements. MOSt of the properties on
woodrow Lane end Dallas Drive were either already developed or
platted. This would be the only one which would have to have a
substandard cost for drainage improvements applied upon it. The
hardship requirement for the variance was met by the inadequate
structures to handle the flow on Duncan Street. Inlets to pick up
the flow on the west side of Duncan Street were not provided when
the street was installed. If it was not for this, the channel could
be installed at a very minimal cost. The last hardship was not
caused by the owner; he did not design or install Duncan Street.
Mr. Edwards stated that he felt that this request met all 8
critieria for a variance.
58
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Eleven
Mr. Ali A1-KhafaJi, 623 East University Drive and the owner of the
lot, spoke in favor of the petition. Mr. A1-KhafaJi stated that he
did not want to develop the lot; it was for sale. A small
manufacturer from California was supposed to buy but was scared away
because someone at the City of Denton told him it would take
$180,000 to improve the lot. He decided to develop instead of
continuing to just pay taxes. The contractor had platted the
property. The staff had then asked how much water flow would be
added. Channel had been dug and the weeds had been cleared. He had
then been instructed to change the fill dirt and had done so. The
City had then required a letter from the engineer to varify that
this lot had been filled. Se had now come to the conclusion that
they were doing public work. The City had miscaloulated in the
early 1970's when drainage facilities had been installed. Ee did
not want to clean up someone else's mistake which was not even in
front of his property.
Mr. Mike Rubaiy, Pyramid Engineers and Designers, spoke in favor of
the petition stating that the area was very small, only 1 acre with
a flow of 1.4 CFS. The flow was away from the prop6rty. It was his
opinion that the culvert was undersized and should be corrected by
the city. It was not his client's responsibility. ~ Tbe'~'Cont~ibution
to the run off would be small. Mr. A1-KhefaJi was dedicating a 45
feet easement.
Mr. Robert Mason, 1014 Edinburg Lane, spoke in favor of the petition
stating that he had found Mr. A1-KhafaJi to be fair in dealing with
the neighbors. Mr. Mason stated that he would like for the Council
to give favorable consideration to the request.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, reported that 4 reply forms had been
mailed with 0 returned. She distributed a memorandum from City
Engineer Jerry Clark which had been given to the Planning and Zoning
Com~ission concerning the variance. Mr. A1-KhafaJi had a final plat
approved in 1984 at which time he had agreed to the drainage
improYements on the property. In March, 1985 a variance was granted
to the Bell Addition located to the north of this tract. The
property in question, the Bell Addition, was s redevelopment of an
existing lot of record. Mr. A1-KhafaJi drainage problem was one
that the staff and Planning and Zonin~ Co, lesion considered a very
important issue. There was a drainage problem in this area and
several developers to the south had given the city .either easements
or had improved the drainage. The Planning and zoning Commission
examined the 8 conditions for a variance listed in the subdivision
rules and regulations and concluded that 7 of the 8 'were not met.
The regulations state that all 8 conditions must be met before a
variance could be granted.
Council Member McAdams stated that she appreciated the owner's
concern regarding cost; however, there were a number of tracts of
land which one could choose to purchase which would be expensive to
develop due to problems which were inherent with the property. If
this piece of property was carved off another tract and purchased as
it was, if the property owner did not do the drainage development,
then the problem returned to the City and all of the citisens would
have to pay. This did not seem fair as the citisens did not benefit
from the profit of the property.
McAdams motion, Chew second to deny the request for a variance.
Motion carried 5 to 1 with Council Member Hopkins casting the "nay"
vote.
C. The Council considered the petition of J. P. Haygood
requesting a variance of Articles 4.03 and 4.15 of the City of
Denton Subdivision and Land Development Regulations requiring
perimeter street and drainage improvements. This tract is 10.00
59
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Twelve
acres located at the northwest corner of Bonnie Brae Street and
Payne Drive. The tract ie described as Block 1, Lot 1, of the Life
Tabernacle Addition and shown in the Francis Batson Survey, Abstract
43. The property is zoned agricultural (A) and the development of a
church is anticipated. ¥-15
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. PaUl Haygood, Pastor of Life Tabernacle, spoke in favor stating
that this was an unusual situation. When the church approached the
city with their proposal in 1979, they met with various officials
and were informed that there was a flood plain problem at this
particular location. However, all indications were that this could
be altered with a new survey and study. Mr. Edwards, who was the
City Engineer in 1979, had informed him that the property could be
taken out of the flood plain if the property had inadvertently been
placed there but it would be a lengthy and expensive process.
During the process of having the property removed from the flood
plain, the city had adopted new subdivision rules and regulations.
Under these new regulations, the church was considered as a
developer and tens of thousands of dollars would be required for
improve~ents. Mr. Haygood stated that he had held lengthy
discuas~ons with the Corps of Engineers and FEMA and had found that
the dilemma was not of the church's own making but due to inadequate
information which was given to the Corps of Engineers at the time
the federal fill and drain plan to develop North Lakes park was in
process. This was the reason the property was listed in the flood
plain. The problem was due to clerical errors and he did not feel
his church should have to suffer the end result of the mistakes
which were made. The church was petitioning a variance which would
put them back under the old rules and regulations. The property was
in the flood plain on pa~er but in actuality it was not. While the
church was in due process to have the error changed, the City
adopted the new rules and regulations.
Council Member Rlddleeperger asked if the flood was not a danger.
Haygood responded that was correct.
Council Me~ber Riddlesperger then asked if that was the only
variance the church was requesting.
Haygood replied no; the church was also requesting a variance on
perimeter paving, curb and guttering and sidewalks. When he had
asked regarding this in 1979, he had been informed that since this
was an existing tract, it would not be necessary to plat the
property and the regulations would not be applicable to them. They
were not subdividing the tract. Under the old ruling, it was not
required to plat or to make perimeter improvements. They would,
however, have to have the property removed from the flood plain. By
the time the property was removed from the flood plain, the
regulations had changed. They were requesting to be allowed to
build the church under the initial agreement. Without the variance,
they would not be able to build the church.
Council Me~ber Stephens asked if Mr. Haygood's statement was that
his group had met in good faith all of the requirements which had
been laid down to them when they first made the inquiries. The
variance, if granted, would not negatively impact any development
below the church site as far as drainage was concerned.
Haygood stated yes.
Mr. Jim Engelbrecht, 2305 North Lakes Trail, spoke in opposition
stating that he was only making a comment and was not necessarily
opposed to the variance. The only concern the neighbors had was
that Bonnie Brae was extensively used as access to their homes and
the fear was the setting of a precedent. Bonnie Brae was basically
undeveloped from University Drive to Highway 77 and the neighbors
60
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Thirteen
were concerned that the granting of this variance would open to dod=
tO others in the future to request the same for drainage and street
improvements.
The Mayor allowed Mr. Haygood 5 minutes to speak in re~ttal.
Mr. Saygood stated that this was a un&que situa~ion and the, church
had been working for 5 to 6 years while no other developer had. The
precedent had been set when Mr. Smith had ~equeated,m ,variance for
his home. The Planning and Zoning Com~isaion did not rdle Mr. Smith
aa a developer as this was his personal home. The church was a
spiritual home for the congregation and would not be a subdivision.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, reported that 4 reply forms were
mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0 in opposition. Mr. Haygood
WaS requesting a variance for two articles of the subdivision rules
and regulations - drainage and perimeter paving. The City of Denton
had required perimeter street paving since 1979 and the master
drainage plan had been in effect since 1974. Drainage improvements
and perimeter paving were included in PD-86 which was ad~acent to
the church property. That PD included perimeter street paving on
both Bonnie Brae and Payne Drive. The drainage easement on the Life
Tabernacle Addition was located on the southwest co~ner. The
Engineering Department felt that it was a very important area in
which drainage improvements should be made. If the improvements
were not made, the City would be responsible to ~ake them both on
Bonnie Brae and Payne Drive as well aa the drainage i~%provements on
Payne Drive. The word "developer" meant anyone using land and
developing on land for any purpose and the subdivision rules and
regulations did apply. The preliminary plat had been approved
conditionally by the Planning and zoning Co~ission that the
drainage and paving improvements would be mede. The Planning and
Zoning co~mission recommended denial of the variance as it failed to
meet 7 of the 8 conditions listed in the regulations. Ail 8 must be
met in order for a variance to be granted.
Mayor Stewart asked if the fact that the property was not in the
flood plain did not alter the fact that drainage control was needed
in this area.
Carson responded that there was an easement. The flood plain was
moved when North Lakes was built; howeverv there was still a
drainage system across the property line from the north across the
southwest corner.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked what would be required.
Carson replied that a culvert would have to be built on Payne
Drive. The drainage easement was located on the property and
improvements were necessary to insure that water would flow through
the easement.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked Ms. Carson to show the lot on the
overhead projection.
Carson further stated that perimeter street paving would be required
on Bonnie Brae and Payne Drive.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the paving could be bonded.
Carson responded yes; payment could be postponed through an escrow
account so ss to be done at a later date.
Mayor Stewart asked if the variance was granted, would it affect
other developers.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Fourteen
Carson responded yes; developers to the south would be affected by
drainage from this location. There was an approved development for
single family, multi-family and neighborhood services at the corner
of Payne and Bonnie Brae.
Mayor Stewart asked if the drainage improvements were not made,
would it affect those developments downstream.
Carson replied yes; that was the opinion of the staff.
Mayor Stewart then asked about the paving.
Carson responded this was the same type of situation. The other
developers had been required to do perimeter paving. Mr. Haygood
had stated that Mr. Smith, to the north, had not been required to do
perimeter paving. Mr. Smith was on an extremely large tract of
property and would to construct 1 house which was not in the flood
plain. The Planning and Zoning Commission did, in that instance,
grant a variance. Bowever, the Planning and Zoning Commission and
Council did require perimeter paving on the property south of the
Life Tabernacle Addition.
Council Me~be= Riddleeperger asked if the drainage improvements
required by the church would benefit other developers also.
Carson responded that if no improvements were made, a drainage
problem will exist which might result in flooding.
Council Member Rlddlesperger then asked if those who develop the
property above this tract would be getting the benefit of the
church's drainage.
Carson replied that the property was currently zoned agricultural.
They would be required to make drainage improvements to their
property as well if developed.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that it seemed that if the
culvert were installed under Payne Drive that it would benefit
future developers.
Carson responded that it would benefit them to the extent that there
would be an adequate flow of water.
Council'Member Riddlesperger then asked if future developers could
be required to reimburse the church.
Carson replied that the Engineering Department dealt with the
drainage question. She did not feel there would be an interest from
a staff point of view to enter into an agreement on this case as
this property would be creating the drainage problem at that site.
The property itself was going to require drainage improvements. The
other developers would have a different type of drainage problem
because it was not located adjacent to a street which would require
a culvert.
City Manager Chris ~artung reported that the principle of the
drainage policy was that the property owner who was developing had
to take care of the water which flowed through his property. The
developer was required to handle the water which came through.
Engineering computations were done to determine what size channels
were required to handle the flow through the property and this must
be provided fo~ in the development.
Council Member Ray Stephens stated that plans and interpretations
change with people and institutions from time to time. The city had
made a commitment to this group and after the commitment was made,
the regulations changed. Be felt that the city had an obligation to
honor the original agreement.
62
City of Denton city Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Fifteen
Carson reported that the staff would like to point out that the
regulations requiring platting had changed; however, the regulations
requiring drainage improvements and perimeter paving were in effect
prior to Mr. Haygood asking for development at this site.
Council Member Chew asked if those requirements had not changed and
had been intact all the while.
Carson responded that, as she was informed, the regulations
requiring perimeter street paving and drainage improvements hsd been
in effect. Staff did not require platting when Mr. Heywood
requested a building permit.
Council Member McAdams stated that she was very concerned about the
use of the word "commitment.' The Council was bound to treat all
people alike whether they happened to represent a church or not
unless the ordinance was amended to specifically exclude religious
organizations. A number of people owned property 5 to 10 years ago
and made inquiries about what the rules were at that time. The
giving of that information in no way binds the city to those
regulations in the future. Mr. Haygood was given accurate
information at the time he inquired. She was sympathetic to the
church but the fact remained that someone would have to pay. If the
Council wanted to exclude churches from certain regulations, it
should be in the ordinance.
Council Member Chew stated that his heart went out to Mr. Haygood
but the rules had to be the same for all.
Council Member Stephens stated that it would take 6 out of 7 votes
to deny the request and only 6 Council Members were present.
Council Member Chew stated that's sidle majority vote was required
as this was not a zoning request.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, reported that the ordinance
requiring drainage improvements and perimeter paving were in effect
prior to the church's development. He was not quite sure about the
requirements for perimeter paving but the drainage improvement would
have been required. Staff gave out information every day. in 1979,
if the property was not required to be platted, staff would have
said that.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to approve the variance V-15.
Council Member McAdams stated that her heart went out to the
congregation but she had a strong sense of fair play. Rules should
be applied equally.
Mayor Stewart stated that he felt every organization had to pay its
own way.
Motion to approve failed by a vote of 3 to 3 with Council Members
McAdams, Chew and Mayor Stewart casting the 'nay" votes.
Stephens motion, Riddlesperger second to table until a full Council
was present. Motion to table failed by a vote of 3 to 3 with
Council Members McAdams, Chew and Mayor Stewart casting the "nay"
votes.
Chew motion, McAdams second to deny the Variance ¥-15. Motion to
deny passed by a vote of 3 to 3 with Council Me,berm Hopkins,
Stephens and Riddlesperger casting the 'nay" votes.
Debts Drayovitch, City Attorney, clarified that the request was
denied. According to Robert's Rules of Order, any motion not
approved by a majority vote was considered to be denied.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Sixteen
Agenda item 97 was considered.
7. The Council considered approval of the use of Mack Park
with fees waived for a softball tournament with all profits to go to
the Fred Moore Scholarship Fund.
Mr. Carl Williams, President of the Denton County NAACP, stated that
at the time the organi~ation made plans for the softball tournament,
they had planned for May 17. After talking with Parks and
Recreation Department, it was found that 1 park was available at
Mack Park an~ 1 available at Denis. As out of town people were
invited, this was not feasible. The next weekend available was June
21 which conflicted with the June 19th celebration. The NAACP was
asking the Council to table the request until two meetings before
Labor Day.
Riddleaperger motion, Chew second to table. Motion to table passed
unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing concerning the
petition of ~a~mett & Nash, Inc. for annexation of approximately
361.708 acres situated in the H. May Survey, Abstract 807, and the
V. E. G&ilor Survey, Abstract 452, and beginning west of FM 2164
(North Locust) approximately 7,000 feet north of Hercules Lane.
A-16
The Mayor Opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor and referred to an
overhead projection of a map of the area. There were 2 parcels
(A-16 and A-19) requesting annexation, both under the same
ownership. This was a voluntary annexation request. The property
was approximately 380 acres and a portion of the tract was included
in a strip annexation on North Locust Street. The property was
located quite s distance from any urban area. The property was also
2,000 to 3,000 north and east of the Texas Instruments site. The
Planning and ~oning Commission was of the opinion that annexation
might be premature. The other parcel (A-19) had an existing
residence on the property and it would be stretching to provide city
services out this far from the existing city limits. Annexation at
this time might add to the speculative land market. Prom a
professional planning staBdpoint, staff did not see a problem in
annexing the A-16 parcel at this time as there was no existing
population or development and the city would not be required to
deliver services. Staff was recommending that the Council could
either move to discontinue annexation proceedings or take no action
and continue to look at the annexation in subsequent public hearings.
Hopkins suggested to continue with the annexation of A-16 and to
look closely at this during the subsequent public hearings.
Mayor Stewart asked if the Council had to continue with the public
hearing.
Debts Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that the Council should
continue the public hearing and could cease the proceedings at a
future time.
Mr. Larry Hawkins spoke in opposition stating that his family owned
property in this area. The land was currently being used as range
land and his family would continue to use the property as range land
and to lease it. He then asked the Council not to annex the parcel
in question.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
council Me~ber McAdams stated that if the annexation were
discontinued, it could be reinstated at a later date.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Seventeen
Ellison responded that was correct; however, it was now a voluntary
annexation and might not be in the future.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the annexation could be stopped
at any time.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to continue the annexation. Motion
to continue passed 5 to 1 with Council Me~ber McAdams casting the
'nay" vote.
E. The Council held a public hearing concerning the
p~tition of Hammett & Nash, Inc. for annexation of approximately
180.98 acres situated in the John A. Burns Survey, Abstract 130, and
the Thomas Polk Survey, Abstract 999, and beginning west of FM 2164
(North Locust) approximately 9,000 feet north of Hereulas Lane.
A-19
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that this voluntary
annexation was the one which was a concern for staff. There was an
existing residence on the tract. Though staff had been verbally
informed by the owners that the structure would be vacated, the
staff had no assurance that this would happen. The Planning and
Zoning Commission was opposed to this voluntary annexation.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Bo~kins motion, McAdams second to deny the annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
10. Ordinances:
A. The Council considered adoption of an Ordinance
accepting competitive bide and providing for the award of contracts
for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services and
providing for the expenditure of funds therefore.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-87
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR T~E EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THBRE~OR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance with B~d % 9431A
removed. 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
providing for the expenditure of funds for emergenoy purchases of
materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordanoe with the
provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements
of competitive bids.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-88
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OP FUNDS POP
EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OP STATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FR~ REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
65
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Eiqhteen
Chew motion, McAdama sece~ to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, )f~Ac~&mm "aye,' Hopk~ma "aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye," Chew "ayes" an~ Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimomsly.
C. The Council oonsidered adoption of an ordinance
prohibiti~g the parking of vehicles on both sides of Hollyhi11
between.~on~de~ry amd W~4brook.
The followin9 o~dina~e w~ ~esented:
NO. 85-89
AN O~DINANC~ ~R~IBITING THE P~KING O~ VEHICLES ON BOTH
SIDES O~ HOLLYHILL B~EEN LONDONDERRY AND WOODBR~K;
PROVIDING A ~EV~BILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A P~NALTY NOT TO
EX~D ~ ~UNDR~ ~hL~S; ~D DECL~ING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens ~&~, Che~ m~d to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, ~s "aye," H~s "aye," Stephens "aye,' Riddlesperger
"lye~" Chew 'aye," and ~ayo= Stewart "aye." Motion carried
unanimoaely.
D. The Council co~si~red adoption of an ordinance
prohibitin~ parking of vehicles on the west side of Sam Bass from
its inte~mection with Iat~stmte Highway 35-E Service Road to its
intersection with Londonderry.
The following ordinance was presented:
~. 85-9~
~ ORDINANCE PR~IBITI~ THE P~KING OF VEHICLES ON TH~
~ ~ST SID~ O~ SAM ~SS FR~ ITS INTERSECTION WITH INTERSTATE
BIG~Y 35-~ S~VICE ROAD TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH
~D~Y; ~IDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
~NALTY NOT ~ E~EED ~ HUNDRED ~LL~S; AND DECLARING AN
~F~IVE DATE.
Hopkins ~tion, Chew seco~ to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, ~adams "a~m," Hopkins 'a~," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"aye~" Chm~ '~ye~" a~d ~a~or Stewart "aye." Motio~
unanimomsly.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
tempora~ily prohibiting two-way vehicular traffic on Airport Road
from Interstate Highway ]5-W to the Denton Municipal Airport and
Airpor~ Road from the Airart to Interstate Highway 35W.
Bill Anqelo, Assistant t~ the D~rector of Public Works, reported
that this wa~ a similar motion which was taken last year to
acco~oda~e the ~rmf~c fl~ at the airport during the Confederate
Air Fo~e Airsh~.
The foll~ing ordinaaoe w~ p~esented:
NO. 85-91
AN ORDINANCE TE~R~ILY P~O~IBITING ~O-WAY VEHICULAR
T~IC O~ AIRarT R~D ~ROM INTERSTATE ~IGHWAY 35W TO THE
D~NT~ ~U~IC~;AL ~IR~RT ~D AIRPORT ROAD FROM TNE AIRART
' ~ I~TAT~ ~I~Y 35W; PROVIDING A SEVE~BILITY CLAUSE;
P~VIDING A ~NA~ N~ TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND
D~CL~ING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens eecon~ to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call ~tm, M~Ada~s "~e~" Hopkins 'aye," Stephens
Riddles~rge= ~aye~" Chew 'ayes" and Mayor Stewart "aye."
carried unani~usly.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Nineteen
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the conveyance of 0.991 acres of real property to the Town
of Cross Roads in accordance with an agreement previously approved
on April 5, 1983, between the City of Denton and the Town of Cross
Roads.
Sill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that there had been a dispute between the City of Denton and the
Town of Cross Roads over the old landfill site. Denton had agreed
to sell 1 acre to Cross Roads and this ordinance would allow that
sale.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-92
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING THE
CONVEYANCE OF 8.991 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY TO THE TOWN OF
CROSSROADS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN AGREEMENT, PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED ON APRIL 5, 1983, BETWEEN THE CITY OP DENTON AND
THE TOWN OF CROSSROADS! AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance.
Mayor Stewart asked what the selling price was.
Angelo responded $10.
On roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye,' Stephens "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "ayes" and Mayor Stewart "nay." Motion
carried 5 to 1 with Mayor Stewart casting the "nay" vote.
G. The Council considered adoption of 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 12.153 acres of land situated in the Mary L. Austin
Survey, Abstract No. 4, Denton County, Texas and located at the
northwest corner of Spencer Road and Loop 288; to provide for a
change in zoning classification and use designation from planned
development #PD" district classification and use to conercial "C"
classification and use for said property. Z-1718
The following ordinance was presentedl
NO. 85-93
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AH APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 12.153 ACRES
OF LAND SITUATED IN THE MARY L. AUSTIN SURVEY~ ABSTRACT NO.
4, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND LO~ATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF SPENCER ROAD AND LOOP 288; TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN
ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE TO
COMMERCIAL "C" CLASSIFICATION AND USE FOR SAID PROPERTY;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdame motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins 'aye," Stephens "aye," Riddlesperger
"ayes" Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion carried
uBanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement for the sale of wholesale t~eated water to
the Town of Corinth.
City Of Denton city Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Twenty
Bob Nelson, Director Of Utilities, reported that staff had been
working on this particular contract for some time. Denton had a
contract with Corinth since 1972 and i of the provisions was for
Corinth to install ground storage, which they had not done. Changes
had been worked into the contract. Under provisions to the contract
with Dallas, each year Denton had to declare how much water was
intended to be used and then that much water had to be taken. This
provision was in the Corinth contract. The rates would be examined
but Corinth would be placed on a demand fixed rate. Corinth was
also being asked to conform to the Dallas ares supply system. A
concept of water transmission through the community had been placed
in the contract.
Council Member Stephens asked if Corinth expanded, did Denton
guarantee certain volume.
Nelson responded that would tell staff about the volume which they
would require. The currently were at 3% of the Denton system.
Council Member Stephens asked if capital recovery was built into
this contract.
Nelson responded yes.
Council Member Stephens asked if Corinth had a standby system.
Nelson leplied no but Corinth did have wells.
council Member Chew stated that he did not want to be put in the
position Of supplying water to Corinth and having to curtail usage
in Denton.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-94
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AN
AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF WHOLESALE TREATED WATER TO THE
TOWN OF CORINTH; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
AGRERMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdama "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,'
Riddlespergsr 'aye,' Chew 'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement between the City of Denton and Freese and
Nichols, Inc., for engineering services relative to the Water
Treatment Plant.
Sob Nelson, Director Of Utilities, reported that this request for
was a $6,000 engineering contract with Freese and Nichols to design
a backwash system for the Water Treatment Plant. As Freese and
Nichols was currently performing another study, this would be an
appropriate time for this additional study.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-95
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND FRE~SE & NICHOLS, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATIVE TO THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
E~FHCTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye,' Hopkins "ayes" Stephens "aye,"
Riddleaperger nays," Chew 'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
68
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Twenty-One
J. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an agreement between the City of Denton and Rone Engineers
to provide subsurface investigation services for the City's sanitary
landfill.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this was a routine item which the Council would see many more
times as the landfill site expanded.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 95-98
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
DENTON AND RONE ENGINEBRS TO PROVIDE SUBSURFACE
INVESTIGATION SERVICES FOR THE CITY'S SANITARY LANDFILL,
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddleeperger motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams 'aye," Hopkins "aye,' Stephens
Riddlesperger "aye,' Chew 'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye.' Motion
carried unanimously.
11. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
approving an Airport Use Agreement between the City of Denton and
the Confederate Air Force for the 1985 airshow.
Clint Lynch, Airport Manager, reported that this was a routine
agreement for the airshow. Joining the CAF this year would be the
Blue Angels and the Golden Warriors.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Denton owns property at the Denton
Municipal Airport; and
WHEREAS, the Confederate Air Force desires to use property
at said airport for a temporary airshow on June 7, 8 and 9, 1985; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Advisory Board has reviewed and
recommended approval of the attached use agreement; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF DENTON, THAT:
SECTION I.
The Airport Use Agreement between the City of Denton and
the Confederate Air Force, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, is hereby approved.
SECTION II.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the attached use
agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION III.
This Resolution shall be effective i~ediately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 14th day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
69
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Psge Twenty-Two
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, McAdams second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call votew McAdams 'aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
Riddles~erger "aye," Chew 'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing a Pipeline License Agreement between the City of Denton
and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company.
Denise Spivey, Development Review Planner, reported that this
resolution would provide for a license agreement to allow the city
to cross the MKT tracks for street improvements being completed with
CDBG funds.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLqTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute on
behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, a Pipeline License Agreement
dated May 1, 1985, between the City of Denton and the Missouri-
Kansas-Texas Railroad Com%oany, relating to the construction,
reconstruction, usew maintenance, operation, repair and installation
by boring ~ethod one pipe line encased in a carrier pipe not
exceeding eighteen (18") inches in diameter, to be used for storm
sewer, manhole and headwall at Mile ~ost K-722.12, Denton County,
Texas.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 14th day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. $~EWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON,TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SEC~iTARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA A~AMI DRAYOVITCH~ CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion, McAdams 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.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution in
support of Senate Bill 1257, as introduced by Senator McFarlsnd,
relating to the amendment of Sections 15.86 and 15.07 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure.
70
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Heating of May 14, 1985
Page Twenty-Three
Debts Drayovitch, City Attorney, reported that the Council had
discussed some of the ramifications that could OCCUr when one
portion of the law was amended and not another. A number of cities
had approved this same type of resolution.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Senator Bob McFarland has introduced Senate Bill
1257 in the Texas Senate relating to the amendment of Sections 15.06
and 15.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (C.C.P.); and
WHEREAS, the exact meaning of Sections 15.06 and 15.07
C.C.P. is presently somewhat confusing by reason of the ~efinition
of the term "recorder" in Article 1196 of Vernon's Annotated Texas
Statutes (V.A.T.S.); and
WHEREAS, the possible conflict between Sections 15.06 a~4
15.87 C.C.P. and Article 1196 V.A.T.S. raises questions as to
whether warrants issued by municipal court Judges can be executed by
peace officers statewids; and
WHEREAS, if warrants executed by peace officers statewi~e
are defective, crimes committed by individuals while being arrested
under such warrants may not be subject to prosecution; and
WHEREAS, the amendment of Sections 15.06 and 15.07 C.C.P.
proposed by Senator McFarland, if passed by the Texas Legislature,
will resolYe any possible conflict that exists between such sections
and Article 1196 V.A.T.S.; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of Senate Hill 1257 by the Texas
Legislature will conclusively show that it is the law of the State
of Texas that warrants issued by municipal Judges oan b~ e~ecuted by
peace officers statewide; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of Senate Sill 1257 is supported by
our Municipal Judge, the Alternate Municipal Judge and the City
Attorney's Office; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION I.
The City Council recommends the adoption of Senate Hill
1257 in the form as the same was introduced in the Texas Senate by
Senator Bob McFarland.
SECTION II.
A copy of this resolution be furnished by the City
Secretary to Governor Hark White, Lt. Governor Bill Hobby, Speaker
of the House Gib Lewis, Criminal Justice Committee Chairman Kent
Capetton, said Committee's Vice Chairman Bob McFarland, said
Committee's Members Senator Ray Farabee, Senator Bob Glasgow,
Senator Ted Lyon, Senator H. Tati Santiesteban, ~enator Craig
washington and to State Representative Jim Horn and State
Representative Ben Campbell.
SECTION III.
This Resolution shall be effective imm~diately upon its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 14th day of May, 1985.
71
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Twenty-Four
RICHARD O, STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTT~ ALL~N,"CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA AD~I DRAYOVITCH, CiTY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
McAdams 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.
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution
recommending the introduction of legislation to amend Article 2.0lb
of the Texas Election Code to provide that when the first Saturday
in April falls on Easter weekend, that elections may be held on the
second Saturday in April.
Council Member Stephens stated that it appeared to be a somewhat
difficult situation when the local election day fell on Easter
weekend. He felt it would be advantageous to bring this to the
attention of the legislature for consideration of a change in the
election date.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Article 2.0lb. (a) of the Texas Election Code
provides that, subject to certain limitations, every general
(regular) or special election held by the state or by any city of
the state must be held oa one of the following dates: the third
Saturday in January, the first Saturday in April, the second
Saturday in August, or the first Tuesday after the first Monday in
Novembs~; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.01 of Article III of the Charter of the
City of Denton provides that the regular election for the choice of
members of the City Council shall be held on the first Saturday in
April; and
WHEREAS, often times, the first Saturday in April
immediately precedes Easter Sunday, thereby conflicting with Easter
weekend and religious and holiday plans and infringing upon the
ability of the electorate to cast their votes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
would urge and rsco;~0end the introduction of legislation to amend
Article 2.0lb of the Texas Election Code to provide that when the
first Saturday in April falls on Easter weekend, the election shall
be held on the second Saturday in April; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
S CT ON I.
That the City Council recommends the introduction of
legislation to amend Article 2.0lb of the Texas Election Code to
provide that where the first Saturday in April falls on Easter
weekend, the cities shall conduct the election on the second
saturday in April.
72
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Twenty-Five
SSCTION II.
That a copy of this resolution be furnished by the City
Secretary to Governor Mark White, Lieutenant Governor Bill Hobby,
Secretary of State Myra A. McDaniel, Speaker of the House Gib Lewis,
Senator Bob Glasgow, Senator Ray Farabee, Senator Rob McFarland,
State Representative Jim Horn, State Representative Hen Campbell,
Ted Willis, Director of the Texas Municipal League, and the House of
Representative Election Co~mittee~ Representative Clint Hackney,
Chairperson; Representative Chip Staniswalis, Vice-Chairperson;
Representative Senfronia Thompson, Chairperson for Budget and
Oversight; and Committee Members Representative Jim Horn,
Representative Sam Russell, Representative Steven Carriker,
Representative Nolan J. Robnett, Representative Bill Carter, and
Representative Pete Laney.
SECTION III.
That this resolution shall take effective immediately upon
its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 14th day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, 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,' Riddlesperger "aye, · Chew "aye, · and Mayor Stewart "nay.'
Motion carried 5 to 1 with Mayor Stewart casting the 'nay" vote.
E. The council considered approval of s resolution in
support of Project Tejas and declaring May, 1985 as P~oJect TeJae
Month in the City of Denton.
Council Member McAdams stated that all of the Council Members had
received a request to prepare and consider this resolution.
The following resolution was presented:
R ~ SO L U T I ON
WHEREAS, more than 14 million people in Ethiopia and the
rest of the African famine belt live on the brink of sta~vstion; and
WHEREAS, the survival of millions of children and their
parents depends on immediate food aid to these drought-stricken
areas; and
WHEREAS, Texas is a land of agricultural bounty and warm
generosity whose very name was derived from an Indian word, TeJae,
meaning friendship; and
WHEREAS, surplus grain and powdered milk are stored in
elevators and warehouses all over Texas and can be pUrchamed for
approximately $3.50 a bushel; and
73
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Twenty-Six
WHERSAS, Texas farm and ranch organizations, in cooperation
with the Texas Department of Agricultural and Save the Children
Federation, are asking the people of Texas to contribute toward
purchases of Texas grain and powdered milk to alleviate the
suffering of Africa's starving millione~
NOW~ THERSrOR~, 8S IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON, THAT:
SECTION I.
The month of May~ 1985, shall be 'Project Tejas Month' in
the City of Denton, Texae, and the Council does hereby urge all
citizens to contribute ~35.00 each, the equivalent of 10 bushels of
grain, or whatever they can afford and send to: PROJECT TEJAS, Texas
Department of Agrioulture~ P. O. Box 12009, Austin, Texas 78711.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 14th day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON~ TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DESRA A. DAMI DRAYOVITCH~ CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON~ TEXAS
McAdams motion, Riddlesperger second that the resolution be
approved. On roll call vote, McAdams 'aye,' Hopkins 'aye,' Stephens
'aye,' Riddleeperger 'ayes' Chew 'ayes' and Mayor Stewart "aye.'
Motion carried unanimously.
12. The Council considered approval of Capital Improvements
Plan Project (CIP) %85-WN-6, Hob~on lift station Change Order %1,
Bid 9351.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this change order
was simply for a 30 day extension to the original contract.
McAdams motion~ Chew second to approve the Change Order. Motion
carried unanimously.
13. The Council considered approval of participation by the
City of Denton in the Sister Cities Program.
Mayor Stewart stated that the city had been in the Sister Cities
Program for 7 years. He had visited benton's sister city in 1980
and had tried to establish the program but had been unsuccessful.
The city was currently paying $250 per year to be a member of the
program and asked for input from the Council on continuing.
Council Member Stephens stated that perhaps a more accessible city
would be more appropriate; for example, a sister city in Mexico.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to continue in the program but to
find another more appropriate Sister City.
City Manager Chris Hartun9 commented that the purpose of the program
was to be people to people. Denton had not been successful in
organizing citizen groups with an interest in Jordan.
Motion carried unanimously.
74
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 14, 1985
Page Twenty-Seven
14. The Council considered revisions and/or amendments to the
Charter of the City of Denton.
Mayor Stewart stated that there was a need for changes in reference
to the date when members would take office after an election. It
might also be necessary to consider a fee to reward Council Members
ss well as many ordinances which would been reviewed.
Council Member Hopkins stated that a Charter Revision Committee
would need to be selected to review the Charter.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to enter into a Charter
amendment situation and for a committee to be formed to report back
to the Council with their recommendations.
Dr. Roland Vela was recognized by the Council and stated that he had
been a me~ber of the City Council during the last Charter
amendment. He felt that the City Attorney should be an ex officio
member of the committee.
Motion to form a Charter amendment committee carried unanimously.
15. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel or board appointments.
16. New Business
No items of new business were suggested for future agendas.
The Council reconvened into the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, personnel or board appointments. The
following official action was taken.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to confirm the County's appointment
of Dr. William H. Cripe as Director of the City/County Health
Department. Motion carried unanimously.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
City Council Minutes
May 21, 1985
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewert~ Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins~ Council Members
Alford, McAda~s, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
ABSENT: Council Member Chew
1. The Council held a discussion of development activity and
land use conditions on pro~erty located north of FM 1173 and east of
Masch Branch Road between 1-35 north and Barthold Road for the
purpose of determining whether to begin the annexation process.
David Ellison, Senior Planner, reported that staff had received
inquiries regarding this parcel. There were currently 7 residences
and 2 salvage yards in the tract. The city did have a 500 feet
strip in this area which would allow for annexation. The wrecking
yards were unsightly and were expanding. A property owner had
approached the staff regard/rig the development of mixed use, such as
light industrial, commercial and mini-warehouses, in the area. Also
discussed had been major landscape changes which would alter
drainage in the area. Barthold Road to the north would be a natural
boundary. The problem property could be annexed without taking in
any residences. The wrecking yards were a problem~ however, if
annexed, they would have to conform to city codes. This was an
older area which was expanding. Ellison then asked for direction
from the Council on whether to begin annexation and whether to
exclude the residences and limit the annexation to the owners of the
golf driving property.
Council Member Stephens asked how many acres were involved.
Ellison responded approsimately 40, perhaps less. The railroad
track would be a logical boundary.
Council Member Stephens asked if the city would be required to
extend services.
Ellison replied the extension of city services would be accomplished
throug~ the Capital Improvements Program.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he did not see any reason
to exclude the existing residences.
council Member Stephens stated that the city limits should be
extended to the north as that had not been done since 1971.
Council Member Chew Joined the meeting.
Alford motion, Riddlesperger second to begin annexation
proceedings. Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council held a discussion of petition of Bruce R. West
for vo~umtary annexation of 258.66 acres being part of the S. Myers
Survey, Abstract 843, and the A. Miller Survey, Abstract 887, and
beginning west of Underwood Road, east of C. Wolfe Road, south of
Jim Christal Road, and north of Tom Cole Road, for the purpose of
determining whether to begin the annexation process. A-21
David E.11ison, Senior Planner, presented a map on the parcel stating
that this was an approximately 680 acre tract which was all owned by
the same people. A request was being made for light industrial
zoning. The tract was presented in the Economic Development
Factboo~ and would be a logical choice for annexation and light
industrial development. This was a voluntary annexation.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 21, 1985
Page Two
Council Member Stephens asked if part of the property had not
already been annexed.
Ellison responded this was the area west of the creek which was not
anneEed during 1984.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to proceed with the annexation. Motion
carried unanimously.
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 Hopkins; Council Members
Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney, and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. Consent Agenda
aid 9 9431A was removed from the Consent Agenda by staff.
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
1. Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
(PULLED
BY STAFF) 1. Bid S 9431A - Modular furniture panels
2. Bid S 9454 - Drainage Improvements/Stanley
and Thomas
3. Bid $ 9459 - Golf range lighting
4. Bid $ 9460 - Skid steer loader
5. Bid $ 9461 - Police uniforms
6. Bid $ 9462 - Concrete contract work
7. Bid ~ 9463 - Dead front load break
8. Purchase Order $68221 to SAS Institute, Inc.
in the amount of $3,500.08. (The Data
Processing Advisory Board recommends
approval.)
B. Tax Refund:
1. Approval of a tax refund to AMI in the
amount of
2. ordinances:
A. Consider adoption of mn 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.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 21, 1985
Page Three
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-97
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 EFEECTIVE 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
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. 85-98
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING ~OR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN E~FECTIVE DATE.
Alford motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdame "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 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. 85-99
AN ORDINANCB PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OE EUNDS 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.
stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdame "ayew" Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart 'aye.' Motion
carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 2.D was passed in the agenda order.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
setting a date, time and place for public hearings concerning the
petition of the City of Denton and Pat O'Brien for annexation of
approximately 160 acres of land being a part of the G. Walker
Survey, Abstract 1330, and the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Survey, Abstract 950,
and situated north and south of Paige Road between 1-35E and Swisher
Road (A-20).
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-100
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 SUCS PUBLIC HEARING.
78
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 21, 1985
Page Four
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
setting a date, time and place for public hearings concerning the
petition of the City of Denton for annexation of approximately 115
acres of land being part of the J. West Survey, Abstract 1331, and
located north of Highway 380 east and west of Rockhill Road. A-22
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-101
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE ON TEE PRO~OSED
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF DENTON,
TEXASt AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING.
Chew motion, Hiddlesperger 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
authorizing an extension of the agreement for Project Construction
Manager for the renovation projects of the Municipal Building.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the contract was an
extension of the arrangement which had been used throughout the
remodeling of City Hall.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-102
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CE DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN
EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTIOM MANAGER
FOR THE RENOVATION PROJECTS OF THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING; AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alford motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdsme 'aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens 'aye," Alford "aye,'
Riddlelperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart 'aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
3. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution in
sul~9ort of the North Texas Commission and the U. S. Customs Service
Center concept.
City Manager Chris Hsrtung reported that this item hsd been placed
on the agenda at the request of the North Texas Co~iesion. The
Co~mission was working to maintain a U. S. Customs office in Dallas.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the North Texas Commission has been directed by
its Long Range Plan to act as a catalyst in issues that affect the
Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex as a whole~ and
WHEREAS, the North Texas Co~mission Board of Directors has
agreed that the services rendered by the U. S. Customs District are
vital to the continued economic well being of the DaLlas/Fort Worth
Metroplex as a whole; and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 21, 1985
Page Five
WNEREAS, the North Texas Commission recognizes the need to
retain all U. S. Customs Services currently in operation in the
Dallas/Port Worth customs District so that the Dallas/Fort Worth
region will remain positioned as an international economic hub; and
WNEREAS, the North Texas Commission recognizes and supports
U. S. Customs goal to modernize and streamline its operations; 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 supports the
North Texas Commission's efforts relating to the Service Center
Concept and will work to assist and support those efforts between
the private and public sectors.
SECTION II.
That the City Council of the City of Denton and the North
Texas Commission await the opportunity to assist U. S. Customs in
facilitating plans to strengthen the inland port of Dallas/Fort
Worth.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 21st day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, T~XAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCEt CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Riddlesperger 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 presented budget priorities to the City Manager.
Mayor Stewart stated this procedure was preliminary to the budget
process.
Council Me~ber Chew:
1. funds for employees to celebrate Martin Luther King's
birthday as a legal holiday
2. more money in the General Fund for streets
MaNor Pro Tem Hopkins:
Hopkins stated that many items had been discussed at the Council
retreat which should be in the budget.
1. review of what the lack of revenue sharing funds would mean
to the City of Denton; must keep in mind these monies will
have to be rsplaoed by other sources
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 21, 1985
2. streets
3. southeast Denton community center
4. begin planning for a new community center
Council Member McAdams:
1. adequate personnel level in the Police Department - should
be considered very carefully
Council Member Riddles~erger:
1. Flow Hospital - there were still problems with Flow and,
depending on the legislature, the city might have some
fiscal responsibility in this area
Council Member Alford:
1. adequate personnel in the Police Department
2. staying abreast of current salary levels so as to keep good
personnel
Council Member Stephens:
1. more money for streets in addition to the bond money
2. Flow Hospital
3. review of salaries separate from the budget
Council Member Riddlesperger asked to receive a salary schedule.
Council Member Stephens asked for a detailed budget at the same time
the Council received the budget summary.
Mayor Stewart:
1. look at the whole city operation to see what could be cut
out; would like to see an effort made to bring the budget
in line with what the financial capability would be. Mayor
Stewart stated that he would like no increase in ta~es.
Council Member Riddlesperger responded that he also would not like
to increase taxes; however, items such as impact fees had not been
discussed. The city was going to require additional revenues.
Mayor Stewart restated that the Council should look at those items
which could be cut out.
Council Member Stephens asked where the city was in implementing the
David M. Griffith cost of service fees.
City Manager Chris Hartung responded the fees were being implemented
at different levels. Some of the recommended fees had not be
implemented and some were fully implemented.
Council Member Stephens asked for a briefing on the statue of the
fees in June.
The Council considered Item 2.D which had been previously passed in
the agenda order.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
directing the issuance of Notice of Sale of bonds.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that Frank Medanich of First
Southwest Company was present to speak to this item.
Mest£ng of May 21, 1985
9age Seven
Frank Medanich, First Southwest Company, reported that there was a
Charter requirement for a 30 day notice prior to the sale of city
bonds. THis notice would De published in the Bond Buyer and the
Denton Record-C~ronicle. The bonds would De sold on JUne 25.
City Manger Chris Bartung stated there would De a requirement for a
Special Called Council ~eeting at 5:00 p.m. on June 25 to sell the
bonds.
The following ordinance wes presented:
NO. 85-103
AR ORDINAM¢8 ~IRECTING T~E ISSUANCE OF NOTIC~ OF SALE OF
CITY OF D~NTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 1985
McAdama motion, Stephens second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call Yore, McAdaN 'aye," HopKins 'aye,' Stephens "aye," Alford
"ayes' aiddlsepergar 'aye," Chew "aye,' and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion oarrie~ unanimously.
6. T~e following items of New Business were suggested Dy
Council Members for future agendas:
1. Council Member McAdame stated t~at some question had Seen
raised regarding a previously approved agenda request to
allow a welcome banner to me displayed during Freshman
registration at NTSU. T~e question was in regards to
w~ether tbs banner was to contain an advertisement.
De~ra Prayo¥1tc~ City Attorney, responded that the intent was not
to advertise. The Council nad approved a banner to welcome
students, not advertisiBg.
C~unctl reconvsned into t~e E~ecutive Session to discuss legal
The
matters, real estate, ~reonnel and board appointments. No official
action was taken.
~lth no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
City Council Minutes
May 28, 19S5
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the
civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins; Council
MemDers Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and
Stephens
ABSENT: None
1. The Council held an 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 7:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers.
PRESENT: M~yor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tam HopKins; Council
Mer~Ders Alford, C~ew, McAdams, Riddlssperger, and
Stephens.
ABSENT: NoNe
1. The Mayor read a resolution in appreciation Of Phyllis
A. Morris.
The following resolution was presented:
"PHYLLIS M. MORRIS"
WHEREAS, on May Jl, 1985, the City of Denton will lose the
services of Phyllis M. Morris, an exceptional and
dedicated employee; and
WHEREAS, that date will mark the end of over seven years of
puDllc service Dy ~nyllls Morris as the Deputy Clerk
of Municipal Court for the Cxty of Denton; and
WHEREAS, during nar tenure as Deputy Clerk, Phyllis has served
aDove and beyond the mere efficient discharge of her
duties in galning the respect of the attorneys, judges
and staff with whom she worked; and
WHEREAS, although the city regrets the loss of a valuaDle
employee, we share the concern of Phyllis Over the
health of her daughter and fervently nope her medical
treatment will result in a complete recovery;
NOW, '£HER~FOR~, the C~ty Council of t~e City of Denton
w~ehes to acknowledge with grateful
appreciation the service of Phyllis M.
Morris and the tireless devotion she has
given to the office of Deputy Clerk of
Municipal Court of the Csty of Denton, and
orders that this Resolution be made a part
of the officsal minutes of this Council to
De a permanent record of the City and that a
copy De forwarded to Phyllis Morris as a
token of our appreciation.
City of Denton C3. t~/ Council Minutes
Meeting of May 28, 1985
Page Two
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 28tn day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON~ TEEAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
D~BRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
It was noted that Ms. Phyllis A. Morris was present to accept
the resolution.
2. Consent Agenda
Chew motion, McAdams second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Purchase Order ~ 68500 to Weathertalker in
the amount of $14,850.00
B. Final Payment:
1. Consider approval of final payment for water
and sewer relocation at Loop 288 to Calvert
Paving Company, Bid # 9364 in the amount of
$14,555.70.
3. ~uDlic Hearings
A. The Council Held a puDlic nearing on the petition
of Hammett & Nash, Inc. requesting annexation of approximately
361.708 acres Deginning west of FM2164 (North Locust)
approximately 7,000 feet north of Hercules Lane. A-16
The Mayor opened the public nearing.
David ~llison, Senior Planner, spoke in favor stating that this
was the second public hearing on this request. Interested
individuals have inquired into the possiDle zoning of this
tract of land although exact development is not known at this
tlme. Actual developmemt of this area is very limited. As
there is no existing population or residences in the area, the
City would not me adversely affected from tho service delivery
standpoint with this annexation.
Mr. ~aruch, owner of this tract as well as A-19 which was
denied annexation, wanted to know why A-19 was denied. He was
informed that there appeared to De very little actual
development potential based on their participation with
deoding~ etc. in the property and that there was some concern
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 28, 1985
Page Three
about serving one residence that far out with basic City
services. Mr. Baruch indicated that he would like to appeal
the A-19 decision but that he was still interested in the A-16
annexation.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
4. Ordinances
A. 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. 85-104
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
~M~RGENC~ PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT~ SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITS THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motion, Alford second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "ayes" Hopkins "ayes" Stephens 'ayes" Alford
"ayes' Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "ayes" and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
5. Resolutions:
The Council considered approval of a resolution accepting the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order issuing Denton a
license for the Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project.
Charles Cryan, Utility Budget and Bate Administrator, stated
that the Public Utilities Board reco~ended approval. The
license would allow them to keep on schedule for building the
hydroelectric plant. It appears that this would not take place
within the next two years, Out an extension was possible. No
funds are expended for the next fiscal year. An engineering
study would require future funds, but nothing was required at
this time.
Council Me,er Hopkins stated that the plant would not come
on-line until the lake was half filled.
Cryan replied that that was correct. That the project was not
feasible until 1987 or a couple of years after.
Council Member Hopkins asked what if the lake filled as fast as
the one here did.
Cryan replied that we could move up the date at that time.
The following resolution was presented:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of May 28, 19~5
Page Four
R~ ~ O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas nas filed an
application with the United Statem of America, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, for a license under part I of t~e ~ederal
power Act to construct, operate, and maintain the Ray RoDerts
Dam P~oject No. 3939; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility study for the construction of
the Ray Roberts Dam Hydroelectric Project nas Deen completed
and presented to the Denton City Council; and
WHEREAS, tbs City of Denton nas received an Order
Issuing ~icenss (Major) (Issued March 20, 1985) from the United
States Of America, ~ederal Energy Regulatory Commission for
said Project No. 3939; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Clty of Denton, Texas
recognizes the feasibility of the Ray Roberts Dam Project 3939;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RgRgB¥ RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP DENTON,
THAT:
SECTION I.
T~e Director of Utilities of the City of Denton, Texas,
De and is ~ereby authorized to accept the terms and conditions
of the suD]ect order between the United States of America,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and t~e City of Denton,
TexaS.
S~CTION II..
T~is Resolution e~ell ne effective immediately upon
its passage.
~A~SED AND APPROVED t~is t~e 28tn day of May, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY O~ DENTON, TggAS
ATTEST:
CHAR~OTT~ ~LLEN~ CITY SECRETARY
CITY O~ DENTON, TggAS
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting Of May 28, 1985
Page Five
APPROVED AS 'fO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF D~NTON, TEXAS
~opkins 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.
6. The Council convened into t~e Executive Session to
discuss legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board
appointments. No official action was taken.
With no further 1tems of business, the meeting was adjourned.
1024a
June 4,
The Council convened into the #ork Session at 5:30 p.m. ~n the Civil
Defense ~oo~.
Alined, Chew, McAdams. Riddlespe~ge~ and Stephens
~: None
~. T~ Ceuno~ eeeei~ed a p[esin~a~[on by Joel,s Ot~,
DireCts[, o~ funding ~zopolali to p~i~ent to the Denton County
Co~tei~o~z's Court Eot ~Y ~9e5-86 Ccc the ~nton Public
JoeLla Oc~, Ltbta[7 D~e~to~, ~epo~ted tha~ a ~u~ng p~an ~d been
ch~ee level8 o~ leEvtoee. Bevel 1 ruling ~ep~eaented ~1.o0
capita plus ~e~ing l~al ~u~8 up to a ~x~u cC 625,000 (as
~nton County (ou~ ot city) ~estden~s to be cha~ged to ~he County.
Level 2 tu~t~g ~uld ~ $L.00 pe~ capita plu~ ~tehtng ~u~8 up to
1985-~S proposed bud,S Without these p~oJected 8u~8 a~ no
~on~t~nt had ~eu ~d~ by the County.
tepotC ~t ~he iupae~ would be on ~he budge~ Ihould ~he County
decide not ~o tu~ the library.
had 0nly c~uoed the usage by 4t. However, aa the county grey, the
ou~ o8 city use ~u~d beeoue uccc cE a C~ncia~ burden on the
o~ttene cC ~u~on.
~yoc PEn Ten Hopkins asked i~ ~. Oc~ agreed with the proposed
~OgE~ o~ ~U~Lng a~ t~ ac, why.
Ms, OE~ Eep~e~ s~ did agEoo but v~th Level ~ [u~inq only. The
l~bca~y vat currently serving all County cei~denCs a~ the 811 out
Counc~l ~ec ~i~lee~zge~ stated t~t the City Council ~d set
County ~uld eeltoce tMLE previous ~u~ing level.
~yoc Pcs Ten ~n8 S~ated t~t he hoped t~t eo~ uuCually
agreeable solution could be vo~h~ ou~ vi~h the County
~. O~ ee~z~ t~t the Beve~ 1 Eundtng would cover
budge~ toe ~ nex~ ~ti~al year.
council ~u C~v t~Ce~ t~ ~ ~eYel ~ tuudt~g could not be
obtatn~. ~eE~pg t~e City should not accept iny CU~l a~ ~ev[ev
the Ill e~zge to out ol city residents.
upda~ du~t~ the tumz.
Eigueel could ~ obtain.
~yoc Stuart 8ta~ed t~t the city had continued to rock tn good
~aith to seeps all County residents with the libza~y
however, it lu~tug ~ae ~t received the eezvtce should be ~lted.
Ptge Two
Council I(embtc Rtddlesperge£ stated that he would h&te to eeo
Ks. Ocr concluded by stating that sta~ vould pcepa=e a eecvice
proposal ~or the County at Level 1 funding.
2. The Council held a discussion o~ a petition EOF voluntary
annexation by residents of Vacation Village Estates ~oc the pucpose
of determining whethec to begin the amnexation procell.
David Ellieon, 5enioc Planner, cepo~tod that 3 resido~ts Erou
Vacation Village had contacted him regarding annexation. Vacation
liaite line. & 50 Eeet otctp vould have to be ez~ended dorm East
MeKinney peter to annexation o~ this pcoperty. Vacation Village vas
ets.) vas so poe=, assistance was needed ~=ou the City o~ Denton.
ex~e~tng u~ili~iea. ~en~ly the~e ve~e no Eisa h~d~ants a~ the
1,2~1.61 ac~es but Le8~ than 200 people. The~e ~s an e~tt~ted
~ula~ion on 770 people tn th~s o~e a~e~t~on. The issue be~o~e
Cit~ o~ Denton Se~vioes.
Vacation Village.
~nvolunta~ annexation acta.
COUnCil ~abe~ ~i~dlespe~ge~ stated that the Council ~ad d~,ou~ed
thee a=ea ptev~ouoly and ~t va8 Just a uatte~ o~ tiue u~t~l
a~exat~on p~oceed~ng8 ve~e begun.
Council ~ubec Mc~au8 .ta~ed t~t the question was vhethez the City
a~ d~a~ni~e.
~. ta~ng tha ae~e~age ~om Vacation V~llage and o~ed the tie,eat
~i~t station. ~ha~e va. a vel1 .y.tez ~o~ vats=. One o~ tho
Vzovoeed co~dit~on~ ~oz annexation vould ~ the elteneton o~ a
vane to oversize the lines ~o~ ~tu~e develople~t. The cost to
Vialttou V~lage vou~d be 0200.000. Z~ ~he existing va~e~ 8ye~eu
vas substandard, thc city you,d uo~ aaeep~ t~. Thc city aould op~
~0 tne~a~ the vate~ a~ sever t~nee a~ c~nge a p~o EiSa. He d~d
~uld not be Coz ~onq. At p~eviouety ezpceesed, the extension o~
adequate va~e= ~tne. should be a condition og an~uCton. Anotha~
option vould be goz the City ~o accep~ ~he ~11 eys~eB a~ provide
Qomeatic vate~ only (not ~o~ g~re p~o~eetioa) a~ vai~ gQr gutuze
developBen~ ~o ex,end ~he lazge~ ~[nei.
~yoz Pzo Tea HopKins 8~ated tha~ a pzevioue legal opinion ~d held
t~t a vate~ ~tst~tct vould have to ~ puec~eed totally, not Just a
po~tton. He then asked vhat othe~ than Vacation Village va. ~e~ved
by th~l va~t~cula~ vate~ diet~ict.
· zeaident cE Vacation V~llage ~esponded the ~ate~ diet~ict also
served Ca~p Coppae, Reed's Casp an~ scat duplexes.
89
~eating of June 4.
Page
~ayo~ 8tenant stated t~at the ooncecn would be ~i£e service and
asked lit t~ City soul4 eontzact with the ~ayhill Fi~e Dt~t~ent.
· he ~al ~pa~taeat v~a aek~ to cheer ~nto that possibility,
~yoz ~zo ~e~ HQ~na Itite~ that the Council ehoul~ also conetde~
W~t t~ eL~CUllt~Ueel ~ld be in the next 3 to 5 yeses, l~ the
ann~tion ~e deXlyed n~, t~e City night b~ Clced w~th ~v~ng to
~ep~a~ JveEyt~Xng ~eu t~ peccary wis eventually lnnezed.
Cou~c~l ~B~z ~Ma~ stated that ~t m~ght be that ~utu~e
~evel~ ia thi~ a=~ ~uLa solve the p=obleu.
~yoc Pzo Te~ Hop~n~
zeta eha~g~ to V, eat~a V~llage zesideats mow woula be zepayed.
Nelson asked ~o ~ld ~F the 8200,000.
Nelson ~heu zepoz~ed ~e
cate cE thresh t~ capital l~oveuenta P~og~au.
Councttl ~b~ R~dlo~po~M~ as~ed t~ the wateE 1them of the ~atez
dtst~t~t ~ce o~ 8uffi~ient fits.
Council burr ~aul t~n Ititl~ t~t i~dequate ~e p~otect~on
~lc~ ~u~d a~ect the ~y ~ate and al~ ~nton'e ~es~dente would
~ve to
~yo~ ~P~O T~ ~p~&l 8~ated t~t pe~p8 a new ~i~e station could
be loc&ted ~ t~lt quadrant of t~o City.
Council ~ ~ ~at~ ~hat the~e would be ~00.000 tn~t[al
cost oE the eztenlion of utilities. Also to be considezed Vel the
uomey a~
~yo~ Pzo Tau ~p~iua zepl~ed that l~ any developuent oacuz~ed
~evelo~d t~ eatvice
Council ~ Step~ them asX~ ~tth ~e~ ~oul~ the C~ty
negotiate.
Chew mottos, Ste~e~ 8~ to begin the a~exat~on p~o~eedinga.
~tton, oa~cL~ unanimity.
~ea~dl~t o~ t~ City o~ Coppe~ Canyon conce~nin~ possible ~utu~e
annexat~o~ ~y t~ CLay o~ ~nton.
9O
City Council Minutes
I~ottng o~ Juno 4. 1985
Page Four
EMvLd Ellison, Senior Planner, roported that #8, Juno Tyler o~
copp~c canyon had expressed some conoernt regarding t~o water supply
in the noxt lO years. Her priua£y guoation was i~ the water supply
ran out. who would annex copper canyon.
~ayor stewart asked about the conditions o~ tho ltreets.
ElliSon replied the current streets were seal coat with no curbs or
guttering. #cst housing was located on 1 acre lots. The denoity
Would not be as great aa that o~ Vacation Village. Souse bridge
repairs would have to be sade. Col~er Canyon was. heq~ero a long
way ~rom the current Denton city limits line.
led. June Tyler, Copper Canyon. e~oKe stattmg that the water was
currently supplied by the nartonville water mysteu amd the water
table was lowering. In lO to 20 years tho residents o( this area
would have to be annexed by a city that could provide water.
l~yo£ Pro Ten HopKins asked i~ Copper Canyon could not contract to
buy water ~rom Denton
Rob Nelson. Director o~ Ut~lities, £esponded yes.
Mayor Pro Teu HopKins then reiterate4 that Copper Canyon vas not
part o~ the Denton sewer system.
Nelson then responded that i~ SOt o~ the water sold wag not returned
to the Denton system, Copper Canyon could not purchaoe water ~rom
Denton.
Je~ Mayer. Director o~ Planning and Couuunity Development, ~urther
reported that this portion o~ Copper Canyon would have to dtsomnex
~rou the remainder o~ Copper Canyon prior to annezatton by Denton.
This dtsannexation would require an election in Copper Canyon.
Mayor Pro Te~ Hopkins asked ~ the Dentom e~t~aterrttorial
Jurisdiction met Copper Canyon.
· llisen responded yes. at one point ~or approxi~Ately 1.000 ~eet.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported there Yes also a matter or
protocol, Tho Council should be dealing with the city go¥ornllant o~
Copper Canyon and not a resident.
Mayor Stewart told Ms. Tyler that the Council could not act at thin
time and suggested that the Council o~ Copper Cauyo~ con, act Denton
at a ~uture date.
t. The Council held a discusolon o~ the petition o~ Fields,
· dwarde and ~seoctates, rnc. representing ~illar o~ Texas, ~oz
voluntary annexation o~ approximately 304.9 acres ~or the purpose o~
determining whether to begin the annexation process. The 304.9 acre
request i8 composed or rout separate parcels dooccibed as ~ollows:
A. Approximately ILS.12 acres lying and being a part o£
the N. Durham Survey, Abstract Number 330, and beginning adjacent
and north and adjacent and south o: tm 42S (Riel HcKinney)
approximately 1,000 Eeet east o8 Trinity Road.
B. Approximately 53.94 acres lying in amd being a part of
tho N. Forrast Survey. Abotract No. 417, and beginning adjacent and
east o~ Trinity Road. approxiuately Z,000 ~eet north o~ i'M 426.
C. Approximately 27.84 acres lying in ams being a part o~
the N. eortost Sutvoy, Abstract No. ¢~7, aud beginning' approximately
800 rest east o~ Trinity Road and $,000 ~eet north o~ FI( 426.
D. Approximately 108.0¢ acres lying in and being a part
o: the H. Fortest Survey, Abstract No. 417, and beginning at the
northwest corner o: Trinity Road and Rlagg Road approzilately 1,300
:eel south o~ U.S. H~,. 380 East.
city counct~ Minutes
~eeting o~ June 4, 1985
Page ~tve
anne~Ation. T~e purpose ~ae to extend the c~ty ~m~te ~n this a£ea
~o£ teetdel~tial devolopgmat. ~ece cuccently ~as no po~ula~ion o~
Counoil ~ec ~l~dloupecgec aa~e~ abou~ ~e geogcap~tcal
cela~ie~lp be~eu thio pacoe~ a~d Venation V~llage
Ell~eou E~n~ed t~ t~ ~eca ~n p~o~iu~y only~ ~owevec. ~e
deve~o~a~ ~e~C~a~ ~oc ~h~, aces was ~a~y se~ous.
Chew M~lou, ~a~ s~o~ ~o beg~n ~he annexation pc~ess. ~ion
entered ~ni~usly.
5. ~ ceu~il co~nea t~to :~e ~ecuttve Session :o Statues
~ega~ ~ttetn, teal estate, pecsonuel a~ boats appotm:nemts. No
o:~tctal aetLon~a ta~eu.
The Council convenes into the Regular ~ettng at 7:00 p.a, tn the
Council C~u~ts.
PRESEt: ~yot Bisect= ~yot Pro Ten Hopkins; Council Meubet8
City ~get. City ACCotmey. a~ City Secretary
angular' ~ett~ o~ ~y ~4, I~8Sl t~e Special Ca~led Meeting cC Kay
21, 19~ I~ the Special ~lled ~e~tug of ~y 2e, 1985.
· iddl~tget notion, ALCotd seco~, to approve the Minutes
pteeem~. ~tton catEt~'u~mtUouely.
2. Consent Age,s
CUte nrta. ~pkt~a 8eeo~ ~o approve t~e consent Age,aa ae
con. ut ~ge~:
A. ~id8 a~ ~o~8e Coders:
Bid ~ tas0 ~leatcic motets and sockets
3. Bi~ e 94~4 ~aauoun~ sv~ohgeat
4. Bid J 946S - Covet-ells :ct So~ta
7. ~tc~M Order ~ 6838~ to Basic Waste System8
c~e a~unt oe 14.307.42
9. ~C~M OcdeC ~ 69336 ~0 ~t~ey coo~tng ~ovet
Ceu~aiy in ~ auouuc o~ 82L.435.0O
9. Punches Order ~ 68246 to J. G. squipuen~ coupany
ta the auount o~ ~3.4o~.o3
92
City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ June 4, 1985
Page Six
Plats:
1. Approval oe tho p~aliuinat¥ ~lat o~-~he Ca,alisa
subdivision. (T~e Planning a~ Zoal~ Co,lesion
~eoo~e~d8 approval. )
square A~dttion. Lot ~, alack 1. (T~o Planning
3. The Council conaide~ed adoption of an o~dl~n~e and
p~n ~nnezin~ a ~A~ of ~ ~o~tet~g o~ app~ozi~ly 34.
ao~e8 situated in t~e ~. Foc~est Survey, Abetcao~ 4L7, a~ ~gi~ing
o~ ~ 426 a~d a~pEozi~ely 2,000 ~est ei8~ o~ ~yhl~l triad
annexatfon. Sta~ ~ ~o new in~oc~tion to
NO. 85-L05
~ ORDIN~CE ~EXING A ~ACT OF ~ C~IGUOUS
~ACK~ ~ T~ CITY OF D~, TE~I B[I~ ~L ~T
T~T OH PAHCKL OF h~ C~8ISTINQ OF AP~O~I~TE~Y 34.60
~S OF ~ LYIN~ ~ B~I~ 8I~A~ IN ~ ~Y
DE~. ~TA~ OF TR~6 ~ BEI~ P~T OF T~ M. FaR,EST
~ S~ AS ~R~L~ "A' OlS~I~ ~;
DKC~IN~ ~ EFPECT~ ~.
Ho~t~g motion, ~aH8 8econ~ to a~e9~ ~he attendee. ~ =oll
vo~e, Mc~e~8 "aye," Hopkins "aye, u S~eP~e~ ~aye~ u AlfoEd "~,"
H~ddlespe=gez "aye," C~ew "aye." a~ ~yo= S~ewa== "aye."
~a=zie~ unanimously.
4. The Council consideced a~op~lon o~ an ozd~Mnee au~
plan annexin~ a ttac~ o~ land oo~isttag o~ a~p~ezi~ely 150.0
-35 adjacent the
wee a vo un acy annexation and ac ea wan ing annexed
initiation o~ ~he City. Wi~h the completion o~ t~, procedure, all
The ~ol~ow~ng o~d[~nce wa8 p~esented:
NO. 85-~06
~E~ TO T~ CITY OF DE~N, TR~S; BKI~ ~ ~T
T~CT O~ PAHC~L OF ~ ~TIN~ OF ~P~LY 150
AC~E5 OF L~ LYING ~ BKI~ 8I~AT~ IN ~ ~
D~N. ~TATE OF ~8 ~ BE~ P~T ~ ~ D. HO~H
~Y, ABS~CT NO. 646, D~N CO~, T~
T~ 6~ A~ ~[~L~L "A" DIB~XCT P~P~l~ ~
Stmphonm motion, Ch~ meco~ to adopt the o~4tnance. On toll call
vote, Mc~a~ "a~e," Hopkins "aye. ~ Stephens "aye," Almond
Biddlelpecge~ "aye," Chew 'aye, u and ~yOr Strict "aye."
cleated unanimously.
A. The Council held a public ~actng on ~hm pent,ion
R. O. ~Donne~l E*ques~ing a c~nge in zoning i=ou the agztcut~uEal
93
Page given
39.4 aces ~rac~ looated on ~e touth aide oS ]~ 42~ (Bast HcK~nney
33.S aorta - duplex
· he ~yo~ o~aed ~he pub~ hearing.
Mo one epo~e Lu ~avez.
in a L~ tu~i~y area ~ vii pzeeen~y ~ee se SeveXo~ea~.
co~seten ~ ~O~l~d~K~ ~ p~obab~y ~t slightly ez~e~ng
~on~o~ as et~aeh~ ~ ~he ~a~ng
Ho~oa earcl~ uuG~uely.
n. T~e Cou~ ~old a pub~io ~eaz~ng on ~he pe~i~ton o~
~e~t & ~ah, lac. requesting a e~nge ~n zoning ~zom ~e
· gE~aut~al '(A) ol~eei~tcation to ~he pla~ed developmen~ (PD)
T~e ~yo~ ~ed t~ ~bXie
NO ORe ~O ,~
No on l~ke ~u op~ttt~.
The ~yoE elo~ ~he ~bl~o ~a~tag.
Denise 6pi~y, u~n planner, tape,ted t~t ~hi8 van ~he public
benzine zega~dt~ zoning on one o~ the parcels ~eh vas annexed
ela~s~fteat~o~ ~uld e~ble tho City to control undeeiEable land
~ozu8 ~tl~ utah 1 Eecue~ tm ~avoc and 0 ze~uEned tn apposition.
CouucLl ~ Itep~m~ ~k~ at What stage in the 4evelop~n~ you,d
~he coMtcien,, il fl.~i~ by ~he P~aun~ng and Zoning Couteeion.
~t~on ~&EE~ uuni~y.
C., . ~e ~ctl ~ld a public ~ea~tmg on t~e peri,ton of
C~y QC ~ucon ~uelti~ au aue~aent to pla~ed de~Zopment
H~ay 3~ ~ CaEEoll ~XevaE~. The cu~ent planned developuen~
include, elites, tahiti ~d zestauEant ~a~ utes. A condttion
attae~-te~t~ pti~ ~l~nt read al ~ollo~:
· BOth mtdee oC ~olllns Stteet Eton Fott Motth Dt~ve to the
inte~ieottou o~ Colltn~ i~ Clevela~ 6t~eet e~tl be tmpeoved by
Cbt deveZopez, hl~ o~ Clevela~ St~ee~ aczos, the entire ~zontage
o~ the eubJeeC CEac~ t~tt be i~oved pe~ noz~l City se Denton
94
P&ge Eight
The 4eveloDe~ v~sbe~ ~o ~ ~e co~t~ie~ liat~ ~bove ~o
e~a~e ~ ~e be =equ~ed ~o ~apzove only ~1~ o~ Collins
~com ~o~ NotCh D~ive ~o t~e ~ute~s~ion o~ Collins and Clevela~
S~cee~. Z-1649
The ~yo~ opene~ ~he ~ublio
No one apo~e in ~avoc.
No oas apo~e In oppoai~on.
The ~yo~ closed ~e public
~utee 6pivey, U~ban Plamuez, zepoz~ed ~ba~ ~7 ~eply ~o~me ~ad been
~led wi~ 1 ~e~u~ned ~a ~avo~ a~ 0 ze~uzn~ in op~og~ou.
was * ~eques=ed ~u~ =o PD-~I. In a pla~ ~e~lo~n~.
a~ ~e~lition8 ~equ~zed ~up~e~t to 1/2 ,o~ the steels. The
~8 approved ~n June. 1084 ~n o~de~ to ~nd~e the
~Xd be generated by ~8 ~evelo~n~. T~ pro~ 4eveXe~ea~
~e~n~ ~=e SCanted. ttalg lelt ~t ~uld v~olite t~e cost o~
~iM ~on. Ch, eeco~ ~o 6e~ ~be aM~a~ to ~D-SL.
~l~ Almond a~ ~yo~ P~o Tern Hopkins eae~, t~ '~ vo~es.
D. T~e Council ~eld a public heazt~ on ~e ~ou
C~CF o~ Denton cequeettn~ · a~nge ~u s~a~M fz~ Zhe
(2-F) e~ase~f~eatton to the ~l~i-~lu~ly (~-~) d~e~riot on a 7.2
ae~e tcact ~ocated in the John M~ovam Suzvey. ~8t~act
o~ Lill~an Mille~ Pazkway. Z~ t~ zegu~ ~a a~zove~,
pEo~ty UM be used [cz any puzpooe pezmitte~ ~m a ~lti-Fauily 1
zone by the City o~ ~nton zoning O~i~ace.
~e ~yo~ opened the public
~. ~aEd ~Netll spoke in flvo~ a~ zequee~ ~ ~ p~t~oa be
eM~ to ~-E ~nitea~ of ~-1.
6~ losing Co~tseion ~bl~o be&ci~ vas ~oc ~-~ a~ ~d been
denied. Mit it appzop~ate fo~ t~e City Council to o~nge
=equee~ without ~ne~it of ~evi~ bF ~ Vlauai~ a~ Zoning
Co~tamion.
~b~a Dcayovt~ch, City ~ttoEney, crated t~t i~e ~ul4
thorough ~eaea~ch of the legality o~ the
oEde~ EO~ the legal zeseazch to be couple~ ~s ~n ozdez.
~yoE SteViE~ ~ep~ied ~t a uo~ton ~o table ~u~d be
un,ess ~e public hea~ing v68 con~taue~.
O. The Council could ovez~ule t~ Vlaani~ ~ ~eainq
=eco~ation io~ dentat with 6 afft~uative VOtel.
Mo sue 8po~e in oppomit~on.
The ~yo~ closed the ~blic
95
City COUnCil Mtnutee
Meeting o~ June 4. 1085
Page Htue
ai~:~vo vo~e8 by t~ Council to overturn the denial of the
Counc~ ~mE C~ as~ ~he~, due ~o ~he p~obleu wi~
~t~t~on~m te a~ t~tm foe a ~egll optn~on.
chew ~%ou, ~um sec~ to deny tbs petition a~ geed tt ~& to
the Planning end Zoning Co~efiou as ~-R with the City o~ Denton
am the ~t~tone~ a~ waive the fees, %ot~on ca,=ted u~nkm~mty.
B. ~ CO~cil held a public hea~ing on ~he petition o~
160 aCEs8 4~ la~ ~ing ,a peet o~ t~ O. Wa~ke~ S~vey, ~bsttact
~330. a~ the M,E.P. & P,a.a. 6u~voy, AbstEect 950, a~ sktuated
no,th a~d south o~ PaiSe load between 1-352 a~ 5wtmbeE Road A-~O
· b~ ~o~ ope~d the ~ubt~ ~a~tng.
tepot~g t~t th~u pe~.Lt~on ~4 been ptecipttat~ by a t~ueat
a 41.~ ieee ~opoeed ~bile ~ peE& on PaiSe Road. T~ete ~d been
land ~me ~n this quadffa~C a~ mtagff ~d identified this area
being G4tU~at~ with this type o~ ~oui~ng. The ~nton hvelopment
Ouide poli~ ~ that M~u~aotuti~ housing Should be dispersed
~h~ou~ ~e City a~ speeiEtc coucon~a~io~J thould not exceed
200 utile within a 1/~,~lo distanoe. Mithtn tht8 pacCtoula~ 160
a~ong beth t~l no,th i~ South part o~ Pa~ge Road. ~tng the
d~scums~on p~le, tho COU~Ct~ ~d ~ndtceted [t you,d be ~og~cal to
begin t0 ~ou~ o~ t~ bov~aE~e8 of suep a~ea8 a8 tht8, ~t~euacly
~m tn~a~e., ~e the~4 ~e aot~ development ~entLa~ a~d
those ,t~ta~e 'v~ete t~ City could pettti~ ~tth l~iv~uale who
~ete ,z~t~ volua~ amne~tion. ,~pptox~tety Al.i acres
appEoxtMtely 130 aet~ was tnvolumt/Ey. Thece ~Ee 7 to 9
plies ~t ~e oo~t~ to the City o~ Denton 8e~ 8yttem a~
IS lo~e nov ~tch ~te not ~n men,on,nco with the City mobile ho~
pa~k iud travel teatime requirements. There va8 some adjoining
pcopecty to t~e ~at ~teh ~O u~eveloped. Sta~C Ce~ t~t the
poten~i&l v~m K~Ee ~OC ~heC~Od to expand ~n t~ ~utute; t~ece vas
time. ~edt~ ~othe service plan ~o~ a~ezed te~to~, mt the
egge~ date o~ ~e~tton, ~lice a~ ~tte protection ~uld be
p~ovte~. ~a~ie d~vt~ would be tnmtatled au need~ a~ varec
~o~ d~s~L~, tom,sial and t~u8~ial use ~u~d ~ pEo~ided at
C~M tahoe ~E~ eELs~l~ C~ty liaea on the e~ec~ve date
anne~tto~, The p~nc~ple ~8aue ~n th~8 animation ~m 't~t ~t vas
involuntary w~teb ~ant t~t ~te~ a~ eeoc me,vises ~u~d not be
~eeting of June 4, 1985
Page Ten
extended at the expense of tho City of Denton. Typically this was
o~ new development that would impact exieting ceei~ee cc
aEeae ~ich ~e ~eeently annexed theo~h the Capital ~lp~ove~nt8
secvtee to these ~zeag. Solid wile eezvioe ~ld be pcovtded
w~thin 1 ~n2h et the e~eetive anne~tton date a~
~tntenance o~ etceete ae well as ~tue ~imteuaaee ~uld begin on
the e~ecttve date o~ annexation. H~o~tzuetiea a~ zeauztac~ng
~atsod was what could be ~ouo as ~ae aa any ez~oting une o~ p~ope~t~
With the City cE Denton ~oning ~e~latto~. N~ly an~
via typically zoned as ag~ioul~ucal until i~tvidual
inaction ~as penn,tied; only ex~ue~ont o~ t~t u~ ~uld
Planning and Zoning Co~ls~on and Council a~z'oval
a~e~t~on. The Council could con~inue t~e anne~t~on
by an a~i~t~ve motion and vote~ h~ve~, ta~tug no
action by the Council ~uld allow ~he p~ocele to oont~nue.
second public hea~ng on thai a~e~t~on Would be ~td on June
petition until li~l action va8 taken. ,
CoQ~eil ~mbec ~Adans asked if ~ta~ had ceoeived ~toat~on~ ~o~
the Eeeidont8 that they did not vte~ to be
· ll~son eespo~ed that 12 Early Eorug ~d been utled v~th 1
~etuened ~u opposition a~ 0 in tavoz.
MEn. H. V. Voc~U8 epoXe in oppoi~tion a~ stated t~t 8he would
Ii~e to ~nov ii the cozne~ o~ Paige Road a~ I-3SB ~uld bo
~etiden~tal.
Ellieon cea~onded t~t thece wee ~ plans ~o~ ~hie ~z~a. The
V~o~aad mobile ho~ pack vie aVpzoxi~tel~ 750 ~t 'G~th o~
o~ ~ig~ay 310 east 4~ west o~ ~ockhlll Bold
T~ ~yo~ opened t~ publ~ heac~g.
~vtd Bllieon, 5enioz vlannec, spoke in farce a~ ~l~ted out vhece
~Etley Field Road wag on the oveE~ad pEo)ee~ ~p a8 a point
abutted the pcopoged stcip, but van not i~luded. 'Thece vas no
~t~Cely o~ed pcope~cy tn the paceel. Atl ~a~ t~ this pcopoeed
anue~tion va8 o~ed by the City of ~llas.
involved in this annexation. It ~l th~ght t~t o~41~nee 84-25
t~e City ~uld be ex~e~tnq the 5~ f~t 8~c~p ~c~ a beginn~ng
97
City COunoil #Xnutea
Page ~leve~
on this a~u~ation. The field notes oould not bs verified at this
meeting &nd &eked ME. Lynch ~o ~on~a~ ~v~d ~8on
M~. Rey ~ gpo%e KU o~oJ~on t~a~ng ~a~ a port,on o~ ~he land
Counc~t ~z ~p~n8 asked ~ ~ch o~ Kc. Lyno~'s p~opecty
included ~n ~hig pazcel.
M~. By,ch ~eapo~d app~ox~u~ely 40 to 50 ac~ee.
that t~ose ~peak~ng tn .~AVOE o~ the pe~t~on were to ~zo~ec~ the
fu~u~e.~eK eouEce. He. did noK unde~ata~ ~he pro~ection of the
~utu~e WateE aouzee aa ~u~zen~ly ove~ 1.000 ec~ea were alzeady
owned, l~ the City was going ove~ the land. what pzotect~on wa8
th~e to K~ wa~eE ~ur~. Mot~tag could be done on ~he zive~ now.
No building eOul~ ~a~e pLeee no~ aa it wag all ~lood land and c~op
~yo~ 8~ a~d ~. ~ct~o to ~a~ca~m ~com asking questions and
ough~ ,o ,v. ,,. ,,g~, to k,ov why Denton vs. p,o~eed,ng wi~h
paztteuta~ a~a~ion a~ ~hat eEplaaat[on ~d no~ been g~ven. The
only ~i~ ho ~d ~aEd ~8 the p~otect~on of fu~uEe wa~e~ source.
altead~ ~d t~c e~ no one could touch it. Dallas ~d o~ed the
pzopeE~y toe years a~ ,~ one could even ~aWe water ouC of the
z~vez...~ did no~ ~a~n~ w~t ~aa betnq p~otec~e~ and felt this
vas a guile to~ me.thing else. Mi. ~zttno ~hen 8~a~ed C~ he did
not ~eim he was going to get an anser to h~8 question. He then
pteeente~ ~ta~ua ~o~ ~uettl ~obett J. Decoy which tend:
N~e a~e o~ t~e o~lmiom that thete ia lac& ~ authority to
p~oJmct, autho~iticion ts nec b~oad enough to include this
~e ot developamat."
had epoXen ~e day be~o~a ~tth ~e Co~ps o~ Engineers and
this ae~a~ had ~een ~ha~ed. ~ ~d also
~aeM a~ ~d besn aa~zed that no~hin~ had changed ~ith the
the City pcoteet~g. ~ ~ook opposition to the City caking a etcip
a~ea. ~e~e ~1~ ~evez ~ a~y ~ate~ o~ ee~e~ service. Just a~ ~z.
811i~o~ ~d 8~ated, ~u~u~e developers ~ould have to b~tng these
8e~viee8. No Qms vas going to extend the wa~e=
o~e~g ~uld be u~er a ~axable City annexation.
o~ezs ~e oppos~ Co ~. ~. ~ino asked ~oz ~hose pe[eonn
vas betug pE~2~ a~ th~ time ~ot no paeticula[ ~eaeon. He Celt
98
City Council
·aqo Twelve
not the end of the plan ~o£ the City ~o~ annezatien b~t £athe£ this
was the bsgtnning. The plan was also to go up amd aunex up to the
T£intty RiVe£ not Just the £ive~ but the p£opecty on both
He also understood that the annexation ~ould go to the dl~ o[
P~oPe~M would t~e~ be eu~ou~ing by the City a~xa~ten. The next
logical a~ep ~hen woul~ be tha~ eveeything that w*~ w~thtn this a=ea
~uld become City. He unde=atood ~ the City ~ul~ a~mez la~ nea=
hig~aMe to 9=o~ect the develogme~ o8 buildings, but ~he~e ~uld
no~ ~ any developuen~ o~ building tn thee a~ea a8 i~ was all ~lood
land. He did not see the ~eaeon ~ the n~leei~y '~o~ pu~ting
u~ee a tax burden as ~h~a came up.
~uld be additional annexa~ion. H~VeE, ~ uight be 10
~otected by couing up ~lood la~d, a gtvec ~ie~ ~u' could not get
to o~ build on. Thee ~a8 uupceee~en~ed tn ~bt~ asea. All othec
~ingez annexations had been on hig~ay8 to pzotect the developing.
Theze' ~ae ~evelopaent ta~tnq place t~ t~le a~ea. ~b~ ei~y
ca~e ~izectl~ to the othez etde o~ ~he ~tve~ on a ~ttge~
on ~ 428.
~r. Bazte~ I:eland ,po~e ~n opposition elating t~t ~ ~8 o~aed
~uld be tol~ ~a~ they could do. ~tg s~Etp audition wag fez
~t epeatEte purpose and d~d not p~otec~ ~he va~ ~DplY or me~ve
nay purpose. H~. Izela~ ~urthez ota~ed ~hat ~ ~' a ~eeident
absentee land
The ~yo~ closed ~he public heating.
Dav~ Rll~son, 8enioz Plannez, ~epoe~ed ~t one o~ ~he put,oeec
extraterritorial Jucisdiction o~ ~uton a~ altbo~th tke~e v48 ~t a
~ve ezt~ate~fitorial Ju~isdi~tion agreeMnt ltuee;,~th all o~ the
ct~ee. The~e vas also a liut~ goals ~eeiden~lai '~iv~s~on
tho .~evi~ process vhich yam to be loeat~ bet~en Ice,hill Road
Council ~ec G~ephen~ asked ii I~a~[ ~uld ch~ ou~ the
~yo~ S~eva~t ae~ed 8~a~ to chee~ on ac. Lynch'e q~a~ton ~oga~tng
~ht8 aune~Cton a~ ~he 1984 annexation ~ie~d no~e,.
a~dttio~al ~u~uze annexations ~m ~he aEea cE the City's 8vt~Ee
~ uotion, Hopkinf second to oont~e ~be amnesties p~oee~tngs.
99
Meeting o4 June 4,
RllieOG ceptted tlXat Z~ Zacget~ C~ action da~e yea Augue~ ~3.
aunexaZioa ~utd ~ako pl~e on July 2,
Council ~ee Almond meted le ~he ~m[o~tion on the ~teld notes
would ~ a~tlable a~ the ~uae la public heating.
Rtlteou ~es~ad~ yes.
audience z~t a Bo~toa ~ ~uZtuue simply uean~ ~he p~ooegt vas
s~tll tn eglo~l I~VOE. it did not mean Any type el decision vas
~de. , ~ ~ietd ne~es ~e ~ola~ ~o be e~ecked before any action
~as taken,
6, The Co.ell coaotdered a~pcoval of pcelt~na~y plat
~eue~al da~te~n~ pram el ~ell Highlands ~dtttom.
Denise lptve~. U~bau Plaane~. ~epozted that t~e t~act el ~.5 ac~es
~as a~xed a~ aeut~g a~ovod ea~tte~ in ~he age.a, Zonin~
tppzovod ~ lot d~ple~ a~ general zetatl land use. The
~velo~a~ Revi~ C~t~ a~ Planning a~ Zonin~ Conission had
oomgtde~e~ ~he plat a~ geneEal tevelopuent plan a~ ~d ~eoo~ended
genecal ~lo~n~, ~laa. ~ton emerged u~ntaoualy.
7.
A, The ~une~t congtdezed adoption oC au o~di~ace
aoceptiag contortive bids a~ p~ovidtng toc ~he armed o~ con~aeta
tot the pure.se el ~e~tale. equip~nt, supplies o~ services;
The goll~i~ ocdt~oe ~e ~ze~ted:
~. 85-107
~ ~IN~E ~P~I~ C~gTITI~ BIDS ~ A~DING A
~ F~ ~ P~C~ OF ~RI~6, RQUIP~,
~~ ~ ~IDI~ FOR ~ BF~ECTI~ ~TE.
Chew Reties, Aliozd seco~ to adopt ~e oEdi~nce. On Eoll call
Rid41iS~gg~ "aye, ~ C~ Uaye, · an~ ~yoz 8~evazt ~aye. ~
ca t t ted ,~L~ul ly.
B. ~ Counetl considered adoption oi an ordinance
ptovtdt~ let tbs expea4Ltute o~ iunds lot eaet~ency DureSses
~e~ial8, ~ut~nt, Su~l~es ot service8 tn accordance with
o~ co~Ztzt~ bide: and pEovtdiug ~ot an e~tecttve date.
The foll~ ogdinanee ~8 pceeanted:
NO. 85-t08
~ZC~ IN ~CI NI~ T~ Pl~Zil~2 OF STA~
~ ~TI~ ~CH ,P~S~ F~ RR~IR~ OF
vote, ~a~8 "aye," Hopkins "aye," 6teDhens "aye." Al~otd "aye,"
Rtddloa~egeE 'eye,' Ch~ "aye," a~d ~yo~ 5~eVazt "aye." MQtton
caz~ied
100
City Council M~nute8
Meeting o[ June 4. 1985
Page ~ou£teem
C. The Council cnmeideced adoption nC an~ o£dirmnce and
eezvice plan annexing a ~zac~ nE lan~ oonele~tag o~
een~ecline o~ U. 5. Highway 377 and sOu~ of Bzu,~ Ccee~ ~oad.
~vtd Ellison. ~enioz Planne=. =e9eeted the=e ~e'~ a~
on ~hil ~tem.
T~e go~lov~ng ocdt~nce vas pcesented:
T~ OR P~CEL OF ~ ~IET~ OF ~P~X~LY 136.58
ACHES OF ~ LYI~ ~ ~l~ 8I~D ~N ~ ~
~ DBC~IN~ ~ EF~E~[~ ~TE.
~ld~eapecge~ .aye," C~w .aye,,, a~ ~yoc Stewact uaye."
~cct~ unanimously.
D. The Council consideced a~opt~on nC an ocd~nce
8ecvice plan annexing a tcac~ nC ta~ ooneleting o~ appco~ely
65.12 accee begtnni~ 350 Eeet 8ouCh o~ a~ ~teular to the
centeel~ne o~ U. 5. Highway 380 East a~ Geealtng Bead. X-13
The 8ollovtng o~di~nce vas pzeaented:
T~T OR P~CBL OF L~ ~EZSTI~ OF ~FI~LY 93.67
ACHES OF ~ LYI~ ~ ~I~ 81~ IN ~. ~ OF
DE~, STATE OF ~6 ~ BEING P~T ~ ~ M. FORHBET
S~Y, ~8~ NO. 417, ~ ~, ~
T~ 8~ AS A~RZCUL~ "A" DI~I~ PROPER~:
call vote, ~a~ "aye," Hop~tn~ "aye," 5t~e~l eaye." A~otd
"aye," atdd~eepecget "aye." C~ev "aye," and ~yoC 8t~tt "aye,
~tton eactted unantuouely.
E. T~ Council constde~ ~optton o~ ~ etdi~mce
service plan annexing a ~cact og la~ eonliettag o~
42.35 acce8 Situated ~n the S'. ~izat Gutvey, ~t~aet 514,
~tnning apptoxtutely SOO ee~ netth o: amd ~e~tculat to the
centetltne o: U. 8. ~ig~vay 3~0 a~ ~st o: ~Seh Bza~h ~ad.
~ ORD~N~ ~XI~ A ~CT OF ~ ~I~O6
O~, STATE OF ~S ~ M(~ PMT ~ ~ S. ~ZZ~
SURLY, ABST~CT NO. S14, ~ ~,' ~I
~ 8~ AS AGR~L~L "A" DIS~Z~ ~R~R~TY ~
DBCL~I~ ~ RFFRCTI~ DA~.
101
City Council M~.nutee
Meeting o~ June 4. lg8~
chew notion, s~ephene meoond to a~op~ ~e o~d~nce. On ~oll call
vo~e. M~I~ "aye." Hopk~8 "Aye." 8~ep~ems "aye." A~o~d "aye."
Ri~l~g~g "aye." Chow "Aye," a~ ~yoz 6tewlz~ "mye."
F. The Couaoil come,dazed adoption o~ an ozd~nance and
aezv[ce pla~ anmex~nq a ~zact o~ land cone~etin~ o~
60.2a asses situated ~n ~e ~. ~atke~ 6uzve~, ~batzact ~0, amd
be~[nm~ ad~aeea~ an~ eaa~ o~ ~aeda Road.
T~e Eo~lo~t~ ozd~mance ~aa pzeeented:
~ O~N~ ~XX~ A T~CT OF ~ ~G~U8
~ ~ ~ C~ OF DE~, TE~5: BE~N~ AE~ ~T LOT,
~8 ~ ~ ~Y~ ~ BEXN~ SI~D IN T~ CO~Y OF
C~SXFYING ~ ~ A9 ~RI~L~L "A" DZSTRX~ PROPERS;
~ DBC~X~ ~ ~F~TI~ DAT~.
Hopk~ ~otion. Ch~ eeeend to adopt the o~d~nce. On ~oll call
vote. ~Ma~e ,aMe,' Ho~ne "aye," Stephens 'aye," ~lfo~d "aye,'
Rtddle~zgez says, ~ Ch~ "aye. ~ and ~yo~ 5tenant "aye." Motion
ca~ed
G. The Council come,de,ed adoption o~ an o~d~nce
se~ttng a da~e. t~ue a~ place ~o~ publtc hea~tnge concerning
petition o~ Bzuee R, Wel~ ~o~ voluntary annexation cE app~ox~el~
2B8.66~ ae~ea beLng p~t o~ ~he S. ~e~t Survey, Abat~ac~ No. 843,
a~ ~e A. H~tlec Su~. ~bmt~act 8e?. a~ begtnnin~ vee~ o~
UndezwOod ~oad, eaa~ o~ C. Melee Road, aouth o~ Jim ~hziutal Road,
and uoEth o~ TO~ Cola Road. A-21
David SII~sou. ~o~ Planne~, ~epo~ted t~t 8ta~ wee ~eco~end[n~
t~at ~M CAE~ public ~ea~tnO be ~eld on ~u~ 19 and the ascend
public ~aEi~ ~n July 2.
T~e ~oLlov~ng oz~l~nce ~g p~egented:
NO. 85-~13
~ O~XM~ S~I~ A DATE, TI~ ~ PLACE FOR
~6 ~ ~ P~POS~D ~TION O~ C~RTAIN PROPERTY
~S~IB~ ~l~ BY T~ CITY OF D~, ~6,
6U~ ~LXC
~c~a~ ~ton, 6tephens s~ond to adopt the c~dt~noe. On ~o~
call vo~e, ~aul "aye," Hopkins "aye, u Stephens "aye," Al~otd
"aye,u Rtddtelpetget "aye," Chew "aye." and ~yot Stewart "aye."
Motion cattt~ u~niuouely.
H. The C~u~cil e~meideted ado~ton o~ an ordinance
apptov~ a eomttaet ~i~h the Texaa Depart=ant ~[ Co,unity
tation Ptogtau.
Je~ ~ye~, Di~ecto~ o~ ~l~nnimg and Co~unl~y ~velop~nt, ~epo~ted
~hat tht8 cou~zac~ ~uld ~llov the City to receive $105,000 to be
used ~og ge~btlt~ation ~o ~ental pzope~ty. The~e ~ould be no cost
adain~stez t~
102
City Council Minutes
]Mett. ng o~ June &. 1985
Page sixteen
NO.
RE~Z~ F~ZN~ FOR ~ ~INIGT~ ~ ~
Stephens ~o~ton, Hopkins lloo~ to a~ogt ~be o~dt~l. On
"aye," RiddlelpeEgez "aye," Chew "aye." and ~yoE S~aE~ ~aye."
Motion ca,tied u~ntloully.
I. The Council coastde=ed adoption ol an
app=ovtng an ag=ee~ent between the City ol ~n~on a~ ~n~on County
Elic~eic Cooperative. Inc. to~ ~he 9u~e~ie o~ elee~eieal equip~n~
Rob Nelson, Dtcecto~ o~ Utilities, ~epo~Ced t~t this vas an
Old No,th Road i=o~ Kings Row ~o Untve=sl~y D=ive. The=e
~O~ devetopuent vas going .~o be tooat~ tn ~htg aEea south o~ the
ozp~t=tous coc the co-op =o sell c~l lt~e ~Q C~e Ct=y ~ ~o uove
a~ zelocate taco othez eaeeuents. A prise Of llS,%~ hid been
negotiated v~ic~ ~ep~esen~ed ~he ~eptic~nt cost ol ~
The following o~dt~nce vas pzegented:
~. 85-1'15
~ ORDIN~ ~PROVI~ ~ ~RRM~ B~ ~ CITY
DE~M ~ D~N ~Y E~R¢~ZC ~Ti~, I~, FOR
P~C~SE OF EL~IC~ ~UI~ ~ F~ZLI~IEG,
PR~IDI~ FOR ~ EFFE~I~ ~.
liadlelge~ge~ "aye." Chew "aye." a~ ~yo[ 8C~ "aye." Mo~ton
J. T~e COGGC~ constdeEed ido~o~ o~ i~
agp~oving an ag~ee~nt bet~en ~he City o~ ~Con a~ t~e No~h
M~tng 9~og~al Coc the North Tex~ Region.
83,939 with the Cunds coning ~t~ the old ~D BQaEd aooouu~.
~t ~oltowing otdt~nce w&l ptiaen~:
~. 85-t16
~ ORglN~R ~PROV~ ~ ~~ B~ ~ CI~ OF
I~L~ING A ~~Z~ ~I~ ~ FOR
NORTH ~8 IRGI~, ~ PROVIDI~ F~-~ ~F~I~
Rtddlespe~ge~ uo~tou. Chew second ~o adop~ the oEdt~noe.
BeC~y ~Kean. ~sa~s~an~ City ~get, reputed a~ozLu~ly 816,OOO.
O~ ~oll oall vo~e, M~/i8 "lFa,N Hop~tna "aye," StepAens 'aye."
Al~otd "aye," Ri~dleGgi~ge~ "aye," Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yot
"aye." Motion cad,ted uuantBously.
103
city CQ~C~l Mlnutee
Nesting ct June 4. 1985
Page Seventeen
[. The Council considered adoption cC an ocdinance
p~ovidia~ tot the cloatGg and vacating ct that po£tion o~ San
a~ veea~ot a ~ cc P~ney C~ee~ Boulevard aa degc~ibed
~e~oin and pro~td~ng to= the tese~vat~on.oC ealeient,.
Council bu~t S~ep~nl leCt the ~e~tng.
~hich ~ a~c~d ~o ~ a~euent to a pla~ed developnent ~tch
San Gabriel D~ive to p~eve~t the accel~ betvein the cu~entl~
ex~eting pop,ion cC To~kip ~I a~ ~he poct~on to be developed as a
~etult o~ the aMudt~ tO the PD. The adoption o[ the o~d~nance
~euoved fo~ dove~op~n~ to
Tbs Eotl~ ocdiuance ~8 p~esented:
~ ~I~ ~ ~ CITY OF ~N,
C~I~ ~ V~T.~ OF A PO~TI~ OF PI~Y
.~ D~I~D ~IN~ PROVIDI~ F~ ~ RR~RRVAT~ OF
~; ~ ~IDI~ FOR ~ BFFECT~ ~.
Hopkins ~ion, Chew toco~ to adop~ the o~di~nce. On
vo~e, ~ ~aye,~ ~)kt~f Says,~ &l~ord "aye," ~tdd~esperqe~
~aye,' C~V '~e," a~ ~yo~ 9revest 'a~e." ~cto~
unanimously.
Counci~ ~B~t Gtephene Joime~ t~e meeting.
Council ~u~t Al~otd stated that i~ might be
t~ne v~th ~b~io head,ag i~[~y having been he~d.
8.
A. ~ha council eontideted apptova~ o~ a ~so~ution
authot~1ed &~ requite4 by the Housing and Co~un~ty ~velop~nt ~c~
~u~e. ~$& ~ au t~C/nt yea~ in tha~ it would complete the
tico~iCto~ ~icb ~ ~ looked at ~ot ~y y~8. Tho CDBG
Co~t~ee ~d ~ ua~y ~tue8 to deliberate &nd had special
available, t~ teoo~euda~ion to the Council
1.. SI05,000 ~o~ eoa~nuation o~ the houtin~
~BtC~a~ ~o ~ ~o conC~nue ~o tails the Covet o~
houeinq lot lo~ ~o ~de~ate income people tn the azea
2. ~,28z ~ot atebtCeotual design and engtneeztng col~ Cot
the construction tot 4 recreational Eactlt~y to be located
in Iouthealt ~nton: it Vas ~uzthe~ stipulated that the
104
City Council
Meeting et June 4. 1985
area se need an~ where %he uoe~ peo~le ~e voto~ ~e
open,on t~a~ ~hece vas a need.
3, lTS,OOO eec ~Ue acqutt~tton sC la~ foe
centex bu~ would g~ve i 8igu~ to ~he ne~gh~zhoo~
~he oen~ez ~ul~ be butl~
4. 830.000 ~oz deuoll~on a~ ~o~ oleaziu~e
5. B65.600 ~oz paving and
e. 840.000 ~oz Eenova~ou o~ ~e P~oeniz
The ze~indez of the ~und8 would be used ~oz a~m~nist~a~lou o~ cbs
pco~ects. The ~B~ Co~t~cee ~d ~z~ed ~d and the neighborhood
~ad been very uuc~ ~nvolved. I~ would be ~Eo
~lo~i~ize requests ~n t~e fUCUEe, as ~he neig~e~oed
ooneide~ably. The Coni~ee was t~yiug ~o eeo ~t t~
wee 8~nded be~oco n~ ones ~ce
Council Meube~ Riddleepecgez e~ate~ ~hie t~em ~tn~ out ~he lazes
debt the Council ~d to the vati~u boa~de a~ c~ieelonu ~o
~yoz Pge Tom Hopkins ,ta~ed ~ ~e appcecta~ed the iudepth i~udy
~eh C~e ~ Comities had done.
The ~ollo~in~ zeeolution was pzeeented:
~ NI~ ~P~P~IATE CErTiFICATIOn. A8 ~RIZ~ ~ R~I~D BY
~ ~ ~ ~~ DE~~ A~ OF 1974. ~ ~D.
~RRAB, the City og ~nton, Texas, ~e · ,~tal concern
~oE peEtong sE low and modeza~e iaco~; a~
~REA~. t~e Cl~y oE ~ou, Texas. al au e~2~cl~n~ City,
~e p~epa~, through a citizen 9a~Ztet~&Ciom p~s, a 9~og~au
of 0677,918; a~
~B~AS, the public h~Eimg vi~l have Men he~d
aeooEdanoe vfth ~he %aw; a~
~REA6, the Act ~equice~ an application a~ appcop~ia~o
105
City ~ounotl Minutes
MeetiGg o~ June ~,
ent~t~n~ ~u~m ~et ~he ~us~n~ a~d Country Deva~opuen~ Act of
· ~is t~is Reao~ution i~l take ~fe~t ~ediate~y f~om and
T~t the City ~czeta~y
PASSED ~ ~P~ this the 4th day of June, ~98S,
KI~B.D O. STRMART. MAYOR
C~TYOF I~,NTON, ~Bi~8
CHAR~FTR A~EM, CITY $~CRIRTARY
CiTY ~ ~, ~
D~R~ MI ~Y~I~, CITY A~R~Y
Chew ~tton, ~a~ oeco~ ~t the resolution be
Council ~ Chew th~ 8~ t~ theze wan also I100,000 ~o~
tup=ov~ut to F~o~ ~o~e Pa~K a~ asked those tn the audience who
yore ~ at--dance foz this ~om to stand.
Council bB~ 6tep~eaa at~e~ e~AC~ to keep an eye ou~ ~o~
Which, ~uld ~ available ones the land ~e acquired ~or the
~ee~ea~to~ ~aoilt~y.
~ye~ ~s~ ~t .taf~ ~uld look ~o~ ~ede~il a~d l~A~4
M~. ~o~ TElvelle, ~ og the Pa~ks a~ aeeEeation Boa~d,
have to ~ Mdc tn the Pa~k8 F~YG Yea~ ~8tec Plan. Anothe~ issue
vas ~ tbtt eeu~ez v~ coup~eted, vouXd the City he~ ~o
t~u~laz ~aetlt~teg tn o~z ae~t o~ to~. ~heze ~uld be
needs ~O~ ~11 Eeatoa~ieu couleE. ~Ue PeEks amd aeczeat~on Soa~d
would tike to Beet with t~ city council sometime in the ~xt 2
vel~8 to dieeuss potential p~obl~ a~eae.
Council ~u~z C~ as~ i~ ~. ~avelle did not think 10 yeses was
euou~ t~ue. 6out~aet ~u~on ~d been pzoutsed that ones ~he ~uey
wag available, ~hta type o~ ~acllt~y Would be coaitEucted. He could
taken.
106
city council M~nutee
Meeting o~ June 4, 1985
Page Twenty
Council Membe= McAdams stated that she would like ~0 ad~£ess one
point. The Council was not suggesting that they dis&greed with the
school eyatsu. There via at ohs tiu~ a school in this area;
~bat 8~hoo~ wa8 closed. The~e was no~ going ~o ~ ~heE ichool
cE the school Wou~d neve~ be ~n ~his a~ea.
~get ~he co~uai~y comtes idea.
On ~oll call vote, ~au8 ,,aye,,, Hop~in8 'aye,a S~ephens "aye,"
AI~oEd "aye," R~ddleipe=ge= "aye." C~ev name," and
n. vhe counci~ considezed app~ova~ o~ a
autho~tZing a teupo~a~y concrete ~Oh p~ on x~ ac~e
located on the nozth side o~ ~st ~K~n~ 9t~oe~ (FM 426)
app~oxt~ely 3,000 Eeet sift cE ~yhill Road.
~nige 5p~vey. U~ban Planne~. ~epoeted t~t Hol~gan ~velop~nt
Co~pe~atton had ~equeu~ed a permit ~o~ a temerity concrete bi,eh
plant on this 104 acta tract on the nQtth I~de o~ Bast MOKLnney. A
~uld be used ~o= the pu=pose of utEruS 'a~ pou=tng c~c=ete needed
fez ~he g~eeta and the pads ~oz the ~btle ho~a. T~e plant would
opez~te ~o= · 6 ~nth pc=ica on~y.
The ~otlowtn~ =esolution wit p=eeen~ed:
RE SO2UT I ON
BE IT ~SOL~D BY T~ CO~C~ OF ~ CITY ~ D~.
That pursuant to Article 7K o~ Appe~iz B (the Zoning
O=d~nce) cE the Code o~ O=di~ncet o~ the City o~ ~uton. Te~s.
~l~gan Develop~nt Coupam~ ia he$ebF authozl~ ~o operate a
temporary concrete hatching p~ant ~o~ a period not to e~eed 8~x (6)
· ~nt~ on the ~ollow~ng desc=ibod property:
Being 104.284 ac~e8 o~ la~ located ~n the ~e~eau Fo~re~t survey,
Abstract No. 417, ~n~on County. Texas a~ being t~
ta~ ~nvoyed ~o HonEy 8. Millez. CO., Trustee, W t~.de~
In VQlUUe ~Sg, Pa~e 291 o~ the ~ed Records e~ ~ton C~uaty,
Te~s, Sa~d Henry S. Mtlle~, Co., T~uetee Te~t ~tag also
Lot 3, Block C o~ the subdtvtsi~n o~ ~geau Yoerel~ Survey,
~8~act No. 417, ~nton County, Tam, as 8h~ ~ ~he up o~ plat
o~ sat~ subdivision ~n said survey o~ ~eeoEd in VOluu~ 50, Page 236
o~ the Deed ~eco~de o~ ~nton County, ~e8. Raid X~.284
be~ ~o pa~t~cu~a~ly ~eeo~tbed by mtet and bou~o as
~X~X~ at a 1/2 inch ~on ~od by a ~ence CO,Mr ~oet iu the
noetheaet e~ght-o~-way line o~ Fa~B to ~et ~oad ~. ¢Z6 and being
the ~uthuflt cocno~ o~ setd tot 3, Dloe~ ~ o~ enid
~ no,th 00e~TfS2'' sift 2801.91' ~ee~ atoms tho ~8t bou~aEy
line o~ 8aid LC~ 3, being eats bou~azy line o~ Lo~ 2 cE said
su~iv~lton to a 2 inch steel ~ence poet in t~ ~out~ Eil~t-o~-way
107
Meeting oE June 4, 1955
Page T~enty-One
THENCE south 8804g'29" east 1445.37 ~set along the south
£tght-o£-vey line cC e&td Kills Road to a 1/2 inch l£on £od at the
no~themet cosner cE said Lot 3, being the northwest corner o! Lot 4
ol said subdivision;
THENCE south 01°OB'0&'' west 2216.34 test along the east boundary
line o'E said Lot 3 to a 1/2 inch iron rod at the northeast co~ner
a I~ ~oot access
THENC~ north 89'12'23" ~et 15.O~ ~eet to a 1/2 [ach ~on ~od a~ the
no~th~et co~ne~ o~ sa~d 15 ~oot access
T~NCZ so,th 00'5~'1~~ ~mt ~3~5.47 [eet along the ~emt bou~aty
uott~mt t~ght-oS-~ay lt~e of aEotematd Farm to ~t~et ~oad No. 426:
Road No. ~26 as fo~o~:
beginning cE a curve to the
2. not&h~etetl~ ~4.13 ~eet along said cutve to ~he ~eet having a
radius of 307e.e6 Eec&, · ce~tcal angle o~ 07'I~'08" and a chord
beating no,th SeeSg'~S~ ~et ~85.8e ~eet to a 1/2 ~nch tton tod
at the e~ og said cueve;
3. ~otth S2e3S'OO~ ~m8t 992.S0 Eeet to a place
co~taimt~ tOA.~8 aotea o~ land.
~t this Rmmolutton s~ll become eg~eottve ~ediately
upon tag passage and approval.,
P~6~D ~ ~P~D thim t~e 4t~ dam o~ June, 1985.
R[CHAHD O. BTENART, MAYOR
C~TY OF DENTON, T~XAS
ATTraCT:
CHA~'t~ ALLI~N, CITY 5ECmITAHY
C~TY O~ D~IT~I, ~5
APPR~D AS ~ L~ ~:
DEB~ ~I ~Y~ZTCH, CI~ A~R~Y
CI~ ~ ~, TE~S
Counott ~e~ ~au Joined the meeting.
~yo~ Pco Tmm Hopkins ~tate~ t~t th~ temporary batch plant
situation ~uld ~elp to mave t~e City'a streets am the ttuc&e would
not be ueea ~o ~u~ e~etete into t~e develop~nt.
Al[o=d uiye," ~tddles~=Oe= "aye," Chew "aye," and ~yo= B~ewa=t
council Membe~ ~aH le~ the meeting.
cati~ying a deed with M~. ~thony Soaltse.
108
City Council #&mutes
Meeting o~ June 4, 1985
Page T~enty-~
Council aembe£ ~cAdems Joined the meeting.
Dob£a D~ayovitch, City Attorney. £e~O~ed that
authorize the City ~nage~ to execute a deed co~tec~S a ~ed ~tch
~d conveyed property ~o the City o~ Don~on, The deed ~tch was
~eee~ved in 1978 conveyed ~08 ac~ea: h~ver, ~be City ~d only
pu~ohamed 68 ac~es. The8 ~uld a~ ~e de~ teco~de ~o be clean~
out a~ Eot a o~nge o~ title to ta~e plies.
RESOLUTXO~
~R~S, the City o~ Denton pu~c~god oettai~ ~eal p~o~tty
Eot &tm man, racy eeve~ ~act~ty on July 7, 19~. ftou ~thony
~R~S, the Oeed ~eceived ~rou NE. 8oal~te dated July 7,
lgTI, and teco~ded tn resume 899. Page 786. ~ed aecoede ct ~uton
County, Texas, contained an erroneous p~operty demetipt~on,
conveying 108.o5 actee cE land ~me~ead cE 68.0 notes et ~atended by
~th patties to the ttangact~on; and
~REAS, ~. Scabies cauted t~e ~ed to be tattled tn
Volu~ 1169, Page 687, ~ed Roco~g, ~tom Cou~tF.
1982, to correct the lega~ deeo~tp&tom to m~o~ a e~veya~e o~ 68.0
~READ. ~t. Sca~ime. thtoug~ Pla~o T~tle Colpany,
tequemted that the City con[itu and ~att~y the
~R~5, the City paid ~o~ a~ continues to ~euDy only the
S8.0 acted described in ~he ~ed as Ee~led; ~,
RE IT RESOLED BY ~ CO~CIL OF T~ CITY OF D~,
The City ~nage~ im hereby authorized to execute the
attae~d ~ati~ication on be~S~ o~ the City
~he ~ed ~tou Anthony 5ca~iee a8 ~efiled in Volu~ ~169, Page 687,
~ed Records o~ Denton County,
9~CTION
O~ C~tm Relolut~on, w~th the executed o~ig~l
attached, to P~ano Title Company tot tecotd~ng
Th~ Resolution ~hall be e~ect~ve
passage and approval.
PAGSED ~D ~PR~D th~g the 4th day o~ June, 198%.
RICHARD O. ST~T. ~YOR
CITY OF DF~TI~, T~A8
&TT~6T:
CHArlOTTE ALLEN, CITY tl~..CHETAHY
CIT~ OF DENT~, TEXAS
APPHOV~D AS TO LEGAL FO~J(:
D~BRA A~AJ(! DRAYOVITCH, C~TY A~ID~Y
CITY OF DENTON. T~XAS
BY:
109
Ct~y ceuncil Minutes
Page ~veu~y-Yh~ee
Hopkins motion, C~ second c~c the ~eso~u~ton ~ appEoved. On
"eye. "~ I~ddlel~Egl~ "i~," ~ ,aye," and ~yoE G~lva~ "aye."
~. ~e ~a ~ o~g~ctal action on Rxecut~ve session irene o~
legal ~t~e~l, EOa~ lite&e, personnel and homed a~po~nt~eut~.
1.' ~yo~ PEO ~l ~1 asked tha~ t~a~r pcov~de a ~epo~t on
~ett~ in adva~e on ~he public heating on ~une 18.
~tteti, teal estate. ~eteonnel and boa~d
T~e Cou~il ~heu oonveu~ tn~o ~he open cession vith ~he ~olloving
· he foXt~i~ ozdi~nee ~8 presented:
~ O~ ~IZI~ T~ CITY ~R ~ E~C~E A
~I~ ~ F~ ~REFOREI ~ PR~IDIN~ FOR
~TI~ ~.
Nc~a~ ~tou, atddtes~ge~ seco~ ~o adopt the o~dt~nee. On
~oll ~ai1 ~e, ~ maye," ~pktU8 "aye," Gtephe~e "aye,"
"aye, ~ Rt4dleg~qe~ ~a~,' Ch~ .aye,.' and ~yo~ Gt~azt "~y."
Motion ca~Et~ 6 to 1 wt~ ~yoz Steviz~ casting ~he "~" vo~e.
Mith ~ ~u~z ~te~ o~ ~itneeo, the ~eeting Wa8 adJouzned.
~233g
110
City Council Minutes June [8, 1585
The Council convened into the vo£k session at S:30 p.~. in the Civil
Detense Room,
PHB~T: Nayo£ P£o Tam, HopkinS= Council Neabe£a &tSo£d, Che~,
McAdams, Riddlespe£ge£ an~ 5tephe~
~: ~yot 6~evatt was strewing a Un~tod 8raZe8 Com~ecenee
o~ ~yo~e ueetin~
The Council held a d~scutelon o~ pzelimi~Ey plat o~ the
· . F. ~o~e ~ubd[vtston (6 lot ei~le ~auily ~u~tvtsion) p~oposed
on property located nozth CE T. N. 6ktlee Road tn the City
~aton's extzateEzi~ozial lu~tsdiction area ~o~
~e~eEu~n~ng whe~heE to begin the annexation
~vid Elltaon, 8enioz Planne~. pointed out on a
addit~o~ 250 acres in this vicinity. Th~8 paEticulaE parcel wa8
located in the area whete the Cit~ o~ Dentom a~
extraterritorial ju~iedtction ltn~ overlapped. T~ce were no
utilities within 18.000 Eeet o~ the 8~te. The pEeposed ~evelop~nt
to SO ac~ee. The Development Review Co~ittee ~d reviewed the
ptoDoe~l but ~am not intetemte~ in annez~tLon at ~e present t~me
due to the dietance ot the aub~ivieion ~tom ~nton.
Council ~ubet Riddlespe~ge~ aek~ ~e~ ~at the p~o~8~ eu~ivis~on
~e ~ the city ~imite o~
Rtlieon ~eepo~ed app~oz~utely 2.000 ~eet.
~1 Heube~ Riddlespe~qeE stated ~ha~ ~he
Ju~sdiction line Eec Po~e~ extende~ out 2 ~ile8. FOE ~ton.
ll~ existed out Eot 5 miles Eoz t~ 9ucpone o~ anne~t~one.
R1lteon iuzthe~ ~epo~ted that t~ze uae quite a lo~ o~ development
tett~ity l:ou~ Ponde~ at the pzesemt time.
~. Dink ~usmen, Fields, Edwards and Associates, pointed out the
Rllison concluded by zepo~t~ng that, l~ the 8u~vieion ~lmed
t~e extraterritorial Ju~i~diction, development mug& CQnEQ~R to t~
Citi Oi benton's 6ubd~vieion Ruler amd ~ulattoms uuleem
~te qtanted. The City could not extend utilitte~ ~at thim ~at.
~e to the distance between the p~ed au~ivtalom
C~ty ~atet l~nee, E~te protection ~uld have to be ~aived aa the
zequlted ilow tats could not be attained.
advantages to the C~ty if the pa~cel were annexed.
R~lilon ~e,po~ed none.
available to the City council [E they did not want to
portion oi the ext~ate~z~to~ial Jurisdiction to
Blligon zeepo~ed the Council could a~ex the pEopeztF
Eo~got it. The develove~g ~uld ~ve to conetzuct
~nton Subdivision Rules and ~e~lationg because the property wa~
located tn ~utom'e ext~atezzitoztal Juziodte~on. The Council
could ~nitiate annexation procedures in the Eutuze tl they Withed
do ~o. I~ Ponds: wished to annex ~he PEopezty, coueent ~uld ~ve
to be obtained [Ecu Denton. This particular p~opog~ tu~lvialon
~ould ~all unde~ the "estates" category o~ the 5u~iviS~om Rules
Regulations due to the lot e~zea. Thio category did not ~equi~e
curb and gutteztn~ cE st:eats, but d~d epec~iy bulld~ng ~teziala,
tn the development a~ the County would u~nta~n the ~oad.
111
#eeting o~ ~uns ~,
t~t ~othe~ goo~ £e&t. on not to &nnez the pe~ce~ Wae that the City
of Ps,leE did uo~ veu~ ~nton ~o annex ~ a~ sta~C ~d · very good
~v~d E~eon, Sen~o~ PLanneE. Ee~o=~ed ~ ~he Couuo~ had
eubdiYtlLon ~d been brought to the c~ty ~oc platt~mg puzpoeee.
8upp~ted by t~e B~ack~oo~ MeteE Gupply eye,em ~nd septic 8yo~em ~o~
oeve~ige. ~ aeazes~ e~s~ng u~y vas 24.000 ~ee~ a~y. The
~n~a~e au~za~om m~gbt no~ be necessary. The develop~nc wou~d
have ~o coa~o~u ~ ~he 8u~iv~sion Sules a~ Regule~ome bu~ could
~equee~ variances. S~aff d~d mo~ ~ee~ the developez ~uld
anne~ion at chis t~ue.
Council ~u~z Step~e~ ae~ed i~ this was the beginning
develop~n~ o~ ~he azea Council had been ~old would nevec ~evelop.
CounCil ~uber 6repress ae~ed who ~uld ~nta~n the private septic
wtth mo ~toh p~ant.
~pae~nt issued eeptta ~auk pe~m~ta a~te~ pe~culat~on tests
~evelo~ut. t~ eeptie system m~ould be noa~to~e~ to aseu~e
~yo~ fee ~eu Hoptins stated tba~ ~ece via a c~eek behind
p~opese~ 6e~op~nC a~ a pooc septic sye~eu could canes lea~age
~nto ~he ~tec gb~ ~oE ~n~on.
~ev yo~rl a~ ~n ~utd ~i~ ~o leak ~u~o a~Joi~tmg ~a~ez well~.
ayst~ at th~g loeittOu ehouZd Sanction p~opecly. No cout~ne
County ~tt~ ~p~t~ t~ a co~la~nt was ~eceivea.
The comaensue o~ t~e City Council wan not to begin the ~nnexat~on
112
C~t¥ Council M~nutes
Iteetin~ o~ June 18, 1985
Page ThRee
3. The Council convened Lnto the Rxecutive Session to
official action ¥&s taken.
The Council convened into the Re~ulec Meeting in ~he Council
PREen: ~yo~ P~o Te~ ~p~tnl: Council ~ubeze Al~ocd. Che~.
Hc~a~. RiddlespeEgeE and
,~8~: ~yoz 5~aEt Was a~e~ing a United ~a~es
o~ ~yoze uee~tng
1. T~e Council conaide~ed appEoval cE ~e Minutes
le~laz ~ettng cE June 4.
S~ephens uo~ton. Ch~ ascend ~o ap~zove the H~tu8 ag p~eeen~ed.
~tou ca~zied u~niuoualy.
3, Conaen~ Agenda
R~ddlespecgec ~otion, AlfoEd ieoo~ to agpcove the Cousen~ Age~a
p~esen~ed. ~tion ca~ied unaat~usty.
Consent Age,a:
A. Rids and Punches
~ ~ l. Bid $ 9448 - Meo~a~e Ke~q~8 -
2. Bid ~ 9448 NotC~o~ ~dition - vetecltne
pact~ct~t~on
3, Bid J 9453 Fc~ ~oce Pac~ t~oveuen~
4. Bid ~ 9467 ~38 ~ ~tne ~ap Page Road nube~a~ton
5, ~C~8e OgdeE J 67403 ~0 ~ec~iu ~lf~ancl
the aloun~ cC 14,140.2e
6. ~tc~ie Ocd~ O 68~52 to ~ou~cu B~ine Puu~
cou~aay in t~ a~unt e~
In~e~tional ~n ~he a~ount 08
9.PuEc~ee OEdo~ ~ 6~355 ~ I.S.P. IudustEieg
the a~ount o~ 83.$24.00
a~oumt o~ lT.aO0.O0
a~t o~ 87,378.27
11. ~te~ee Order ~ 68525 to loyd ~eavat~om in t~
auount cz 82~,~25,00
s. e~ats and RepXate:
~. App;ova~ or p~e~tmt~ plat of lots ~. ; and 3
o~ the o. U. ~eceon ~dition. (The PXa~ing
e~ Zoning Co~iegion Eecoue~e
2. Appcoval o~ pceX~inacy plat o~ loci ~-7. bloc~
A, O~ the ~uton ZO ~itt~. (~ P~t~tug
Zoning Cou~8s~on ~eoomnde
113
c~t¥ Council M~nutee
Meeting cE June 18. 1965
Page
3. Approval of pEeltmina£y and final £eplat of lots
1-16 of the ~ontectto Eaat Addition. (The
Planning and Zoning Coaiseion
approval.)
4. Approval o~ p~eltmina~y and Einal ~eplat o~ lot
aru~ pa~t o~ lot 2, b~ock 2, o~ ~he San~e~
~o~S ~dL~on. (The P~anntng and Zontn~
a~ 9 cE the ~a~nwEight Addition, a~ pa~t
b~ock 28 cE ~he O~ginal Tovn Addition. (The
Plan~tng a~ zoning Co~88ton ~eco~ends
approval.)
k. The Council held a public hmacXn~ on t~e petition
Claff~ Bffo~ffm ~eqummt~ a c~nge [n zoning gcom the planned
develo~ent (PD-41) dtlt~at to the ~ane~al retail
claeei~oat~om o~ an ~.~ ac~e t~act tn the M. L. ~umt~n Survey,
the gene=il =e=a~l (~H) d~=~c= by the C~ty o~ Denton Zoning
Ordi~nce.
The ~o~ P~o Tim opene~ ~he public hea=~ng.
~11 o~ the ~zon~ige on LOOp 268 vas zoned coue~cia~ o~ light
a~nt to the planned development would allow gcc mixed use. All
woutd ~ =ee~dent~al. T~im would =esult tn asp=ox~tely ~2S mcgee
of =es~dent~al u~e. The ~ope=ty above the ~oop was not app~op=~ate
~eta~l
The ~Yo~ P~Q Tel cloee~ ~he public
Je~ ~e~, D~ecto~ o~ ~lann~ng and Co,unity Development. ~epo~ted
and Zoning Co~tsmtou ~d =eco~nded app=oval o~ the petltton b~ a
vote of % to ~. 8ta~ ~td not concu= ~th the =eco~ndatton o[ the
Planning a~ Zoning Co~i~ton. The o=igtnal p~annea development
balance ~ be Mintlined. The t~anett~on f~om the p~evtously
a c~ge. T~ Q~i~tnal plann~ developuent as appzoved tn 1982
a balinoed develop~nt; Mvez, the p~opoaed ame~ment vould upset
t~t balance.
Council ~ube~ ~AdaE8 aaWed t~ the ~p o~ ~he pzoposed ~evelopuent
on the overhead p~oJect~on wan the oziqinal planned development
the pzopoae~
114
City Council #inures
I~eting of June 18, lg85
Pigs
I~yar responded it was the o£tgiual planned ~eVtlopu~at.
IMvi~ Ellieon, Senior Planner. repotted t~t the e~age ~uld occu~
on ~he co~ne~ which enco~passe~ t~ single ~autly a~ ~lti-iautly
azeas on the
flood way aa t~e southern bou~a~y.
Council Meube= ~4~ statad this a~en4~nt ~uld ta~e out t~
~lti-iaatly azea a~ zevlace tt vtth qenezat zetatl ao~tn9 ~tth no
taetzictiona.
Council ~abe~ Stephens stated t~t the ll.Z~ ac~ee too~
t~e ~lood plain and asked i~ the etzeet was
Ellieon ceplted the etzeet ~o~med the nozthetn bou~azM.
~umeil ~abe~ ~aas elated that .he vas
~et'e co~ent ~hat the a~ea ~as not app~ovzi~te
land use. Theze ess extettn~ a~ p~ovoeed ~eeid~iat use on ~oop
Zoning Co. lesion and the City Council, they
co~ide=a~iom a~ she objected to 4evelope~( eo~tng
a~nta. This was especially true concerning a c~ueet to c~nge
E~ou ~e~tdential to genezal =stall.
Council ~ez C~ew asked t~ ~ ~uld ~a~e
approve the pe~t~ion.
[llt~n zespond~ no; only a ~a}oz~ vote.
C~neil ~be~ ~iddlespe~e~ asked it the ee~a~ ~e dent~, ~uld
~e ozi~inal planna~ developmem~ still be patti.
~yoE ~elpo~ed yes.
~lu8 motion. Char second to deny the pett~a. ~ttou to deny
caeztet unanimously.
B. The Council held a public heaztng ~ ~e ~i~ton o~
biles/Davis Interests r~uestiug au a~nt to planned
d~elo~eat (PD-90). The pzopeety ts located
a~ YozXsht~e D~ive and no,th ol EraSe iow. ~e ~n~ will no~
o~nge the la~ uses in the planned develo~u~.
location o~ the ten (10) acEe co,unity service azea ~uld be moved
~o ~he ~st. eliminating appzoxt~ely iouz~ (14) single
toned lots, and the street patterns wt~him the de~elo~en~ Would be
al~ezed.
~e ~yoz Pzo Ten opened the public ~aeing.
~. ~le ~vie, ~giug ven~uze pagtue~, spoke La ~a~z elating
t~t this ancient ~equeat vas au ~tueeci~ ea~ge only and did
~C .altec ,demg~ty cc lot 8tze8. ~ze 8iupty ~ a a~ to move
go~ o~ ~he sites tn the planned develo~nt a~ound. Hie ~tcu
~ack site cloee~ to the school which ~uld ctea~ ~ttec
~low and a uoze a~the~leally pleasing develo~ut.
p~oposed change had been ~tled ~o t~e ~eetde~8 ~e M~O t~u awa~e
o~ ~he plan.
~ o~ gpeXe in opposition.
The ~yo~ PEo Te~ closed t~e public
115
a planned de~op~uc. ~c~y seven reply ~oc~ ~d been ~e~
cecuc~ u~ded. T~O ~n~ iC approved, ~uld alloy Coc the
vould not be
e~e plan t~ze~oce, pursuant Co ~he pcov~elona o~ Appe~tx B-Zoning
plan ~liei to app~ozi~tely XZ9 acres o~ la~ out o~ the ~Ccacken
Survey, ~C~ 817 loeite~ adjacent and eas~ og 5hec~n ~ive and
T~e ~o~l~Ug ozdi~uee We presented:
PI~ISZ~ ~ ~IX B-Z~I~ OF T~ ~DE Of O~TN~CES
~ TH CI~ ~ ~, ~S ~ ~AID SITE 'P~ ~PLIES
~I~Y 12~ A~6 Of ~ ~ OF ~ ~KRN
~ ~ ~ ~ NOB~ OF [INGB R~ S~EET~
6~op~ue M~, C~ g~co~ ~o adopt ~he ocdi~nce. On sell
vote, ~ "aye." ~e~ne "aye," Al~o=d "aye,"
*'aye," c~ WiFe," ia~ ~yoc P=O Tel Hop~nl "aye." ~o~
u~nt~aty.
C. ~e Council held a ~btic hea~t~g o~ the petition
h. A. ~l~U. cepcese~tt~ da~s f. ~eon and ~o~ct W. Jones,
~equ~tiug a c~e t~ eont~ [cob t~e agricultural (A) c~aagi-
~eet,e~th o~ kt~ct ~4 (~ ~6~5) a~ ,ho~ ~n the o. 8. Bcevetec
Sucvey. AMtcaet ~. S6 a~ ~he T. M. ~ugheCty Survey, Abl~a~t No.
356. T~ t~' I~i~ eha~ il approved. ~he property ~y be utilized
Eica~t~ bY tho C~ty o~ ~atoa Zoning Ozdi~nce.
~e ~o~ PEr T~ o~ ~hJ p~lie heaztn~.
Mc. L. ~. Nelson, ~epEesenting tho o~e=e, spoke in ~avoc grating
~hat, ~bts 'tzeoercy. vas l~ated on C~e ~et side a~d ad~acenC ~o t~e
aeoea8 comd o~ I-3~ a~ ~pp~ox~tely 3.500 ~ee~ south o~ Aicpoct
ViCtQ~ Bqu~pMnt, Tcane~g~a~ion 6yeteui. Ohio Rubber. Leeds Direct
~1 a~ vaCtou~ o~c ~ustcies. ~Jaoe~t to the ptopett~
3aoK~n C~eeote. ~11 ~ ~y 8outh o~ Airport Road va8 and would
zeze~ ~ou a~ztcultuzal to light tudus~zial Which ~ould be
coa~ttble With all l~ uses ~o 'the nozth and adjacent.
appeared el he.ll o( the ~ne~e ~ose only obJeotton to
anme~tion ~l t~t t~ parcel wa8 not lazge enough. Th~s aces wag
a ~y LEXteL ~zt o~ the co.unity a~ vas ready
development. ~ uect~altezn port,on o~ the pro.cry 'va8 un~ec
con~gae~ ~e ~ ~o1~ ~o a Image co~panM ~ich would be a coupa~ble
the ~Eioke~y C~t e~c line ~am do~ the western side o~ the
pcopecty a~ t~ece va~ a 16" varec line in place.
11§
City Council #inures
~(Ioting OE June 18. 1985
Page Seven
Mo one spoke in o~poiiCion.
JeEr ~yer, Direc~o~ sC Planning a~ Co~t~y ~lop~nt,
~esontng.
S~ephinl ~ton, Mc~am8 soco~ ~o approve ~he petition.
~[ied unaniBoue ly.
D. The Council held a ~bltc ~ea~g on the
t~ City o~ Denton a~ Pat O'B~t~u ~o~ an~Ciou og a~pzoxt~ely
160 acEes of rand being a pa~t og the G, Wal~ Survey.
1330, and t~ M.R.P. G P.R,R. 5uEvoy. Abit~let 950,
no,ch and south o~ Paise Road bit~en 1-15B a~ 8vishic R~. A-20
The ~yoc Pis Te~ opened ~he public
the second public hea~in~ on this annexation petition.
t~ivtduels tn the pa~ce~ VhO had ~C pe~t~to~ toe au~xa~ton.
pleoipt~a~ed by a E~ues~ ~oE a ,~btle ~ Pa[~ tn this a~ia.
T~e Were ~2 ~eply io~ ~tled wt~ 0 eO~. tn tavo~ a~ 2
continue. The Council could p~oooed with the a~no~ton
~cGo1 vhi~h vel an involuntary a~MxaCton (t~gi~ ~c a 500
~ee~ strip must ~ ~o~C in~ac~): atop .~ a~to& p~ooeedtugs:
CoVacil Neu~c ~a~ as~ed stat~ Co [ovi~ the pEo~y belonging
gep~rt to Council at a laCe~ ~a~e on the ~ot on t~ a~tion ti
~h~s p~o~ty ~e ~euovod.
~nvoluata~y annexation po[~ion8 st ~he palest vt~h ~egazd ~o
location a~ hoe ~be ttae~8 itt tn~o ~he SOO lee~
etatt~ that the tttu o~ed ~2 to 15 actem on the ~et side ~ the
aa~za~ion.
hone pa~K i~ the parcel and ~d only le~ne~ st ~il
~ioh was tn hie axes. He did no~ ~now i~ ~ aa~to~ would be
tn his best intecest.
ling&by i~d suggested that Mt. Renan contact ~ iti~f v~h any
q~oCions ~tch he night ~ve.
~aaot~ bube~ ~aue asked M~. BOMU to Do,ut OUt his
t~ o~head ptolecttou ~p ~ the anuexa~iou
~s. a. U. Poc~tue. ~estdtag on Paige Road. e~o&e ta opposition
stating she ~d a question as to vheC~r the pEope~ty wuld be zoned
the C~vEolet dlile~8~p &~ ~. ~a~t ~d ~O~K &he ~ope~ty
aext ,~e ~et ~ch ptect~itated hat question te~tdimg ~utuze
The ~yot Pro TaB closed the public
117
City CouGcil
~evt~ ~ tu~oc~ton c~uem~e~ by Council b~ec ~aum cogacd~ng
, E. ~e Counot~ ~e~d a public ~eac~n~ on ~he po~t~ion o~
Millet 8ucvey, AboCcac~ 987. and beginning ~mC o~ U~ec~od Road.
eas~ ;9~ C. ~l~e load, tou~h aC J~ Ch~te~al Road, a~ notch aC Tom
Cola ~ad.
The ~o~ Pea Te~ optn~ the public
no n~ ~n~o~M~on to add.
No O~ 8pe~e tn opposition.
The Moz ~co Ten clo,~ the public heating.
pcoceedtng8.
Agenda l~eu *~ ~a8 uov~ ~Oe~Zd ~n the a~e~a oEdez.
7. ~e ~oumctl ~eeeived t~e Planning and Zomin~ Contsston
ceco~at~ou ~oc ~he Ft~ Yeac Capital llp~oveuent Plan.
Oe~ ~er, Dtcec~oc o~ Planning a~ Co~uni~y De~lo~em~, cepo~ed
~. B~ll C~atboc~, Cha~c~ezaon o~ ~he Pla~tng a~ zoning
a~ea& og ~h~ C~y to fey to de~ec~ne those pcoJectm ~toh would
cequ~e imdiate at,nation. ~e ~ntent o~ the plan vas to pcotect
~o~Eteeal yeaz 1985-86, 0900,000 ~o~ zigh~-o~-vay acquisitions ~oc
u.s. 380 ~e ~en ~ b~k
Co~$egion ~oc ~e 5 yeac Cap~tal I~pcoveuent Fuudin~ Schedule wan
TcaC~ic Sign~l~tatLon ~ 4~,o00
T~a~te Signal ~EdwaEe '8 80,000
lnteC~e~ion ~cn ~a~8 $ 230,000
Fice,6u~TaCton 8 450,~
Cba~l (~t~ Mille& Rl~atacy 6chool) $ 25,0~
SidmlK8 to SeEps EVOEI Pazk RleuenCa~y School $ 40,~
To~al ll.350,000
~986-1987
~U ~1 lay ~at~ge $ 835,000
~ttd~ ~ ~4~=~ ~=e I 250.0~
118
City Council Minutes
Meeting of June 18, 1985
Page Nine
198&-1987 -- oon~inuation
Renonetruct Oriole Stceet $ L17.000
E. MeKinney Street Culvert $ 25,oo0
Sidlvalk on Hercules $ 15,000
Total
1987-8~
IBp~ove #ood~ow Lane
$~ua~t Road - Selene D£a~naga $ '320°000
NilloYep£1nqe Drainage $ 3~?,000
T~&~ic Signals
Total $Lo~O7,000
1988-89
OVersize Paving $ 150,O00
Stuact/Sunnydale Dcatnage $ 350.000
Taylor Perk Dcainage $ 300,000
Pave ~vtm 5Cceec S ~5.000
Burning T~ee B~idge
~entng TEes D~a~nage
Averts E (Ea~le to service ~oad) ~ 40.000
Tota~ $~,069,0~
L989-90
Ua 300 atg~t-o~-way Acquisition $ ~,~0
~tchtng Funds roe US 38o
D~at~ge Iup~oveuen~s in Hol~yhtll
cE 8outh~dge ~ 300.O00
Aud~a Lane D~a[nage ~ 90.0~
Total IZ,3LO,OO0
Council Meube~ ~Ada~8 ~ta~ed t~at she ~new ~w d~Etoul~ tt wa8 to
choose the projects to be cecone~ed an thece WEe 80 uny o~
~yoE P~o Tea Hopkins almo expressed btm
P~auntng and Zoning Co~tmu~on a~ the 8Ca~ on ~he~r aoord~ted
~a~ ~on, Rtddlempe~geE second ~o receive
caer~ed u~ntuoumly.
4. O~d~nance8
A. The Council considered a~option
an selective date.
Meet~.~,g of Juno 'tg,
Pa~o Ten
T~e ~l~t~ o~dt~uae ~a p=eaented:
~. 85-~2o
Chew Mt~, '~a~ 8~ to adept
"aye," ~w "aye," and ~yQ[ P~O Ten Hopkins
I. The Counetl eonetde~
Eo= ~blio vog~s or t~o~u~a; p~ovidtng ~o~ ~he expeadi~u~e o~
~u~8 the~eCo~e; a~ p~ovid~ng ~o~ an e~ect~ve da~e.
Chew ~Mt~o~, AI~Ed 8~o~ ~o adept
"a~e,l" C~ "a~," a~ ~yo~ P~o Tau ~pktnl
u~nt~ualy.
~.. The 2o~tl co~deEed adoption o~ an o~dtnance
p~ov~dt~ ~'o~ ~he elpe~u~e o~ Euuda
o~ e~t.~tw bids; a~ pE~di~ roe au eC~ee~tve date.
~. 85-~22
~ P~S~ ~ ~RXALS, R~lP~, S~f~XES OR
8~I~S IM ~ MITH T~ PR~I6XO~ OF
Chew Ro~ou, ~a~ teco~ ~o adop~ ~he ocdt~nce. On =oil call
voto,I ~ "~," G~e~e~8 "aTe," Almond "aye," ~ddlespecge~
"aye," Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yo~ P~o Tot Hopkins "aye." ~ion caccied
u~ntBoualy.
D. The Cou~ll coultde~ed adoption oE an o~di~nce
in~ a~JaeeG~ ~o the C~ty o8 De~ton, Texas: being all t~t lot. tcact
o~ pactel o~ la~ conate~i~ e~ app~ox~el~ 361.7~ aczee o~ la~
lying a~ ~t~ Ittuat~ tu the county of ~n~on, 9ta~e o~ Texas and
being ~Et e~ ~he V.H. ~ilo~ Su=vey, Abs~aet No, 452 amd H. ~y
SUC~, b~Eae~ ~. ~7, ~u~ou County,
as q~i~lt~Eat "A" ~t9~etet p=operty: and deeXa~tng an e~ec~ve
date.
The ~o11~ oEdtMnee.~a pceeented:
120
City Council ~[nutes
Keeting of June 18, 1985
Page Eleven
TRACT OS PARCEL OF [~rD CONSISTINQ OF APPROKINATELY 381,?L
~RE5 OF ~ LYI~ ~ BII~ 5I~A~D IN ~ ~ OF
DEAN. STATE OF TR~6 ~ B~X~ P~T OF ~ V. E. G~X~
807, D~ON ~, ~G: C~SZ~YI~ ~ ~ A5
Rtddlespe=ge= "aye," Chew "lye," a~ ~yor P=o T~ hpKi~l "aye."
E. The Council concede=ed adoption o~ an o~a~nce
app~oving an ag=eeuen~ Ecl ~he purchase cE uncleared wa~e= fzou the
City o~ Dallas: autho=iztng ~he ~yo~ ~o execute ~he agzeeuent a~
p=ovidin~ ~o~ an e[~ective date.
awaited ~llat ~a~e~ cont~act w~ich ~d been in ~iation Eo~ 4
yea=e. The cent=ac= had been =evi~d by the a~a~, the Cl~y
Attorney's o~ce, ~he Public Ut~littes Boe~, Fzeese a~ N~ohols
and F~an~ Booth. This was a 30 yea~ oontEact vi~h ~lla8 ag~eet~
~0~ Lake Ray Robe~t~ at 76 million gallons pe~ day, w~tb tho C~ty o~
~on being able to ove=d=i~ ha~ Hay Ro~Eti. 'Wells could be
~=ovifion should Denton wish to end ~he contract. ~o negative area
vas the "~eadtnes8 to os=ye" p=ovie~on ~ich 8ta~ed t~t Denton mst
~ke 500,000 gallons pe= day. T~=e wee alee a 8~a~-~ ~ee of
860,0~ to 870.000 9cE yeaE. The oen~cac~ aL~o et~abl~g~ the
ope=a=ing system to be used at Lake Ray Robe=ta. Na~O~ did not have
to be ~etuEned to the 8ystem ~0 ~20n could sell ~lla8 wate= ~o
the To~ 08 Co~in~h. The ~thodolo~ ~oE ea~abliah~t o~ zetas wag
~uton could not ~ut ~n~ectot water into Lake L~tmvilZe o~ ~ke lay
· o~ct~. Gta[~ ~uld ceoo~e~ t~e appcoval o~ thio oont~aet with
two ~11 c~nges to the ~te=[al ~ich was ~o~aEded in the age~a
~OX-up. The E~zet change would be ~he addtttea o~ Kxhtbi~ D-1
~tch ad,ed Lake Ray iobeE~8 as a ~lve=etoa 9oin~ ~ the geeo~
change was that Schedule C would es~ablish a ulaiuuR o~ ~,000,000
gallons pe= day which ~n~on would ~ake [Ecu ~llas.
CouBcil ~be= Ridatetpo=ge= asked ~ ~ch wate~ Wa6 being used at
the 9~esent tine.
a2 5,00o,000 pa= day would a~su~o t~t ~n~on ~uld ~t ~ve to pay
~ wate~ whtch it did not take.
~yoE P~O Ten Hopkins aa~ed [~ ~esale o[ wate~ u~ contingent on
~eE Eetu~ned bac~ ~n~o ~he sy~teu.
Nelson =esponded no.
~e 8ollowtng o=d~nce was pzeeea~ed:
No. 8~-123
~ O~N~CE OF ~ CITY OF ~, ~6, ~P~IN~ ~
inclusion o~ ~xh~bit D-1 and Schedule C ~n the a~unt cE S,oO0,0OO
klSo=d "aye," R~ddle8pe=geE "aye," Chew "aye," ~ ~o~ PEo Te~
~p~ina "aye.' Notion eaE~ied u~ni~ualy.
121
Meeting o~ June 18. lvSS
Page 1~telve
t ,. ~ Counoil con~ide£ed adoption o~ an ozdinance
appzovtng th~ 8&ls o~ 0.144 sczes o~ teal pcope~ty aa desc£~bed
he~et~ auth~si~g the Meyo£ to ezecu~e C~e doou~n~s
~le ~hece~o~ an~ p~ov~ding ~oz an effective
Rick Sve~la, ~stacau~ C~y ~gec, cepoc~ed ~ ~h~e iCeu vas ~he
cului~on o~ ~e btdd~ pcoceea ou ~s pzopec~y.
T~e ~o~low~ng soda,nee ~o pzeeen~e~:
~. 8~-~24
PR~ER~ A6 ~lB~ ~RRIN; A~R~ZING ~ ~YOR
Rtddlee~rget ~tion, ~a~ necond to adopt the ordt~nee. On
Zoll call V~te, ~M~ "a~e." stephens uaye,, Allo~d "aye,'
Rtddlespe~ ~aye," C~ "eye,~ a~ ~yoz P~o Tau Hopkins "aye."
Mottoa aa~ted unanimously.
~pac~ut and p~ovidtng au elective da~e.
~e~t~ed Hig~ay ~t~nc e~ptoyee ~t~h ovn~ 3o yea~s ol inspection
expeztenco, b had softened a pzevtousty appzoved t~epe~ent
contzaetoz'u agee~ iot paving inspection. ~tXe aetc~e~ of the
two ~ze~u~ a~un~s ~ze tn excess o~ 03.000 to zequtze Couuctt
apptoval, t~ ~ conbt~ did exceed 03,000. Fo~ ~t zeason, this
agzee~a~ u~ being bzough~ begoze the Council.
The ~otlowt~ ozdt~noe Wis presented:
MO.
~Z~6 FOR ~ P~LIC ~RKS DEP~ ~ P~IDIN~
Chew ~ton, ~a~ sooond ~o adopt the o~dt~uce. On ~otl call
unani~ly.
5. Resolu~ions
A. ~e Cou~tl conside~ed approval ol a ~eeolutton
clott~ pe~b~oo~e a~ hyuhuE8t i~om ~et~ intersections
two intersections aa t~y ~e dean e~8.
The ~oZtowtng ~eaotutton ~0 v~euented:
RESO~UT I ON
~S. Zane ~ton hat zequee~ed that Peubzooke a~
~y~s~ S~eu a~ ~he .intersection o~ Pennsylvania a~ toag~tdge,
public e~a within ~e cozpoza~8 traits o~ t~ City
Texas be ~po~aztly closed to public ve~icula~ tzalltc between the
hoBEg~ O~ 3:~ p.a. ~o 9:~ p.m. on aune ~9, toas, ~oz the puzpoae
122
city counct. 1
Meeting of June 18. 1985
Page Thirteen
WHEREAS. Zane ~e~n ~8 asgu~ed ~e City
· eltden~g in 8uc~ block have agreed to ~he ~ol~ea~ closing
a~ Longridge; and
~R~S, Zane Lemon ~a ~ue~z aegur~ t~ Ci~y Council
blocX
N~ T~REFORE, BE IT RKSO~D BY ~ CITY
CI~ OF DR~,
o[ ~he Cit~ cE Denton, Texas, be ~eupo~a~ily closed ~0 vehioula~
~a~Le EEOU ~he ~u~s o~ 3:00 p.~. to 9:00 p.~, om Juae
Eo~ the purpose o~ ~viug a neigho~hood bl0oh
~he.iutezsectionu cE Pennsylvania a~ ~oug~idge a~ 3tO0
29, 1985, a~d to have the aa~ ce~ved at 9:~ p.~. On laid dace.
P~D ~ ~P~D this the lSth day of ~u~o,
RICHAHD O. ST~A~T. MAYO~
CITY OF DENT~. T~KA~
ATTEST:
CHAH~FTE ALLEN. CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON. TEF~5
&PPHOV~D A8 ~ ~GAL ~:
~ ~I D~Y~ITCH. CITY
Stephens ~o~ton, Ch~ aecon~ that ~he ~eeolution ~ a~oved. On
~ll call vote, ~aal "aye." S~e~hon8 "a~." ~l~ord "aye. '*
Ri~dleepe~ge~ 'aMc." Chew "aye," cud ~Mo~ P~o Te~ ~t~ ~aye."
~lon ca~zied
B. The Couna~l considered approval cE a ~eeolu~on
eup~=~ing ~he concept of County fu~img ~o~ public l~EaEiee.
Joella 0~, 2tb~a~iau. ~epo~ed ~ha~ ~hi8 ~e~olutt~ ~uld ~o~lize
~he Council's concensus o~
~ublic libza~iee. The zeeolu~on ~uld ~ go~a~ to the Denton
County Co~ieetonez'e Cou~ fo~
The fio~lo~ng ~eeolution wan
RESQLUT I ON
#mIRRA~. the City of Denton h~s eltablis~ed an~ ~aintained
a Public Lib£a~y fo= the use of it8 9atrons; and
MHRRKA5, the se=v~ce8 p=ovided by the ~lbeaEy e~nce the
qual~y o~ lt~e o~ the tnd~v~dual~ ~ u~ili~, ~l~ services a~ o~
the =eaiden~a o~ the C~ty o~ Denton and ~he County QE ~nton: a~
123
C~y Council
Meeting cE JuDe 180 1985
Page Fou£~een
NH~R~AS. the public lib£a£ism th£oughout the County
Denton p~ovtde se£vice8 to County ~es~dents and the p~oviding cC
such eezvtoes necelsitates ~undimg~
~0%~. TH~A'FO~E, B~ IT REfleXeD BY T~ ~CI~ OF T~ C~TY
T~e C~ty Council cE the City of ~nton, TOKai hereby
suppo~ ~he conce9~ o~ county ~u~iug Eo~ public ltb~a~ll so that
al~ ltbcactet located within Denton County can be acceletble to all
County
~ION II,
T~e Council ~uz~he~ ~u~d encourage amd auppozt the
cE public l[bzagieS th~ou~hou~ the ~oun~y at a level that
t~e eezvicee pzovided by each ltb~azy ~oz the zesidente o~ the
County, a~ Ipeo~icall~, ~he Council would encouza~e
Co~elonegs o~ ~he Coun~y o~ Denton ~o auppo=t the ~und~ng conce~t
developed by the Count~ Lib=a=M Cobb=tee which p=ovides ~o~ County
Eu~i~g by the ~nton Public Lib~azy in the a~ount of $123.188.00
F~%8~D ~ ~P~D this ~he 18th dam og June.
BICHAHD O. GTEN~T, ~J~YOR
CITY OF DENTON, .TEX~G,
ATT~ST:
C~ABr~3TT~ M,2~N, CITY
DKB~ ~I D~Y~I~. CI~ k~H~Y
Mc~a~ ~tl~, 8~lphenl eeco~ t~ ~he ~esolut~on be approved. On
~oll call vote, ~MIBI ~aye." 8tep~en~ "aye,~ Al~oKd "aye."
Biddlelpe~geE ,aye," Ch~ "aye," and ~yoc P~o Tom Hop%[nG "aye."
C. The Council conGtde~ed approval of a
appo~nting ~[c~a~d O. ~teva~t to a Cwo yea~ te~l ~o Place 4 of the
~acd o~ Dieectoza o~ the Texal ~nicipal Pews= Agency.
The ~ollowtng =esolu~ou was 9=esented:
RESOLUTION
}~S, =he
Denton, Texas on ~he Boa=d o~ Di=ecto=a o~ the TexaJ ~n~c~pal Power
A~ency w%ll ~o=mtnate July,
p~AS, Rtchi~ O. ~a=t was ho~eto[o~e appointed by the
C~y Cou~ o~ ~ht C~y o~ ~oa, Texa~ ~o Place 4 on ~he Boa~d o~
D~zec~o~ o8 the Texa% ~nicipal Pews= ~gency and has since been
BE ZT ~D BY ~
124
City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ Juna 18. 1985
Page Fitteen
SECTION I.
Pursuant to the terms a~l provisions of Osdin&nce No. 75-22
o~ the City o~ Denton, Texas. Richa£d O. 8te~art is hereby appointed
to the two year term o~ o~ice to Place 4 on the B~&ld
July. 1995 and ending July. 198V.
This Resolution ab;all become eg~ective
P~SKD ~ ~PRO~D ~h~8 ~ho 18th day o~ ~une,
RICHARD O. tTBMARTo I~YON
CITY OF DENT~Mo TEXAS
HT'f~ST:
CHARI~TTE AL~N. CITY EECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXA8
AFPROV~D AS TO LE(~AL FORM:
DBB~J~ ADAMI D~AYOVZTCH0 CITY ATTORNEY
CZTY OF DEliriUM,
BY:
MeAd&ms motion, Chev second that the resolution be ap~Eoved. On
roll call vote, McAdams 'aye," Step,ami "aye,~ H1Eord "aye,"
Biddlosperga£ '*aye,' Chev ~aya," and Mayor Pro Ten K~pktns
&, The Council conside~ad approval o~ p~eltmiaary plat o~ tho
8urEey Ridge Subdivision.
Cecile Carson. Urban Planner, repo~tad t~at this pE~li~tiuary plat
va8 consistent with the amendment of a planned develolment (PD-90)
the SUrrey lidga Subdivision. Motion ~a~rtod
8. There was no o~ict&l action on IlacuLlve Session tteu of
legal smiters, real estate, personnel o~ board Appointments.
9. Now Business
The ~ollowing iteu o[ new bult~ese was ~equee~ed.
Coumotl Menbe£ 5~ephens stated that the Council had p~eviouely taken
action on · request ~or a variance ~o£ p~opeEt¥ located at Payu~
Drive and Bonnie Brae, He ~ould l~ka ~0£ this to be placed on a
E~tU£e agenda for reconsider&liEn ~han all o~ the Council
Debts Drayovitch, City Atto£ney, ~eported that the i~em should not
be placed on a ~utu~e agenda until a mQtion to,,Eeoeaaider had been
mede and approved.
Stephens notion, RiddlespergeE second to EeconmideE the request
·vertence at rue eayne D£ive/Bonale Brae location ~aen ell Council
125
T~m ~oun~ ~econvene~ tmC.o tl~a Executive 9ese~on to conmt4e~ ~ega~
WtCh ,~ Cu~theff b~a~uees. ~ ~e~ing Was adJoucned.
126
City Council Minutes
June 25, 1985
The Couucil convened into the special celled meeting at
5:00 p,m. in the Council chambers.
P~ESENT: M~yor Stewart; Mayo~ P~o Tam Hopkins: Council
Members McAdems and Stephens
ABSBNT: Council Members Alfo~d. Chew. a~ aidd~eepe~ge~
1. The Council considezed a letter si £equest f£ou Fi£st
8outhwest Company to submit a pzoposal fcc the purchase
810,0000000 Gene£al Obligation
Council Membe~ Riddlespe~ge~ Joined the meeting.
McAdams motion, Stephens second to approve the lette~
request f£om Pipet Southwest Company. Motion
unanimously.
The Council ~eceived the bids Esr $10,000,000 City
Frank ~edanicho ~ep~esenting First Southveet Company, repo~ted
that seven pcoposels had been cecoived. He reed tho name of
RepubltcBank, Dallas. & Assoc. 8.510044%
Council Membe£ Chew Joined the meeting.
Associates 8.5S3675t
Council Membe£ Alfozd Joined the nesting.
Lovett Mitchell Mebb & ~a£zieon. Inc. 8.5&5122%
Chemical Bank. New Yo£k
Intecei£st Bank Dallas. S AllOt. 8.6176%
Salomon a~otbe~s and Assoc. 0.5516%
RtddlespeEge£ motion, Stephens second to receive the bids.
Motion ca~£ied unanimously.
The ~e~£egentetives [eom Fi£st Southwest £eti~ed f~om the
meeting to tabulate the bide.
Ageada Item 4 mas moved forward in the agenda order.
The following items cE new business wac suggested
futuEe agendas.
Mayor Stewart suggested that the Council discuss the Charter
Revision Committee at the next meeting.
Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins stated that he Celt · vo~k session should
be held at the next meeting to receive feedback f~oR ~he staff
and the Council. The staff and the City Attorney's Office
should pzeeent thei~ £ecommendations to the Council baSsEs the
appointment of the Cha~te~ Revision Committee.
Paqe 2
p~ovtolono bed been pEse~ted by state law. and thio Gould be
reviewed on a chapteE-by-ehaptez basts.
C~a~e~ Revision CoRe,Cee ~u~d uae ~ha~ ~n~or~on o~ no~.
co~ttee ~d been appointed and tuzne4 loose. The Council
t~en ~nt be~o~e t~e e~ttee w~th the~ 8~geatioau.
p~oeo~eJ iud voting 4~ot~ete. the c~a~ieation o~ the ~ssue
o~ s~K-yol~ ux~muu te~M on t~e C~ty Council. an~ pay
Council ~u~: Chew ntat~ t~at a wo~ session was needed to
~yoE 8~lWtEt 8ta~ t~ ~hl Council could not do anything
until tho C~ete~ Revision Comities had been ~o~med and had
City ~geE ChEil ~tung stated that the sta~ wou~d not be
~eady with thei~ ~eeoue~atton. ~oc the July 2 nesting.
hyo~ ttM~ stated t~t, at the next ueet~ug, the co~ittee
should ~
Council ~ ~am8 8~tld that IhS ~elt the council needed
to digcue8 vaeiou8 ~sa~+ be~o~e appointing t~ oo~itte8.
Council ~ Stephens 8tate~ that, du~ug these discussions,
the eta~ could gLvl ~ Council thei~ ti~ line ~o~
Council ~uld zecetve o~6~f
3. T~o ~ouuctl e~eldeEed adoption o~ aa
au~oz~atug ~e ~8euance OE City o~ Denton ~emeEal Obligations
F~ank ~da~iOh. ~i~lt ~t~lt Coup/ny, stated t~at the bide
~ad ~eU tabulated and ~e esE=ecS. Fi~t south~st ~u~d
=eco~ t~ Council accept the bid O~ Golden 8ac~8.
Pau~ ~ton, ~11, Pa~huEgt, ~ Ho~ton, Bo~d Counsel.
~epo~to~ t~t the bids .had been tabulated, a~ it ~d been
Eou~ t~t the p~o~l ~ Golden Sash8 Wag the ~st bid. The
.{ o~d~ee ~d ~eu examined by hl~ law Ei=a and the City
Atto~noy. ~ Eeco~nd~ appEoval o~ the
T~e ~OllOWt~ ordi~nee ~e p~egented:
~. 85-~26
;df OEDINAMC~ AUTHORIZII~] THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF D~
~ ~IZI~ IMS~6 A~ PROXIES RR~TX~
Hopkins uotto~. ~m ~cond to adop~ the o~d~nee. On
call VOte, ~a~ "aye," Hogkin~ "aye." Stephens "aye," Almond
"aye." it4dl~pe~ge= "aye," C~u "aye," and MayoE 5te~t "aye."
~tton oa=~i~ u~niuouely.
128
City Council Minutes of June 25. 1985
PAge 3
The Council adjourned into executive session to discuss legal
maltese, ~eal estate, personnel, end board appointments.
6. The ~ollowing official action on executive session
iteBs was cede.
McAdAme motion. Stephens second to app£ove the boA~de And
conuis.ions appointments. Motion ca£ried unanimously.
AIEPORT ADVISOH¥ 90A~D:
Don #illiams 1985-86
f~ank Ha~w&rd 1985-87
Lee Keith 1985-87
Gene #£tght 1995-87
BOOED OF AD~US~8:
~erltn E. tee 1995-87
Janeda Peploe 1985-67
Quinb¥ Self (A~T) 1985-87
Deborah Darley (ALT) 1985-87
BUX~DXN~ CODE BOARD:
Bob Mille~ 1985-87
Johnny Hoztngo 1965-87
Cliff Ending (ALT) 198~-87
CABLE TV ADVISORY ROARD:
Judith Abbott 1~85-88
CITIZLq~'S TRAFFIC SAFETY &
Bruce ~hamberlatn 19~-87
Do~i8 Chipuan 1985-87
Gene Gohl~e 8985-86
John Thonp~tns
C(~Jg~JNITY DMLOPMIINT BI~OCK ~HANT C0~(ITTIR:
Bl£dell Ce~eta=phen 1985-87
Levis Ptice 1985-87
~uc¥ Campbell
Connie Well. 1985-87
DATA PROCESSIN<t ADVISORY ~O~RD:
Charles Ridln8 1985-87
Ray e~ttmAn 1985-87
tee Boseert 1985-86
DENTON HOUelN~ AUTHORITY: *
C.H. Collins 1985-87
PAt£ick E~mott 1985-87
Klino~ Hughes 1985-87
ELECTRICAL CODE BOARD:
Pete Chumbley 19~5-87
De.id Hoenig 1985-87
Jane McBride 1985-86
Clyde McNillia~e 1985-87
· Appotntuents to the Denton Housing Authority are Bade by
~he
Kate=Mn Con£ady 1985-67
Nit.ual Lawrence 1985-e?
Sam~a=ino ~9e~-e?
8end=a ~t~he~ 1985-87
Yvonne Jenkins 1985-87
Katen Con~ot 1985-87
William Crouch 1985-87
Beb LaFotte 1965-87
~n P~o~ens 1985-87
l~ene PE~I 1985-87
i~th Taneey (RE O~c~O) 198~-87
Jim Rid~Xeepezgec (Wa OC~icio) 1985-87
Dav~ Spe~k 1965-86
~eo=gta Caraway ~es-87
V~ctocia Roberts 1985-87
~y stephens (~z o~c~o) 1995-87
Mike Campbell 1985-67
Uill~e ~depeCh ~985-87
R. R. Eecue, JE. 1985-67
E~ne lEo~k 1985-87
Tho~e Peazsou 1~e5-87
Ketth Appleton X985-87
~eocge Beckec 1985-87
Bob SuXX~van xges-e7
Bill BUEIOv 198~-87
John ThouDeou
1086a
City Council Ninutee
July 2. 1985
The Council convened into the #o£k ~aesion at 5:30 p,m. in the Civil
De~enee Room.
P~E~ENT: Mayoc ~teuact; Council Members Almond. Chew. ~oAdane
&R5BNT: Council Membe£ Stephens
~Ayoc P~o ~em HopX~na Was ou~ o~ ~o~ on vacation
1. The Council held a discuaa~on o~ ~he p~el~m~y plat
~n~on ~anoz Eet~te~, a 257 lo~ single ~mily (8F-7)
eubd~v~sion p~oposed on 62,474 ao~ beg~nning ad)scent a~ sou~h o~
Al~o~ Ea~a~e8 fo~ the ~ucpoee o~ de~ecm~nim~ ~e~he~ ~o beg~m the
anne~tion poetess.
David Ell~eon. ~enioc Plannec, pceaen~ed an ovec~ead pco~ec~ton o~
~he pactel. The ai~e had very a~o~ ~eaiden~ial develop~nt
potential as witnessed by the ~iltng o~ a pteltmt~cy plat ~oc a
lot BF-7 mubdivim~on. Ut~it~es ~ce virgin sloss ~atanoea to the
8~te ~ith sewer S~nes located appcoEi~tely 3,400 feet away.
vece 3 possible a~ueEation a~te~t~vee vh~o~ t~e Cou~c~ cou~
annex the subjec~ 8ite a~ all oL the adjoining D~o~ect~
between the 8~te and FM-218~ ~oc a ~o~al og
~20 ac~eo
annex the subject 8~te an~ the 23 adjacent ao~e, by
extending a S00 ~eet etcip do~ ~-21BX to t~e
line of the subject site Co~ a total 08 appcox~tely
a~cea
extend a 500 ~eet atc~p along ~-2~81 aa~
Ctee~ Road to the pcopecty lSne of the fub~eot site;
would tequice gone ~inte~nce by the oity on Hiokocy Cceek
Road
~othec option would be mo annexation at all.
Council bmbet AlCocd aa&ed what the total ammexa&ion aoceage would
be i~ all o~ John Knox Village wee imcluded in ~e paz~eX down to
the sub)ecS tcact.
Rll~eon ceaponde~ appcoxi~tely 400 accem. The oity et~Sl had
appcoxi~tely 2300 notes available ~o~ annexation this yeac. As
June, 800 acce8 had been a~ded to the city Ut&h a substantial
o~ that ~iguce am voluntacy annexations. The Council t~oul~ begin
nov to look at the area east st t~e existing c~ty l~mite.
Council Heubet Al~otd stated that this appoacod to be a prime
~ot ~utute developueut.
Ill,son repotted that the onl~ advantage to a~mezattou would be
~om&=ol the tize o~ tho lots. StaS~ satin&ed that there wets 4
pEopetty o~ecs involved in the ad~oining aces. The city had
disoussed dedica~on o~ Hickocy Cceek Road as a pac~ o8 ~he pcop~sed
~oop Z88 exteneion. 5ta~C ~elt the city could not get ~ight-o~-vay
on H~ckoty Ctee~ Road at thl~ time as the exteaeion ~m
conoeptual.
~Moz Stewazt asked t~ the developeze ~ould be pe~toming [oz
co~ezcial zoning on Teasley Lane.
El~ieon zesponded that no zoning had been zequeeted at t~i~
~yoc Stewart stated t~t he ~aw t~e potential ~o~ I&cip zoning in
thie a~ea.
Council Me~be~ Riddlespe~gez aa~ed ~at weze the lot
Page ~
~llison ~esponded the lets we£e a minimum of 7,000 equate feet. as
p~oposed in the preliminary plat. These cut£entl¥ wes a de.and ~o£
this size lot and lasses,
Council ~beE Stephens ~o~ned the messing.
Council Neuba~ Mc~x~ams stated, due to the maintenance ~equi~euenta.
~e city ~ul~ mo~ Wan~ to annex H~cko~y C~eeW Roa~,
Council ~et R~ddleepe~get stated that the city l~ita could be
ezte~ed do~ Toaeley ~e a~ p~ck up this particular t~aet.
Council ~ez Mc~ams asked i~ the cornet o~ the parcel wets
anae~ed. ~vSd the o~ty be tegu~te~ to ~ntain Hickory Creek Scad.
Elliaon r~lted ~ it could not be avoided as a m~n~mum 500 feet
ettip ~oul~ ta~e ~n the
Council ~ubez ~aus asked h~ ~ny ao~es were tn the co~ne~.
~1~ mot~on, c~w meoo~ to annex ~o~ ~-2seS. not
Hickory C~e~ Road a~ a~ex t~e
Council b~bet Al~otd mtated t~t the city should take in all ct the
~tion ~o begin t~e a~xation pzoceaa caczied unanimously.
2. The Council held a discussion dE the possible extension o~
the ci~y l~utte along 1-35
David Ellimon, ~entot Plasmas. repotted that the Council had
requested that mtaf~ temea~ch ~he possibility of existing the city
l[~it line alon~ I-3~N to~at~ the City ct Sasses. It ~aa a neat and
clea~ co~ceDt. O~e annexation ~ot a 3 1/~ mile distance, which was
the ~x~ peta~tte~ ~ law, would place the ~nton c~tM
apptoxt~tel~ 1/2 mile eeuth o~ the San~et city l~mit line. Denton
could annex pzopett~ within tta extraterritorial Jutiedtction
wit~ut wz~tteu consent aa lonq am the annexation was mote t~an 1/2
m~le ~om a ~ighbo~ng e~ty limit line. Sangm~ officials had
tnfo~d Ita~f t~t their current city limit line en~ on the
northern edge o~ ~ck
con. il Meabet aiddleapetget stated that it would be to the city ct
Pen~om's a~vanta~e not to ot~end Sanger ct iu~tinqe on their
tetci&oty. This pazticuta~ asea was within the city's exttatet-
tlt~ial JUctadiction a~ should not be ob~ectiomable to 6angst.
Ellieom ~uttAec tepotted that it would entail annexation
~c~s ~tton, Che~ eeco~ to p~oceed ~i~h the annexation. ~t~on
3. The Council held a discussion dE city
Deb~d DEay~v~toh, City AttoEney, t~a~ed ~t the C~te~ would be
divided ~n~o c~pte~g ~o ~a~e t~ ~o~e woE~able to update. Those
Were ad2 t~t ~ny change8 which would need to be made due
p~e~p~lom ~ 8~a~e o~ 8edeEal law. It was noted that the duties
the Plan~mg a~ Zoning Co~ieeion were enumezated by state law, but
weze also listed in the C~ztez.
Council ~SbeE Stephens g~ated that had been done ed aa to ~ve all
o~ ~he ~n~o~tion in one place.
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ July 2. 1985
rage Th£ee
City Manager Ch£t8 Ha=tung =epo£ted that all of tho duties oK none
el the duties should be listed to avoid confusion.
Council Member Rlddlespe£ger stated that it appeazed to be
superfluous to have a Cha=tez p=ovtlion and state law. Pe£haps the
Charter should make reference to the applio&ble state statute.
Council Member Mc~dams stated that having the duties listed in the
Charte~ wes a convenience ~or the £eade~.
City Manager Chris Hartung asked how it would be decided what would
be listed in the Charts= and what would be left out.
Mayor 5tewa~t stated that individual members cE the City Council had
suggested looking at the electorial system fo£ Denton. It a change
was ~ade, approval would have to be given by the U. S. Justice
Department.
Council Mambe= MoAdame stated that she was not clear on this issue.
Council Member Riddlesporge~ stated that Meyo~ P=o Tam Hopkins had
suggested that there should be residenc¥'=equirementl in the ltngle
memba= districts, but the voting should be at-large. Riddlaspe=ga£
believed this would be a step backwa=do and it would net
approval from the Justice Department.
Mayor Stewart stated that the polling places were set by ordinance
by the Council end not by the Charter. A change in polling place
would still =squire Justice Department approval.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that he believed Justification
to= a change in polling places would be the holding of Joint
elections with the Zohool Board.
Meyer ttewa=t stated that another issue discussed had been
ra~unaration in= the Council and Meyer. It approved, this
particular Council could not £eceiva ramona=aries until a~ter the
Ch~rta~ election and next Council election. It did tike time and
money to sa~ve on the Council.
Council Membe= ~iddlasperga£ stated amoeba= issue had been spouse
council Member Stephens stated that, to£ the reco£d, he was not in
laver of pay fo= the Council.
Mayor Stewart stated that he personally had never submitted an
expense repo~t, but he ~ay not have been ~ai£ to the next person who
served as Mayor.
Couuotl Member McAdams stated that the remuneration woBld be more to
o~faat out-of-pocket expenses ~or Council Members.
Council Membe= Riddlesperge= stated that other cities ohould be
surveyed to see which Council8 ~ecsived a salary end i~ so, how much.
Council Member McAdams stated that she wes sensitive to placing this
issue before the voting public until inlo=~ation had been gathered
a~d would be in Eavor cE a survey o8 other c~ties.
Mayo= Stew&ri stated that the Charter Revision Com%lttea could
perform the survey.
City Menage= Chris Hartung =cpo=ted that the Texas Municipal League
had this particular tnfor~ation available.
133
C~t¥ o~ Denton City Cov~etl
Page Fou£
cou~il MeubeE Riddles~ecgeE scaled ~ ~he ~on~ee cou~ ~hen
~ub~lo the ~a~t ~e~ pay ~oE Coun~ ~e~s wag being done ~n
BOU~CI~p On tom O~ tM boac~a and/o~ coniosions. The TeEns
~o~or issue vas v~ea ~Ly eZoc~ed o[~l~i 8~o~ ~a~e o~ce.
~s~ o~ cbs ~acge~ e~e, had i 8e~ da~e. such as ~y ~.
co~C~ee,
a~n~ election ~ld mo~ be necessazy. The pay ~oz Council
Meu~e ~ul~ zequ~Ee au eleotion.
Council ~ Mo~m8 g~ed ~h~ ~he ci~y v~l beginning ~he budge~
p~o~eot a~ ~id no~ ~eel ~e vas an app~opE~a~e ~ue ~o sugge8~
Council pay.
~yoE I~ e~ated t~ i CbaE~e= ~eaduen~ election you,d be
,- ~n Jaa~cy. Apc~l oc ~l~ of 1986.
Cou~oL~ ~t~z ~ldl~ i~t~e~ ~ she ~ul~ l~ke ~o see ~he Council
appoint tie e~ee Sa daauizy and hold ~he election iu August.
She ~uld like to gee ~e ce~uecl~ion fizzes. ~ ~euuneza~ion vas
no~ going to be ~ncluded, she saw no Eeisou ~0 cevise the C~Le~.
Con,il ~ Ch~ 8~e~ed ~t he thought the g~a~E should p~euen~
~hat~ez be ap~tut~. It should et~hec be done nov o~ not at
4. ~ council oonvened ~nto the Executive Session ~o
PRESet '~yoc St~et; Council Meubez8 Al~ocd. Chew.
al~tee~ege~, and S~ephene
~s~: ~yoc P~o Tez~pk~ns was ou~ o~ ~o~ on vacation
1. ~e Counc/~ oolltdeced a~coval o~ the Minutes o~ ~e
ae~lae ~ectng o~ June 18, 1985.
~ ~ttou. Riddtes~Ege~ geco~ to approve the H~nutes
p~eeeu~ed. ~Ciou elected U~niBQUely,
2. Ooaeea~ Age~a
lieu 3.B.4 Va. ce~ved ~cou the Conaen~ Agenda bM
134
city o~ Denton city Council #inures
Nee:ing o~ July 2, 1985
Page F~ve
No,dame mo:ion, Alfo£d second to approve the Consent Agenda with the
exception of item 2.B.4. Notion cazrie4 unanimously.
Consent Agenda
A. Ride and Pu£c~aee Otde~e:
1. Bid # 94284 - Roof repaiE City Hall/Civic Center
2, Rid # 9472 Copper vl~e
3. Bid # 9473 - lemoval o~ 89KV line
4. Bid # 9474 - ~taintenance o8 City vehicles
5. Rid # 9478 - T[a~ic cont£ol cabinets
6. Rid # g411 - 50014~4 rite and
7. Bid # 9468 - Re~Qval o~ a~oil d~t
8. B~d ~ g463 - Payee D~ive va~ezline
g. Bid ~ 9470 - ~g85 C.X.P. utiXittee. 8e~2io~
10. Bid ~ 9475 - ~lol~[o~ a~ oleagi~g ot lo~
1~. Purchase Order ~ 68541 ~O Boyd ~zcavAtion
Plat8 and
1. Approval o~ ptelt~inaty plat oC ~hi Denton
· uaineea Pa~X &ddit~on, ~ot 1. Bl~ek ~. (The
appzoval.)
2. ~pp~oval o~ pze~tmtna~M plat og the Reli~aM Inn
~ition, Lot ~, ~loek ~. (The ~la~tno and
Zonin~ Co~ielto~ teeo~end8 approval.)
~ppzoval o[ p~eliltnaz~ plat gE The Points
~ddition. ~ots ~-~, lloc~ E. (The Pla~ing and
Zoning Co~teelom ~eeo~ende appzoval.)
· ~D BY
(The Planning a~ Zoning Co~l~io~ ~e~o~enda
app~OVA1.)
5, ~pptoval o~ preliminary plat o~ the 8out~eitetn
~ell ~ddition, ho~ ~, Block 1. (The Planning and
Zonin~ Co~tssion ~eco~e~8 approval.)
~d[~lon, Lot ~, Bloot 1. (The Planning
Zoning co~i18~on ~eoo~e~s
7. ~pp~oval gE p~eliaina~y pla~ o~ the
~dition, second Initallient. (~e Planning
Zoning Co~iesio~ zeco~ende
~. ~pp~oval eT ~imal zeplat o~ The
12-15, BlocX ~. (The Planniug and Zoning
Co,lesion zeco~en~e appzoval.)
135
city o! ~enton City council #inures
Meeting o~ July 2, 1965
Consider approval o~ ~inal pa~ent for Panhandle
Dicherson Construction Company in the amount o~
$27,424.78. (The ~mublic Util~t~es Board
recommends app£oval.)
~e ~u~o~ ~eee~ved a p~al~mtna~y ~epo~ ~ou ~he ~ow
Hos~m~ a~ hoc ~ont~ee.
D=. JiB Blddlm~pezge~. mbs= o~ ~he Flow Homp~al ad ho~ co~ttme.
F~oW Hospl~a~ ted was =~dy to submit a p~e~iu~na~y
D~. R~d~l~peEgoE ~nt~u~ed Jim Killingewo~h a~ating that ~e had
ze~eived ~ie Bao~eloz degzee ~zou Nozth Texas 8~a~e Un~veze~ty and
had ea~ne~ a degz~ ~o~ ~zvazd Uuive~fl~y ~n medical ~nageuea~.
the FlOW ~al HOSpital BO&E~ o~ D~ecto~8 ~n t~y~ tO bring
forth a plln ~o~ the C~y Cou~l and ~he ~n~on County
8Lone~'g
Council ~1~ Ri~ee~zge~ ~oined ~he ~eet~ng.
M=. Jim Kill~ng~wo=~h. ~ep~ese~ng the ad hoc co~i~ee. =cpo=ted
eonml~e~ation o~ Ju~y 33. ~yo~ Poe Tom Hopk~nt withed to be
he~vtly i~oZv~ in ~ht8 motivity a~ due to ~i8 absence,
wis~ed t~ ~peaz at t~is ~e~lng due to one featu=e of the
~=o~ t~ Tae~ Fezes. ~ gist of t~e reoo~enaation wag ~hat the
Flow ~z~i ~spttel. as p~emently constituted, be
~nt0 a 501C3 ~cb wag a ~efe~ence ~o a pa~tt~u~a~ per,ion of tAe
ln~e~l ~evenue code ~0~ no~-~or-p=o~, tax-exeup~ o=ganization8.
~e~ t~l ~ ~igougge~ on July 23, ~he Tagk Force ~uld spend a lo~
o~ true ~ e~actly ~at that struotuce was and what the
~eo~e~t~on ~uld be gegazding a govezn~ng board within
hospital, ~t k~a of ~L~no~ng and capital a~ange~enta ~his
~ould ~ ~eible fez ~he hospital, what was new about it and
derailed ~onei~e=i~ion o~ ~hege ~8sues un~il ~he meeting on
July33. ~l pg~y zilgon ~o~ appea~ing a~ this time was ~hat
theze wa~ a p~ov~8io~ within the p~opo8~l fo= the czeatton o~
~=aue~og~tion to a not-foE-p~oi~t institute to ~a~e place was a
4-~o-s-month leale negotiation 9=oceas ~n which the ~e=eet, rights
(tn~ludiug itl oo-o~egl) weze p=otected thEough vezy
issues which ~zm o~ g=la~ co~etn to ~nton County and the City of
to ove=aee ~he lease ~a~ion pzoces~. Aesu~ng the deadlines
an~io~pa~ed in ~h~s p=~eal, ~hia blue =~bbon oo~i~ee needed
be ~o~e~i~u~ed ve=y s~o=~ly. The composition of =he co~i~ee was
one ~oet~e~ to cteate the type of expertise and representative
qualities whio~ might be needed in o~et to ~uide the
negQt~ation ptoceea. ~he Taa~ ~otce teoo~e~ed that nominations
~ot ~ia ~ittee be ~eaemble~ by July 10 at 5:00 p.m. The Tas~
~otee le~t that this blue ribbon comities should be ~m place as
seem ae possible eo t~t tt could begin to orient ttaell amd assume
its potemt~al tole. The names et the nominees should be
The eo~ittee would be oomvt~eed oi:
136
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 2, 1985
Page 8even
3 physicians o~ high standing in the county
1 Rembe£ ct the present Flow Nemo£ial Board
2 elected o[~icials (l City; 1 County)
1 cettiEied public accountant
3 community leaders, one with ~Lnancial expertise
2 unive£sity representatives (T~U and ~TSU)
I health planue£
1 health adminiet~ation tep£esentstive cE Flow Hospital
1 at-large consuueE £eptesentative
This was the comaittee which the Task Force was tec~nding to the
Council and was seeking input so that the Task FO~Oe could then
ateeuble the couittee i£om the bro&demt ,specttumo ~mt
attve pool el people in the County ~ich could ~ uttttz~.
general point was ~ha~ ~he aim o[ the 501c3 wa8 elea~lF to tzy to
p~ovtde a 8olutton vh[ch Would ~e[ ~ ~eepo~ [o [es~g ~a[a~ by
pape~ stated t~t the hoapital'm p~maent situation a~ o~ganization
mt~u~[u=e needed bamic ohan~e. On the othe~ ha~, it att~pted
avoid losing the local control ~oat~e in the cheating o~ the
~t-Eo~-v~o~it co~o~ation. One o~ the central a~ ~i~ing
cE ~intaining local ,~nt~ol we=e leatu~a such aa th~e o~ that
tz~ed to dzaw the oo~unity into t~ p~oo~a. Thi~ ~uld avoid the
9oaatb~lity t~t the o~eza of the Vze~ent Flo~ laeilit~ ~uld reach
a decision app~ovin~ th~ attempt to t~y to move to the 501C3
ea~ly ~u~t and then only occasionally hear news zepozta ~om the
attorneys involved in the lea~e negotiation p~e$a. The~
~ay do~ the line at some point, the Cou~il ~uld be requested to
eati~y a lease involving the c=eat~ cE 501C~ a~ autho~zing t~t
c~e. Nothing ~uld tie the comity i~to the proceed, unless
all along, stayed with it, ~kld eith it, ove~a~,i~ ~ b~ought
the co.unity into the p~ocesa. T~ ~eeidua1 ~eti[ was that ~hen
the ~1C3 was up and zunning, the~e ~uld be a gee~ o~ i~ividuala
i~ t~ co~u~ity who had been in oo~ot with t~e peoa~8 all along.
~ze very ~no~l~dq~able about it a~ could bzi~ t~ t~
c~t~ suppo=t that, It see~sd to th~ Ta~ F~zoe. FI~ Ho~pital
both needed and ~t~d.
and ~n cedar to appoint a co~ittee, the ~nton C~nty
Couissionez,s Cou~t a~ the City C~ncil ~uld ha~ to give
approval. The p~oblem ~ould be tha~ the co~tttee could ~t
ope=siren p~o~ to thee approval. The ~uncil ~1~ ~t ~et
JulF 23, but ~ould ~eceive the ~epoEt f~ol the Tas~ Force o~ July 1~.
Counct~ ~abez Eiddleape~ge~ ~tated that tbs Tas~ Fo~ce ~as
~o~ suggestions ~ou the Council ~o~ t~ Ve~aon8 to ~ uP the blue
~ibbon committee. These wou~d then ~ approved at a late~ date
tho C~ss~one=.8 Cou~t and the C~tF Council.
Ms. Ruth Tansey, County Couist~one~, eepo~tod that t~ TaU~ Fo~oo
was asking ~ot ~eco~endation~ ~tou t~ Council in gene~to tet~8 o~
~o eight serve on the blue ribbon o~ittee. R~tet t~ Tae~ Force
assembled the ~eea. they ~ould co~ ~e~ :ct Council approval.
They ~te asking the Council to think of ~ho sight serve well on the
comities, and then the Task Force ~uld return ~[tfl their
teoo~ndation and ask for approval ~ot the tight to do this. A~te:
Council and tequeit t~oit eta~ o:
~yot Stewart asked i: there wets any legal ptoble~ with this
~bta Dtayovttch, City Attorney, te~tt~ that this vel
as long as the City Council and the Conisaiouet,s Couct ~d the
~i~l aVVtoval.
137
C~ty of Denton City Council Minutes
Nesting of July 2. 1985
Page Right
Riddlespsrger motion. &l~ord second that the Council approve the
concept o~ appointing a blue ribbon committee, and the City Council
make nominations to be given to the Talk Force, and the Task Fo£ce
be ~iven the authority to bring their recommendations back to the
City.
submit name, and the Task Force would balance this from the list.
audience, this was interim pendin~ the Council's acceptance o~ the
Task Force's £eport and direction. This had not been done. This
was not normally dons in this emnner.
would be 50-50 City and County.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the committee would be
comprised of 1~ ps~son8 and he felt there were be leveral
overlapping recommendations from both entities.
Vote on the motion w&l 'G~an~mous.
Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hea£in~ ou the petition
Bruce R, #est fo£ voluntary annexation of approximately 258.66 ac~es
being part of ~he 8. ~ers 6urvey, Abstract No. 843, and the
A. ~iller 6urvey. Abst~ac~ 887, and beginning west of Underwood
Road, east of C. Wolfe Road. south of Jim Chriltal Road, and no£th
of Tom Cole Road
The'Mayor opened t~e public hearing.
David B~lisou, Senior Planner, spoke in favor of the petition
annexation. T~o reply ~orms had been mailed with none returned.
The petition for anne~ation had been precipitated by inclusion of
this tract in the Denton Economic Development FactbooK al a
potential industrial park site. The total size of the tract was
approxi~atsly 678 acres.
No one spoke in opposition.
Elltson reported that the next action would be the institution of
annexation on July 16.
B. The Council held a public hea~in~ on the petition cE
Fields, EdwaEds& Associates, Znc., rep=scenting Paise Road Venture,
reqVssttng a ohani~e in Boning from the agricultural (A)
classification to the planned development (PD) classiftca~ion on
36.96 acres. The tract ti located north of Paise Road and eas~ oE
Mayhill Road and shoYU in the Gideon Nalker survey. Abstract 1330.
The following land uses are proposed for the planned development:
6ingle Family (SF-7) - 16.92 ac~al
density 4.5 units per acre, total units 77
Zero Lot Line 6.80 acres
density 4,4 units per acre, total units 30
I~ltt-Family - 9.34 ac~es
density 20 units per acre, total units 18~
#eighborhocd ~ervtoe - 4.00 acres Z-1727
The 144yor opened the public hearing.
Mr, ~lg ~dwa~dl. Fields, Edwards and Associates, ipoke in favor
i~ating that htl firm had prepared the s~te plan for this ~ulti-use
138
City of Denton C~ty Council Minutes
Meeting of July 2. 1985
Page Nine
plannad development concept. His stagf had worked within the
guidelines of the Denton Development 9uide to address all issues of
the proposal and had also Worked with the city staff to improve the
plan. Thece were vacancies on 3 sides of tbs tracts and buffering
had been addressed in the conditions as specified by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Staff had also suggested the replacement of
the neighborhood services portion of the plan,
Council Member Stephens asked what Was the size of the lots in the
sero lot line portion of the petition.
Edwards responded 5.000 square feet.
Mo one spoke tn opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing,
Cecile Carson. Urban Planner. reported that 7 reply fOrmS had been
mailed with 0 returned. The Planning and Zoning Commission had
£ecommended approval by a vote of 6 to 1. The tract was 90t
residential in nature and was a low intensity area. No Denton
Development Guide policies were violated by this petition. A mobile
home pack in this area had been denied. One condition had been
added by the Planning and Zoning Commission whloh was that the mite
plan would be approved by the P&Z and City Couneil for multi-family
or neighborhood services uses.
aiddleaperger motion. Chew second to approve the petition with the
conditions attached by the Planning and Zoning Com~ieeion. Mottos
carried $ to 1 with Council Member Stephens oaettog the 'may" vote.
C. The Council held a public bearing on the petition of
Tommy Co£poratton N.V.. represented by Fields. Edwards & associates.
Inc.. requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (&)
clissification to the planned development (FD) classification on
~0.39 acres. The property ie located north and east of Ed¥ards Scad
and shown in the 9ideon Walker 8urvey. Abstract No. lllo. The
following land uses are proposed for the planned development:
Single Family (SF-?) 25.0 acres, density 4.5
units per acre
total unite 113
Zero Lot Line - 13.0 acres, density 6.1 units pet acre
total untts 79
MUlti-Family - 13,7 acrez, density 15 units pet acre
total units 205 Z-17¢2
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mr. ~reg ~wa£ds, Field, Edwards and Associates, rep~eeenting Tommy
Corporation, spoke in favor elating that this was a multi-use land
request. To the west was a mobile bole pick and ligkt industrial
SOnt~g With existing residences on the south. ?be &tel to the east
and north w&8 vacant. His firm hid Worked within tbs Denton
Development ~uide policies. One condition was that a 24-~oot,
off-site roadway improvement be made to ~he site. Tot~Imy ~orporation
supported the staff recommendation Z00% on this condition aa the
development Would generate more traffic on Rdwatdz Reid.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public bearing.
Ceeile Careen. Urban Planner, reported that this planned development
was located on ~dwards Road north and east of ~ld~e~m Corporation.
The area had been annexed in 1985. & sixth con, irish bid been added
which celled ~o~ P&Z and Council approval of the site plan. Bight
reply forms had been mailed with none returned.
139
C~ty o~ Denton City Cou~oil Minutes
Meeting o~ July 2,
Chi# u~ttaa, I~cAdaM second to appzove the petition with the
4. Ogd~nanoee:
~. ~ ~o~etl conlideced adoption O~ an o~dtnanee
providing tot the expe~uEe o~ ~und8 therefor:
am e~ee~ve da~e.
The ~elleet~ ~zdtna~e~, p=eaen~ed:
NO. 85-127
~~; ~ P~IDZNG FOR ~ EFFE~X~ ~.
CheV ~tLo~, Rtddlespetgot tecond to adopt the otd~nance. On
call vo~e. ~a~g 'aye," 8~epbens "aye," Al~otd "aye,"
R~ddlespe~ge~ "aye," Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yot Stewart .aye." Mot[on
B. The Cou~ll eongideted adoption o~ an ot6~nance
accep~img competitive b~e and p~oviding ~ot the award o~ contracts
~ot public ~l or t~oveuentl~ providing Eot the expenditure
T~e,~oll~ oEdt~uee vas
~. 85-128
~ ~~ ~PT~ C~ET~TI~ B~DS ~ PROVIDI~ FOR
P~ZDI~ FO~ ~ BFFECTI~ DATE.
Chow action, ~ai~ seeo~ tO adop~ the o~a~nance. On ~o~1 call
vote, ~a~ "aye," Stephens "aye," Al~ocd "aye," Riddleipetge~
"aye." Ch~ 'aye," and ~yo: S~eva~t .aye." ~tion cad,ted
unaat~usly.
C. The CouMtl eoneidezed adoption o~ an ozdi~nce
pzovtd,i~ fee ~he ezp~ttuze o~ ~uuda ~oz eue~geacy puzchaae8
~te~tala, equip~nt, ~plie8 cE cervices in accozdance v~th the
pzovieto~ o~ ata~e lev exemp~ing such pu~c~eee ~ou ~equi~euent8
o~ Ce~lttve bide; &M pEovtding f~ in e~Cect~ve da~e.
The;~oL1ovi~ ozdi~nee vas pzeeent~:
~~ ~lS OF ~1~8. E~]P~, 6UPPLIES OR
~ ~iou. B~e~M eeeo~ to adop~ ~he oEd~nce. On ~o~1
call. vo~e. ~a~ "a~." Stephens "aye." A~o~d "aye."
Bad,Ice,OgeE ware.~ ~ .aye." and ~yoz Btevazt 'are." Motion
cat~,~uBt~uily.
D. T~ CPu~tl ce~atdezed adoption o[ an
140
City of Denton City Council Minutsa
Meeting of July 2. 1985
Page Eleven
contract; approving the expenditure of funds therefor, and p£ovidtng
for an effective date.
reconfirmation o[a previous agreement with Allan Est&tea Mobile
Hose Park which had been purchased by Holigan Developunt. This was
a name change only and all tersG and cond'itions were the Base.
The ~ollovtng ordinance was p£eaentedt
NO. 85-130
AN ORDINANCE APPROVIN~ A CONTHA~T FOR ~
~TICIPATZON IN ~ ~ST OF INGT~LING ~RBIZE
FOR ~ RYFECTI~ DA~E.
vote. ~e~ams ~aye." Stephens ,,aye.~ Almond 'aye.' ~iddl~s~e~g~r
"aye," Chew "aye," and ~yor S~ewa~ "aye.. ~ion
u~nimously.
E. The Council ~oneide~ed adogtiou of an
25-21 o~ Chapte~ 25 o~ the Co~e of O~dtnancee~ ~epeal~ng all
ozdi~ncea in oon~lic~ thezewith~ a~ p=evt~i~ foz an e~ective
date.
o~dinance eetabliahin~ p~o rata cha~ge8 ~o~ street lights. 8~a~ was
requi~ed to ~eview the costa every % ~ontha and ~e-e~ablish the
p~ioel. This had been done. a~ p~ice~ ~anged bit, an 125 and
with the exception o~ a ~ew i~eu8 Where city conduit~ WeEe
included. That charge would then Be app~oxi~tely ~100.00.
Council ~e~ber stephens asked i~ these weEe ~u~gl~t costs.
T~e following ocdinance vas
NO.
~ ORDZN~C8 ESTABLISH~N~ ~ST FOR 8~ET LIG~ SERVIa6
P~5U~ ~ 8ECT~ 25-21 OF ~ 2% OF ~ ~ OF
P~OVIDING FOH ~ EFFKCT[~ DA~.
~ephens motion, Chew second to adogt ~he o=dt~uce. ~ =oll call
"aye." Chew "aye." and ~yo~ Stewart "aye." ~tion
u~niuously.
F. The Council considered adoption o[ an oEdi~nce and
su=vey, Abit~a~t 1330. and the M.E.P. G P.I.i'. 8u~, AbgtEact 950,
and situated no~h and south o~ Pa~ge ~ad be~en 1-35E a~
Roa~
~vid Rllison. Genior Planne~. ~epo~ted ~t ~2 ~eSly ~o~u8 had been
uilad with 3 Eetu~ne~ in oppositio~. ~i8 an~t~on had been
9~ecl~itated by a ~equmgt ~oE a mobile hose 9a~. Staff had
~eeouende~ annexation o[ the la~go tract to ta~e in the ~bile ho~
park a~ea and also to squaEe of~ t~e city boun~aEies. Rlligon then
pEegeu~ed an overhead p~oJoction of the CuEEe~ o~e~8 an~ ~ocationt
le~C out of this action, future annexation in this a~ea night not
141
Ct~y o~ Denton Ct~y Counotl Mlnute8
be p~sstble due to the i~bility to get a ~O0-~oot st£ip ~equi£ed by
eta~e et&Cute t~tough t~m piecemeal tract which would be le~t. The
~u~u~e aohadule action ~oc ,~h~e petition would be ~o~ ~nal action
cou~tl ~ ~e ~s~d ~ ~d objected to this annexation.
E~t~on ~e~pondad ~ no one had objected du~tng the
hea~tUg~. Sta~ ~d ~i~teu ~epl~ ~o~ue [~on k~nold Kenat, an
~ndividual b~ the na~e o~ 8tzickland, a~ ~. ~vin H. Cobb. The
not on the lmdqe~ o~ ~he ~p. ~. ~mna~ and ~. Cobb'~ p~opm~t~
loemteA on t~ highly tm t~e cente~ o~ the pa~oe~.
li~e ~e lea~ ~ut p~e~e,o~ the t~act which ~d been objected to,
because o$ thet~ loeatic~, ~t woul~ leave the c~t~ in an untenable
The ~oll~t~ ozdt~n~ wam
~T OH P~ ~ ~ C~8I~TING ~ APP~KI~LY 160.00
Me~ ~ie~. C~ 8~ to aRp~ove the o~dtnance al 9~emented
wt~ all ~ t~ ~tcele ~ntao~. On ~oll ca~l vo~e, Me,ams *aye,"
S~ogk~l "~e," ~otd "aye," ~ddlespe=gez .aye," Chew "aye," a~
~yoc Steva[~ "lye." ~en oa==$ed unanimously.
· , T~ cou~il congide~ed adoption o~ au
ee~t~ a ~e, ~t~ a~ place ~oz public hea~ing8 comceEntnq the
pet~ioa,ef ~ City oE ~nton ~oz a~exatton oE app~oxl~tely 115
acEea o~ la~ ~ paE~ o~ the ~, Meat 8uzvey, Abetzaet 1331, amd
begt~i~ a~zOEIM~elr 5,~00 ~ee~ noz~h o~ U. 5. Highway 3~0 and
wes~ of Roekhill Road A-22
~vtd Rll~oon, Sentoz Plm~e~. zepozted ~hat ~hie annexation had
bees be~m au~. The firs~ public hea~in~ Wau zecoue~ed
duly 16, ~ ~he second p~lie hea~iu~ ~o~ August 6. TheEe was no
· lau~iiq a~ Zont~ Ccm~sm~on ~eco~endation available. Final
ac~l~ on ~hl9 ~uld be on SopteubeE 24, 198~. The ~ield
no,es had ~ea zevieed.
~a~ ~i~a, C~ seeo~ ~o ado~t the ordinance. On =oll call
"aye,~ Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yoz 8Zewa=~ .aye." Me, ion carried
H. The C~uneil o~naide=ed adoption of an ap~ov~ng an
ag~el~eot bet~e~,~he City o~ Denton, Texa8 and ~a~ttc, Inc..
the.guzc~e o~ la elect=OhiO ~etec ~eading mymtem, app~oving an
a~zee~u~ Coz ~in~enaaeo o~ ~he eye,em and pzoviding an selective
date.
142
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ July 2. 198S
Page Thictean
months ago, the city had taken bids on this item. en~ those bide had
been appEoved by the Council. Howeve£, roma detail pro~leme had
been discovered with the cont£act. The City Attorney and Datammtio
had rev[awed the changes to these details. The Utility, Legal,
Purchasing and Customer Se~vicee sta~e had reviewed ~he amended
con~ract and cecouended approval.
Tho ~ollov~ng o~diuince vi8 p~elented:
~, aG-t33
DE~N, ~8 ~ DAT~TTC. ~NC., FOB ~ P~G~ OF ~
EL~C~ONIC~R ~E~IN~ 9YS~, ~PHOVI~ ~ ~B~ FOR
~I~RN~ OF T~ 8YS~M ~ PR~DI~ ~ RFFRCT[~ DA~.
S~e~hena motion, A~o~d second to ndo~t the otd~nance. ~ ~o~ call
vote, Hera,s "aye," Stephens "aye," A~o~d "aye," R~ddlelpa~ge~
"aye." Chew "aye," and ~yo~ 5tlVlEt "aye.N ~t~O~ ca=zled
unanimously.
~. The Council considered adoption o~ an ordinance
authorizing the ~yor to execute an ag=cement ~twoeu ~h, C~ty o~
~nton a~ the City o~ Dallas and North Texa~ Sta~e Unive=sity ~o~
l~olog~cal s~udies on ~ake Ray Rob=ts: and app~ovinG the
ex~ituza o~ fu~8 thece~oE; and 9coviding fo~ an e~ective date.
p~eeent at Lake Ray Roberts. A~so dtucui~ed was tho developuent o~
a baseline wateE quality status ~o~ the lake. F~ou this meeting,
~94~tment an~ ~e requesting ippcoval cE an 18-uo~th pEog~au
developed to uonito~ sour o~ the tn~low streams a~ uutEiontg
~lowtng into Lake Ray Roberts to establish a baseline data to
de~eEutne what neaau~e8 might need to be taken to emsuze the pzope~
quality o~ wa~e~. ~t was alee an exeellent opportunity ~oz ~U to
be a pa~ o~ an important project. The total rest o~ the pzo~ect
vat ~56,821. ~ntou's po~ion o~ the coe~ ~uld ~ 814,773.
Council hmbez Stephens asked ~o~ gone claziEica~ton o~ the
background tn~o~tton.
Melson responded that entzophica~ion ueau~ the qzo~h O~ n~tEien~s
tu the lake. This war especially iupoeten~ ag some o~ the eun-o~
~atez couin~ in~o t~e lake ~uld be coming ~E~ ~er~ilized land.
hny run-offs today had a tremendous a~unt o~ phoapho~es and
nit,aLee. These tended to inczeate ~he ~Eowth of algaes.
hyoz Stewart stated that this would be the same type o~ ua~e~ which
Lewigvil~e should tell w~t LaXe Ray RobeEtg ~uld do. ~o~
Stewart ~hen asked wha~ was the di~fezenee between the two.
Nelson zetponded that t~ece wece 8o~e giuilaEi~iee, bu~ ~he~e were
also sour diE[e~enceu. Sta[~ ant~cipated receiving bene~icial
~nowledge fcou this study about Lake Lewiaville as ~tl. Studies of
~hie natu=e had not been done o~ the ~lu FOE~ b~a~eh og ~he TE~n~F
RiveE. Ro~h Lake Larch, to ao~e deqEee, and ~e ReM ~bba~d ~d a
p~oble~ with entzophication, and atudie~ had been done. Lake
A~lington had 818o been studied ~o de~e=mine ~at could be done and
how to treat the water. La~e Ray ~obezte ~uld be di~e=ent ~=om
Lake hawley,lie as ~he uppez reaches cE Ray RobeE~e ~uld corec
t=eueudout amount8 o~ ehellow lands. As ~hat cycled up and do~
9a=~ o8 the lake. This type o~ study had not been done Eo~ Lake
Lewi~ville.
143
City of Dmnton CL~y Counoil Mlnu~ss
Meeting o4 July 2, 19iS
Page Fou£toen
constructing an additio~al #astevate~ T~eatBent Plant. Some of the
was necesla£¥. The EPA and state looked at v~nat wat happening to
zese~vol~s and assumed Chat all the pEobleme ~eze caused
vhich were coning into the la~el naturally. The ~eal benefit
Nelson zesponde~ ~ t~ ~as a one-time s~udy. He hoped that this
vould ~esult t~ i~ ongotn~ ~elattomship with the uuive~Git~ as othe~
~as a ~e~ous opportunity to utilize the ~esou~ces
T~e Eollovtng o~dinanee vas p~elented:
NO.
B~ ~ CI~ OF D~ ~ T~ CITY O~
~ GT~ ~I~IB[~ FOR ii,ethICAL ST~Ig5 ON ~KR RAY
ROBRRTS; ~D ~PROV~ ~ EXPEditE OF
~ PR~ID~ FOR ~ EFFECTI~ DA~.
~tephen8 ~on, ~al8 leeond ~o adopt ~he o=d~anu,. On =oll
call vo~e, ~a~ ~aye." S~epheu8 "aye," A1Eo=d
H~dlespe=ge~ ,aye,' Ch~ "aye," and ~yo= Gtewa=t "aye." ~tion
cast,ed U~niiOUSly.
J. The Council co,side=ed adop~[on o~ an o~di~nce
a~9~ov~g ~he Bile o~ 0,390 a~e8 o~ ~eal 9~o~e~ty a8 described
~e~ein; aut~octzt~ ~he ~yo~ ~o execute the documents
title ~he~eto; and pEoviding ~o~ an e~ective da~e.
=eviewed th~G ~teB at a p~evtou~ ~eting. Th~U o~dinance vas the
legal docu~nt ~o all~ the ~yo~ ~o ~elease the p~ope~ty Co~ sale.
The'~otlow~nq o~dinaneo wac pEeeen~ed:
~ OHD~N~CE ~P~I~ ~ SA~E OF 0.390 AC~RG OF REAL
PROPER~ A8 ~8~IBED ~N; A~ZI~
~ ~ ~G ~GFE~ING TITLE ~gTO:
~ID~ FOH ~ EFFE~I~ DATE.
Riddlespe=ge= ~t~on, ~da~s eecona ~o ado9~ ~he o=d~nce. On
ca==~ed S ~o 1 v~th ~yO= Steva=t casting the "nay" vote.
5. Hesolut~on~
The Council con~ide~ed approval o~ a
Reg~dency
~bg~ce foe Voting
144
City of Denton City Council Minutes
leering o~ July 2. 1985
Page Fifteen
£equesting the policy con~e£ning sick leave be £emoved f~om the
agenda. The ~ema~ning 5 policies we~s document&lieu of
of Denton poli~ies. The Absence foe Vo~ing policy wogld bring ~e
The following £esolution vi. p~esen~ed:
~REA6o the Di~ecto~ of the Personnel/Employee Relations
Department fo£ the City of Denton ~&s pcesented p£oposed policies
~ega£4ing employee ~ules and ~egulat~ons ~o£ the coun~tl,e
oons~decs~ion: and
MHKREA~, ~he City Council desi~e8 to adopt such policies as
o~ff~atal polie~es cegac~ing employment w~th the Clty~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ~gSOL~D BY T~ ~CXL OF ~ C~
OF DEAN. TE~S. ~T:
The following poXicie8, a~achld ~e=e~o an~
Denton, Teza8:
Residsncy (Re~e~anoo No. ~02.03)
Per~o~n~e Appraisal (ae~e~ence No. ~04.03)
Accrual off aeneEits (ReCeEence No. ~07.0~)
Absence Co~ Vo~ng (Reffe~enee No.
~ndato~y Rettremen~ (Re~e~ence No. L12.03)
The ~ocegoing policie8 ace a~a~h~ ~e~o and ~6e a
he=eo~ end s~ll be ~iled ~n ~he o~icial ~eooz~s wi~h ~he City
Sec=e~a=y.
The Employee Rules and Regula~iona o~ 1976 adop~e~ by Resolution
o~ the C~ty Council on Febzua=y 1, 1977, a=e heceby ~miciuded ~o the
ezten~ ~hey conffltc~ w~h ~he ~ocegoing policies an~ any
aduiniet=i~lve pEocedu=e8 and dicectivem issued undec
o~ ~he City ~nage= implemencing the policies he=eby adop~ed.
6ECTION ~V.
This iemolu~ion ~haZl be efffecttve 8eom a~ afros=
pa8aage and appcoval.
PASSED ~ ~PRO~D ~hi8 =he 2~ day of July, 1985.
RICHAHD O. STEWART. MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON. TEXA~
ATTEST:
Cq~ASt~MFTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH. CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
BY:
145
C~ty o~ D~ton C~ty Council M~nUtl8
Meet.~ug o~ July 2, t915
Pag~ ~teen
#cAd~l'~CtOn, atddlelpe~ge~ second that the ~eeotution be
appeared. O~ EoIL call ~otm. NcAdau8 '.aye," Stephen8 ~aye," AlCo~d
"aye," Riddlelpeegs£ "aye," Chew "aye," and MAyo: 5teva:t "aye."
Mot~n cave,ed u~luoualy.
B. The Cou~il conetde:e~ appEoval cE a ~elolution ~o~ a
T~e ~llo~tn~ zeaolutie~ ~aa pzeaented:
~2UT I OM
~e ~Moz ~e hezebM authoz~zed a~ dizected to execute on
behal~ o~ the Cit~ o~ ~aton, Texaa, a ~pe hims Eicenee ~zeement
dated Jul~ 1, ~$~, be~en the ~it~ o~ Denton and the
Xan~ae-TeEa$ Ra~l~oa~ C~pa~M, ~elat~n~ to the cona~:uction,
:ecomatzuetion, uae, ~iate~mce, zepat~ and inatallation o~ one
~ouzteaa inch ~) aanitaz~ ee~e~ lime at ~ile Poet X-~2~.09,
p~$~ ~ ~D t~s t~e 2nd dam o~ JulM, 1~.
RICHARD O. 8T~MART, ~YOR
CITY OF D~F~lf.T~XA8
ATTIST:
CHA~L~TB &L~RM. CITY
C~TY OF D~fTON, TEXAS
DEB~ MI ~Y~I~, CITY ~T~R~Y
B~ddli8peEge: 'aye,' Ch~ "aye." and ~yo~ steva~t "aye.~ Motion
carOLed u~uC~ualy.
~nagec.
City ~g~E ~gtnning Septelbe~ ~. ~985 unttl a new City ~nage~
8. N~
~e ~o~lov~ng ~teu o~ New Bus,ncaa vas suggested toe
au~o~b~le W~eOkeE/O~OE
9. ~e~o was no ol~ielal action on Rxecu~ive Sell,on
legal ~Cte~s. ~eal estate, peEeonnel and boa~d appointuemts.
146
C~t¥ o~ Denton C~y Council M~nutea
Meeting o~ July 2, 1985
Page Seventeen
The Council ceconvened into the Executive Beeelon to d~aeuan legal
latta~a. ~eal eetate, 9e~eonmel and boa£d apgointuntl, Mo o~ioial
aetion wee taken.
Mith no Eu=the= items oE bueineee, the ~eeting wee ad~ou£ned.
city Council Ntnutee
July ts. 1985
The Council convened into the No~k Session at ~:30 p,m, in the C~vil
Dsle~Se [eom.
PRIelMT: Mayo~ Stewart. Council Membe[s lllo£d. Chew. Mayor Pro
Ten Hopkins. Ma~dam8. Riddlespe~e£. and Stephens.
ABSENT: No~e
1. The Council =eceived a =epo=t i£om the Flow Memo=ial
Hospital Task Fo£cs. Council Membe£ Riddlespe~gs~ stated that
County Comuissione~ Ruth Tansey and ha had 8ha~ed an idea to ~ind a
solution to Flow Hospital. They helped to~m an internal task ~o£ce
to submit a plan to Beet the p£oblems sE the hospital. The task
io£ce had met since &pcil and now had the beginning to the
solutions. Council Member Riddlespe~e~ then introduced Jim
Ktlltngswc~th Who gave a lengthy discussion ot tho Flow Hospital
£epo£t.
Mr. lilltngSWo~th stated that the pu£pose si the task ~o~ce was to
allow the Hospital to become a ~50~-C3" non-p£ottt oc~antzatton
which would be coumuntt~ based. A Blue Ribbon Coututttee would allow
io£ local contests on the lease and assu~e £epEeeentattve
pa~lctp&~ton in Barrels. He went on to state that Flow would need
some interim lunding until the new tinanolal wo=~ings went [ute
~ye= 8taws=2 asked ti the cu==ent Boa~d w~s a non-legal Board and
would ~ve to to ~at the legal Boa~d wanted. Council Member
Rtddle~pe~ge~ answered yes tt would ~ve to. ~yo~ Stewart then
asked who Wa~ zespong~ble 8o~ t~e t~l~ent tees- the C~ty. Council
Me~be~ Riddle~pe~geE a~twe~ed "n~".
Council ~beE ~au8 asked which g~oup wa8 ~espona[ble [o= the
decisions eomeezntng i~l~en~ ca=e- the task ~o=ce o= the blue
~ibbon eo~ittee. Council ~mbe~ H~dlespe=~e~ Eeplied the blue
=ibbon coRit~ee. M=. Kill~ngawo~th sta~ed ~= the City And the
County ~ula ~ve to ~et up a Boa=d and mus~ appzove the issues
b~ought be~o~e it,
~yoE 8~E~ stated 2hat he didn't wan~ ~ho City to ~et into pay~n~
~o~ iadigen~ ties, ae t= ~8 nevez done t= i~ ~he past.
Ch=ts ~e~ung, CtCy ~geE. stated that the total ~ecomaendation
Denton County, Al the hoipt~a~ began to stand on its o~ Befits, ~t
~outd t~p~ove, and t~e p~oblem~ ~ould be less, 50~-C~ ~outd be a
s~ep. It ~outd atlo~ ~he hospital to ~ove ~o~a~d a mo~e positive
ContsStOn*= Rut~ TanSoy. ~tu Riddlespe=ger and alt t~e Boa=d people
who ~t done this ~=~.
couaett ~be= itddlespe=qe= asked ail those tn the audience who
suppo=ted Flow to s~and up and be ~eoogntzed.
Council Meube= ~tophens acted how lon~ the interim It~nctng would
be needed. ME. Ktlltngswo=th sta~ed the ta8~ ~o=ce Earthed vague
on t~ issue on 9u~poge ~o ~hat the needs o[ ~he Hospital could be
mat.
Council ~mbe~ Stephens asked ii strobe= sE ~986 could be the time
City of Denton C~ty Council Minutes
Meeting of July 16. 1985
Page ~o
would not be needed a~te~ the co~pocation was set up and on its
council ~embe~ Mc~dams stated that she was not clea£ on t~e meaning
of "inteEim" financing. Mould additional money, ovec and above the
no£mal auoUnto need to be put in.
Council Membez Riddleepezge~ stated that the City and County ~uld
have to decide how much money to give on a temporary b~sie.
Council Membe~ Che~ asked how much loney would be needed. Me~e any
bu~ge~.
Council Meube= Mc~dau8 asked ~ ~he Council agzeed ~i~h the idea o~
the blue zibbon co~ittee, would ~t alee ~ve ~o a~zee on
pa~ttculaz amount cE ~oneM.
~z. Killin~awozth ~epl~ed ~ha~ ~e Hospital ~ould need euatatned
eu~ozt to do thee. It did not eo~it to any apec~ftc aaoun~
~ney. The l~ou~t va8 a blanW- JUI~ a suggestion o~ sustained money.
Council Meube~ Almond stated t~ey Etnally nov have ~eiehed t~e potn~
with ideas that the co,unity needed to heaz. ~et now go
w~th ~hose ~dea~. The Council ahoul~ auppo=t the idea.
~t~on =o allow ~e Co~ittee to go on with Btep 2 o~ the task
plan ca=zted unani~oualy.
2. The Council ~eld a ~iecua~ion o~ t~e
~eaolution amending the cu~ent overtime policy and eliul~ng the
Betty MeKean. Aneiatan~ City hnagez, pzesmnted a zepozt on t~e new
6he s~ate~ that the ne~ Act would have a g~eat deal cC l~pact o~
local govez~nt. A ~aek ~o~oe ~as ouz~ently in effec~ ~o g~udy
tuplica~ione o~ this ne~ Act. ~. ~Kean g~e so~ de~ailed
City.
3. T~e Council convened in tQ t~e Executive 88sB~on ~o
legal ~tte~e, zeal estate, pezsonnel, and boaE~ Ippo~tlen~l. No
o~icial action was taken.
The Council convened trite the ~eg~laz ~eting at 7:00 p.a. in
Council
P~BS~: ~yoc S~eva~t; ~yo~ Pzo TeB ~pR~nl: Council ~ubece
Al~ocd, Chew, ~ama, Riddletpe~gec, a~
~8~: None
1. The Council comsideced appcoval o~ ~e Ktnu~en o~ the
Special Called Meeting cC June 26, 198~.
aiddlespe~gec Batten, ~au8 second ~o appco~ ~ Minu~es
pceaented. Motion cazcied unanimously.
2. consent A~emda
~a~ motion. Che~ second to approve the Cam. iht ~genda
pzeeented. Me,ion cazzied unanimously.
~ity o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~' July '~6, 1085
Page Thcee
A. Bids and Pu£chase O£de£s:
1. Bid # 9476 Connection enclosures
2. Bid # 9479 Resurface No£th Lakes gy~
3, Bid # 0490 - ¢£ovn lane ma~keEs
4. Bid # 9484 - Mobile
5. Bid # 9471 - Hood~ov Lane 8eve£
imp~ovsments
9. Purchase O£ds£ # 68599 to ausiaeae
Essentials in the amount of 85,570.00
7. PuEcl~ase OKdor # 68875 to Boyd Excavation in
the a~oun2 of
8. ~K~ge O~dl~ $ 689~4 to X.R.M. Co~poc&~ion
in 2h4 amount o[
9. ~o~8e o~e~ ~ 69033 to ~bl~c Technology,
lnG. tn ~he amount o~ 84,000.00
B. Plats a~ ReplaYs:
1. AppEoval Of p~eltmina~y plat o~ the ~via
EQUity Realty ~d[~ion, Lot ~, Block 1.
(The Planning and Zoning Con~e~ion
~eao~end8 approval.)
2. ~pp~oval o~ p~el~mina~y plat o~ the Dunton
~noz Estates ~d[tion. (The ~lanntng and
Zon~mg Co~ission zeco~enda appzoval.)
3. ~ppZOVal o~ p~eliminazy plat o[ the
ceutez ~di~ion, Lo~ 3. 81oc~ 1. (The
Planntng and Zon~n~ Co~iea~on zeco~ends
ap9~oval.)
4. ~pp~oval o~ p~el[m[nazy plat o[ the TeaaleM
Cemcez Addition, ~ot 2, Block 1. (The
PlYing and Zoning Co~i~e~on ~eco~nda
appzoval.)
3. ~blic Heaztugs
k. The Cou~tl held a public hea~i~g on the petition
zequesting a c~ge in zoning [~om the two family
claaat~ica~ion to the ~lt~-~amily (~-R) dist~ic~ on a 7.2
ac~e t~ac~. The p~opee~ ia located south oC Interstate
HighMay 35E a~ east og Lillian M~llec Pack~a~ a6 aho~ in the
John MeGovan Bucvey. ~tcact 797.
The ~yoE opene~ the ~bl~c
Mz. Ja~e Dene~y spoke in ~avoz o~ the petition ~o= the
la~o~eze, ~he ~Netll's, ~z. ~na~M spoke oE the hietozy
the zoning o~ the ~ae~. In ~980, the Planning a~ Zon~n~
C0~iesion ~d th~s ~zac~ baEoze it, along ~tth several
tzaota. ~h a ~equeat ~o o~nga the zonin9 ~o~ ~gz[cultuzal
to ~lti-~a~ily (~-~). La~e~ the zoning zequest ~as changed
by agcee~e~t ~o (~-R). At that t~me Plannin~ and Zoning
~eeo~e~ed approval. At a lete~ date. the C~ty Council
approved, in the m~nutem, the cezontn~ icom ~g~cultu~a~ to
~-R. However, ~n a cloae~ aemaiou ~heze was an appacent
compcom~ae vhteh ~equ~ed two ~owa oC duplexes be p~aced a~ong
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Heeling of July 16, 1985
P·ge FQU£
The official ordinance st·ted that the tract st land was zoned 2F.
This showed an inconsistency between the City Council and the
olliot·l ordinance. Recently the property care be·otc the Planning
and Zoning Commission to be taloned liF-R. The Comaission
recommended denial by a 4-3 vote. Mt. Deaeky reEetred to the
Planning and Zoning Commission minutes el June 26. t985 tn which
Mt. Clayborn believed the ~F-~ designation would be Justified. But
he would be Rote inclined to go ·long With a planned development
MF-R ·nd ·but single t·mily ti·ets With one tow el duplexes.
Densky tell that Mt. Cl·ybotn denied the zoning request el MF-R
because that was what was belore it. at. Densky stated it Wag
HcNeill's contention that this tract should be zoned NF-R. An
alternate p~opos·l was presented which would include a single tow
duplexes abutting the single ·emily tract, ii the Council Sell that
the multi-lautly design·lion was not ·n adequate bullet fsi
would support the zoning =squeal change. He pointed out that the
original 84 acre t£act had general retail on it and that the land
around this particular ti·ct had had no lut~her development on
othe~ than general retail'.' 'Th~ le~a' ~as designated at
intensity based on ~he theory as to ~·t was pzoposed Eot the area.
it was on · major artery (I3S), there was good access in and out
this property by an easement, Lillian B, Hiller may be widened to a
foul-lane ~oad and Loop 28~ lay be extended to the St·ts School
underpass which ~uld take ttalltc away ·rom this ares. Hr. Densky
otginally intended ion the tract to be ~F-R. that there w·s some
seat of inconsistency in the zoning, and that it would be impossible
to put any type si iout-plex st six-plex housing on the sits ii a
double tow of duplexes Were required. Hr. Densky requested that the
City Council design·ts thin tract el land as MI~-R ·nd as an
alternative, one tow el duplexes ·bill the single laRily tract.
NO one spoke in opposition.
The Miyo~ closed the public hearing.
Demise Spivey, Development Review Planner, repoEted that three reply
~o~S had been mailed, one returned tn laver, sezo in opposition.
8he stated that ~, Deneky had done a good Job outlining the zoning
history st the tract el land. The tract was loc·ted in · moderate
in~enait~ area which is apptoxiu·tely 78~ over the standard based on
existing zoning, Inote·etng the zoning WOUld aggr·vate that
situation lutthe~ and ·dd more trallic to ·n already congested
area, She lutthe~ st·ted th·t the PlF-R w·s more p£elereble to the
origtn·l MF-i zoning. M~-R soni~g Would be a mere
huller Eot the proposed and existih~'"~'~ngle ·emily areas tha~ ate
approved to the south and the West. Planning ·nd ZoninO recommended
denial of this p~opos·l by a vote el 4-~.
Council Hembe£ Riddlespetger stated t~at he loll that the ordinance
was ~one incorrectly and, in view ol What t~e Council had pteviouel¥
passed, moved to approve the NF-R with a single ton o~'duplexes.
Hopkins second.
Council Hembet 5tepheus stated that he did not £ooall any closed
session but did ~ecall · time-out tot discussion. He stated that
the inconsistency between the ainu&es and the ordtna~ee was t~e one
tow el MF-R on the back side le~t out. The uinutes st·ted that
there be two tows el duplexes (2F) on the south side end then MF-R
on the uorth side next to the Village and tn waiting the ordinance,
the NF-R on the north side wes lelt out. He st·ted sous concerns
that ti the HF-R zoning ch·nee Was g~anted that ~ore zoning changes
to NF-R lay ~eault. Council Heaber Stephens st·te~ that he wis
under the impression that, when the zoning change Was
151
City o~ Denton city Con.ell
Meeting o~ July l.i.
Page Five
presented to tho Council, tho request would be as presented in the
utnutee0 but it came back as J~-i and ~hen as )W-R. Now
one cow of two fautly° meed ~o ask the attorney l~ the Council can
appears v~a~ it not on the agama that's being discussed.
Debza D:a~ovttoh. City A~tozmey. e~a~ed, ag ~az ae approving auoze
~ee~ic~i~/leae in~onsive zoning classification ~t~h.
calm. ~e t~ ~au~ly ~8 lees ~n~eneive and uoze cee~ic~ve.
~a~e ~ul4 be no Xega~ 4t~cuX~y w~h ~he ~-a.
counet~ ~u~c 6te~hel~ q~oB~one~ ~he ~ ~bat ~e zoning ceque8~
was ~alented a~ ~he ~izet ~ea~ing as ~-1 and ~t the Council
uee~img. ~he request was ~ha~ to ~-R. ~he council ~d s~ated
was not po~ible to ~nge t~e ,oming pe~itiom at ~t tine. Now
the ~ouuct~l,~s scati~ t~t ~c was oK ~o do t~.
Dob~i D~ayeviceh ~ep~t~ t~ ~e Cou~i~ ~d have ~he a~ho~ty ~o
cou~il Mbez ~a~ elated t~t she thought ~he alteenative was
~o ~ ~ the Binut~ e~a~od, two rows o~ duplexes
duplem. I~ ~ Con,il ~8 tzytng to ~OEEOO~ ao~h~ng, should
bae~ ~o ~ ~e uinut~ ItalY, She ai~ed those who ~hought ~e~e
looWlag at t~ nazzo~ee8 o~ the plot, would ta~e up the whole Riot.
He 6tot~ t~t ~ 8elt ~t one ~ow of two fa~ly houee~ would be
adeq~te
Council ~bez ~p~ 8tared he tell that the plat would not le~
~yot 6t~ar~ called' ~Ot a vote on t~e notion as pzetemted.
~a~l~ wl~h a 4 ~ttag 'aye" and 3 vottn~
Council ~bez ~a~ sexed ii the council could ~o back to what
the original utnute8 8~a~ed iC ~t was legal to do
Coumotl ~z Chew agceod and aCa~ed that he ~el~ t~ was the
o~igiaa~ ~t~tee
Council ~lbe~ ~a~ stated that the original request to ~edo this
to t~ pe~tioneE ~g ~0 go ~cK and g~ve the Council an opportunity
a~ ~-R zoning.
Council Heube~ chew agreed.
MeA~aue M~toa, ~ ~eo~ ~o apptove the petition as ~-~ wt~h two
zo~ o~ ~uplexee. ~ion ~ailed with 3 voting "aye" and 4 votin~
"~ay."
B. The Con, il ~ld a public heactug on the petition ag
~n~ll ~i~h zequesttBg a c~nge in zoning ~zo~ the ag~icultu~al
(A) etatei.~tcattou ~o t~ pla~ed developuen~ (eD) classification om
notch o~ ~beon ~ne. 'T~ ~oxZowtng 2a~ uuee a~e p~opomed ~o~ the
plal~ d~elopueu~:
Single Family (8F-~6) - ~5.~2 acres
~usity 2,2 uuitg per acre, total unitt 33
Single ffautly (SF-~3) - 24.27 acres
152
City of Denton city Council Minutes
Meeting of July 16. 1985
Page Six
Density 2.&3 units pet note0 total units 64
Single Family (GF-10) 46.91
Density 2.81 units pet acks, total units 132
Tennis Club - 9.88 acEse
Single Family (SF-?) - 36.~2 acres
Density 3.53 units per acts, total units 130
Duplex - 1~.32 note8
Density 5.5 units pet ac£e. total uniti lO0
Cluster Housing - 29.91 acres
Density 10.9 units pet acts, total units 326
(The Planning and Zoning Co~uaisalon ~ecomu~ends approval.)
The Meyer opened the public heating.
ME. Roger Ba£tet~, Field, 8dvatds and AssoolateSo representing
Randall Smith, spoke tn favor. He presented a brief history of the
tenet stating that it was first brought be~o£n Planning and Zoning
wish a different developer with 1,800 dWe~tRg~,~Gi~ Vt~ioh vas
denied by Planning and Zoning. The next submittal was fo£
units and that was also denied by Planning end zoning. The
obleottons to that eub~ittll ~ete t~t there ~as too ~oh
use. zetatl uae, multi-family uae i~ a low percentage of single
{aatly homes on ~he si~e, ~he new pzopomal had lo~{~ ~he nu~bez
cE d~lling units Co 7~2, no otlice use ca t~e site, no ~e~atl use
on the site, no aulti-taailM use on ~he site. A ~h more
~aaitio~l single lamily neighborhooa, k ~]or ~too~ plain a~ea
would be used as an open apace de~emtt~n. Limited ~in~s o~ access
~1~ ~uld be opened to minimize ~a~Xc on He~on an~ Teasley.
~oz~ d~ainage ~ould be a ~Jo~ ~acto~ im ~he ~evelopment cE the
teach. ~z. 8az~et~ vent on to a~a~e ~t they ~d ~d ~ny
Vi~ t~e neighbozl and had ~ted to aulve~ t~iz q~ltXomm ~ega~dXng
~he ~ole and ability o~ the develope~ to solve tho d~ainage
problem. M~. Barrett felt t~t the develo~m~ woul~ benefit
luz~ounding neighbozs by concentza~in~ on the ~ gIoM and leas
siltation entering ~het~ pond. Planning a~ Zani~'e ~jor
opposition, as ta~ as ~he neighbors ~e~e concerned, dealt ~l~h
stozm d~ainage p~oblems,
Council Member Gtephen~ asked to aec ~o dzainage ~p up oloee~.
aho~d how the detention ponds would el~ai~te eo~ o~ ~{e p=oble~
conceit Kembe~ S~ephene asked about ~he size cE tbs de~en~ n po~8.
~. ~zet~ explained t~t the e~c~ size and depth et the ponds had
~t yet been
~yo~ Stewart asked ti ~he ~otal nu~be~ el ponds would be lou~.
NE. Ba~ett ~eplted ~hat the~e would be ~ou~ po~s tn ~he uppe~
possible.
Couneit Membe~ aiddtespe~ge~ asked i~ Acme B~ic~ o~ed the ~and
the way do~ to Mission
Mt. ~ttett replied t~t Acme Brick did o~ t~t la~ and tha~ ~hey
abutted t~ett 1a~ on the west.
Council Member Riddles~etget asked t~ there would be access ~o
~. 377.
~. B/t~e~t replied ye~.
~. Mitchell H. ~nez spoke tn lavo~ of the petition. He
~t he vas a volun~ee~ spokesBan ~o~ this pa~icuta~ development.
~ opposed the ii,st two petitions, bu~ vas nov tn ~avoz o[
p~esen~ petition. He deli t~t Che~e veze two ~IQZ conce:ns
153
City of Denton City Council Xinnteo
Xeeting of July ~6.
Page Seven
the homeowners (t) t~at there would be no light industrial, no
sales, un apts,, (2) needed a buffe£ zone west of Teasley and no£th
of H0beon that would have tote of similac size am those on the other
side. The developers segmented two meetings w~th the ho~eE6 and
thet~ objectives - tho~e o~ bu~e~ zones, a homeovne~ neig~bo~hood.
~easoaable density, ~eall(t~c land use, d~ai~ge plan ts good. ~.
~gne~ ~ntehe4 by asking ~he Council to cons~de: approval of the
pett~ien.
~E. ~o~ Olufsen spo~e in ~avoz. He agreed ~ith the v~ewa
~z. ~z a~ sexed the Council to approve the
M~. Tho~8 Gain 8po~e tn opposi~on. He 8ta~ed that he van not
Teaeley ~uld be C~xed ag i~ vould goon be ove~ capacity. He
an e~gin~tng study be completed on the 8eve~ ~actlit~e8 and (Z)
v~th the dzai~ge in the azea. He felt ~hat the new development
~oul~ ~nc~ease the p~ob~e~s ~t alzeady existed. The wate~ e~udtes
~eze no~ co,plate. ~ ~elt t~t the p~oJeot was p~e~tu~e - tha~
all ~he neeesaa~y ho~E~ had not been
The ~yo~ allo~d ~. ~aE~ett to speak bzieEly ~n ~ebuttal.
~2ntghed ~ich would bi tn a ~tte~ o~ men, he. knd ~uld
adequately 8ezve the aeon. Dealing with the street issues,
M~. BeEperS ezplained t~t Mission StEeet would be used Eo~ the
neighbozhood, but also on the new "develop~n= and ~hat the
develo~eE8 ~e as co~eE~d about ~he new construction aa the
neigb~hood, The ~v d~elo~men~ vou~4 he~p the d~ai~ge p~oblem.
that the ecoa had a~ eoutd have done 8o years ago.
~il~ with 3 $~ ~a~ a~ 9 in o~poe[tton. The t~aot was 90~
~esideut~al [n ~tuze an~ Van a ~ow ~n~eme~ty a~ea. The proposed
develop~n~ wa8 co~pa~Ible wi~h ex~uting laud use. The developez8
an ~t on this ~zoJec~. Therefore, PGZ ~eco~e~ed that
~eco~nd~ approval W~ ~L oond[ttong by a vo~e nC 4-3.
Cou~l ~e~ ~ephen8 agke~ what wag ~he ~fe o~ a detention pond.
Ca,non ~e~l~ed t~ she d~d not know, bu~ tha~ tt wa~
unde~l~an~ng t~t the ho~o~ne~s ~e~e ~equ~ed to ~a~nta[n the
pond~ ~n a eo~ion so ~ ~a~e~ ~ou~d be ~etatned.
Cou~tl ~ ~a~ oomuented that she ~elt the development had
ao~ vezy ~ait~ve ae~e~e, one being tha~ t~e enti{e tzars was
be~ do~e ~ One ~eveloDee. That ~evelope~ would be concerned with
tho ~Ek~. e~e., all the Way through the develop~nt.
154
City o~ Denton City Council
M~et'tng o~ July 16, 1985
'Page ~ight
McAdam8 motion. Chew second to app£ove the J)e~tion with the
c~nditions attached by the Planning ,and 2chins Costa%anion.
C~u~tcil Me~bez stephens aa~ed i~ Mission ItEeet ~tae a' dedicated
a~eet and ho~ the zight-o~-~ay ~aa going ~o be obtatmed ~zo~
p~ivltely o~ed p~opl~y and should ~he City'l ~lgh~ ~f
be uled. IE ~he ~ght-o~-way could no~ ~ obtaine~, .~ul~ the ~ole
development be In t~ouble.
Caeson ~eplied that Mission 5tzeet did exist, but tt bad not been
detezuined t~ it wac a publicly dedicated s~zeet. Pazt o~ ~he
access. Negotiations would ~ve ~o be ~de with p~o~ty o~ezs
~bEa D~ayov~tch, C~ty Attorney, added most su~lv~s~on oEd~nanees
~ a pzovielon ~hat ti the ~evelepeze were u~ble ~ accuse ~he
z~gh~-oE-waM land [zom the pztva~e ho~o~naza t~t ~e City ~uld
Itep in an4 use its pQve~ OE conde~tion with the ~etl ~ing
by ~he developeE.
~uncil ~abe~ Stephen8 grated t~t he ~d th~ o~ee~ns ~tth the
development. One being the lo~e~ lm~enaLty Which ~ad ~en ~t. the
othe~ was dzai~ge with all the questions not being a~zed on that
had been answered. Stephens suggested an *~nt to t~e ~ttou to
bl~K access ~o ~easley ~ane until ~he ~ouz-lane Job vas
a~ zeady ~o handle
Counci~ aembec aidd~eepe~go~ stated that one could not b~ock a
public etzeet.
Council ~embez S~ephena gave several exaa~lee cE t~eee~e ~hat
el~s~ cz te~po~aztly blocke~ until othe~ co~ltio~ ~e co~pleted-
o~ o~ ~hoae being Lillian 8. ~tllec Pa~ay.
Cou~l ~be~ Rtddlespe~ge~ s~ated that it ~uld be too
a~aduent to he~ motion.
Cou~o~l Me~be~ Hopkins stated ~e OQBX~'~ a~Eee to ~l~l Teasley.
aa the detention ponds an4 t~e tkngle developec concept.
~FoE Stewact called to ~emove the amendment. Passed
~yo~ 8tewazt called to vote om tho uott~. Motion eaczied 6-1 with
Council MeubeE Stephens casting the "~y" vote.
C. The Council held a public ~azi~ ~,t~ ~e~t~icn of Peg~
8uznetde ~equemting a epectflc use ~z~t ia a at~le gamily
~ni~g dtstz~ct on a 2.1 acze tzact. T~e t~act ~s l~e~ at the
Nazazene ~dition. I~ app=oved, the specific uae ~zBlt ~uld allow
~he ope=ation of a day caze centex in a single ~aaily (~F-~) zoning
The ~Moz opened the public
a day oa~e/Chctetian p~e-ae~ool. ~ liited sevocal zeamon.
cbuzch that alEeady existed; ~t w&8 o~8 o( the heat l~ationm in
155
City o! Denton City Council 14~nutee
Meet~ o£ July 16, lgs~
Page #~ue
adequate; ~cese to prope£ty ~zom Hercules; large site (2.1 actes)~
~z·nSp~zt·tion would not be a probleu as the ·pproach to
would be plenty o~ parking ·t the site. He went on to st·ts that
utilities ~ould not be a problen ·s they are alEe·dy suitable and
that there were no d~ainage problems. Pastor Burnside ~elt that
therJ vas · held ~or i Christian pre-school ~n Denton and that the
Chu£c~ nu~ht to ~e ·lloYd to oper·te the pre-school as an extension
o~ ~eiz ~ini·try- ~o extend the uae c~ the church th£oughout the
wesk~ ~ deaial o~ the petition would be a ~en~a~ o~ ~ei~ zeXlo~oua
~ae~OZ ~u~ne~e ze~l~e~ ~ha~ ~e ~el~ ~ ~e nei~boz~ ~i~ no~
a c~zo~ ~u~l~ on ~a~ a~e in ~a ~i~a~ place.
~oun~ll ~e~ ~1~o~ a~ed ~ ~e~e would be a c~az~a ~o~
c~=~a~an ~ea~n~ng. T~e Chu~o~ woul~ be cha~g~ng ~o~ a p~o~t, bu~
~ ~UI~ be pEovi~mg a geEvice and cha~ging ~o~ ~ha~ service.
Ma. ~IM ~el~ ~ ~=e was a meed ~oz a day ca~e ~n ~ha~ a~ea,
at ~Ee ~. o~ly oma o~hoz ~ay care north o~ Um~vezu~y Drive, She
s~uotu~e the Church ~. She explained ~t the ~ont and
weze b~icX, the back. steel. The back was steel ~o a~ to allo~ io~
iuzthez expansion ao~et~e ~n the insure, T~a~tic ~ould not be a
p~oblea as the ilo~ ~ould be directed through the packing lot.
ex~eaa~on el ~he atn~e~M. Tzalitc would not be a pzoble~ as all
Hz. ~y~al Bullock spo~e ~n opposition o~ the pe~i~on. ~ s~oke o~
ho~e~eza. HO~e ~ze bou~ in a e~ngle Eam~ly d~elling zone a~
zoni~. Tza~ic had al~eady increased ~n the area on Nednesday
event~ a~.Su~ay and ~e t~a~E~c ~oul~ be expected t~ a day ca~e
weee ~O open. ~elatl~ to t~e t~a~ftc 9~obleu, ~. Bullock stated
tha~ He~cule~ na=zo~ greatly when ~t ~nte~ects wi~h She=Ban and
that il vii ve=y bu·y. The~e we=e no sidewalls and Only one
dangerous ~n~e=eeotton. He went on ~ say tha~ ~e butXd~ng now did
no~ eo~o~m ~o the othecl in tbs neighborhood. He ~el~ ~hat any
type si co~eial e~ozt could be da~ging w~th
co~e~cial deliveries, ~eee, adde~ ~a~[to would be o~ concern ~oz
~eei~en~ a~ their children. ~. Bullock asked the Council to deny
side lines. She wee in oppoettton to the bus,ness- not the church.
156
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Keeling of July 16. 1985
Page Ten
Ma. Leu Cannon spoke in opposition. She elated that ? yea£e ego
they built at their location because of restrictions. Bhe felt that
since the chu£ch has been built the property value of the
su£zounding homes had gone down. She also felt that He£culee posed
a problem in that the tu£n from Hercules and Sherman was ve£y
dangerous,
M~. ~a£tha BpEinger spoke in opposition. She stated that the
exte£toE of the church was of~ensiYe. The day eaEe bull~ese o~ the
church would make lot cE money fez the church. The church was also
non-profit, so they wouldn.t pay taxes on the money they took in.
1~. Gene Keyer spoke in opposition. He stated that Hercules Lane
was not represented correctly on the map shown to-th~Council. The
added day care traffic would be a p~oblem. The playground
facilities abut the neighbors'
Me. Shanna Child spoke in opposition, ihs stated that the church
~ould not be able to expand unless it came very close to
bac~yard. & playground would go right next to her yard. She stated
that 8he had read an article from the Denton
advertising foe pre-school care at the church. Felt t~at this vas
Jumping the gun,
Pastor Burnside cemented on the following points: (1) both Hercules
and Sh®Eman were scheduled foe expansion in the near future (2)
day care8 ween located ~n residential a£eas be~alle it provided easy
access to the public, (3) the assistant pastor of t~e ehurch went
dooE-to-doo£ and talked to the neighboEs about the project, (4) the
church met all the code requirements of the City, (S) the
Day out program does not need a license up to 12 children. He felt
church should be able to provide religious teaching Monday th£ough
F~ida¥. even when the church vas not meeting.
The ~a¥or closed the public hearing.
The Denton Development Guide classified this area es a lev intensity
area and listed Give criteria that the ~uide stated diverse land
uses should meet when proposed in lo~ intensity areas. (l) A strict
site design control within one block of existing low denlity
£eeidential land uae. This being a speoitic use permit, specific
aondittons and development requiEe~ents could be attached to it
before an occupancy permit could be issued. (2) Density and
inteas~t¥ standards would not be violated with the ~evelopment
street or larger. Hercules fulfills thee Eequireuent. (4)
Sufficient green space for recreation should be provided. This
tract ia 2.1 acres and meets this cEiteria. (5) Input into the
planning by the neighborhood vas difficult to determine without
directly being involved in it. Wails the site had several positive
features, there van strong opposition by the local residents. The
residents wanted to maintain the present residential aspects of
their neighborhood. Planning and Zoning zeco~aended denial by a
vote ef 7-0.
Council Member &lfoEd stated he could understand the feelings of the
he,no,mere and was sorry that perhaps a day care wo~ld not be able
to be p£ovided in this area of town but he had been out and watched
the traf[ic himself and that the preble~ was sufficient for denial
o! the petition.
&lfoEd motion, Chew second to deny the petition ae presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
~,eetLng 08 July 16, ~985
Page Rleven
D. The Council h~ld a public hearing on the petition o~ &llen
Pteroe £eq~elttng a e~ange in zoning ~Eom tb~ uulti-~&ully (~F-1)
and genecAA zetail (~) elasei~ication to the planned development
(PD) 4littLer. The el&et vas located on the vest lide o~ Bonnie
U~aelStreet &pp£oxiautely S00 feet north o~ Welt O~K Street,
T~e ~yo~ o~eaed c~e pubZi~ hel~ng.
~avoz. T~ ~uee~ ~ld sezve as a lite ~oz a ~-stozy, 50-bed
hoept~l. ~ supplied ~he ~e~ails as to ~hat type cE ee~vtcas the
holpi~&l would bm able ,to pEovide. The Texas Health
Co~to~ ~d g~6n~ed a ce~ti~icato o~ need. IT begun
9eptlu~z, L~85, the hoapi~al you,d be completed in ~8 uonths. 8ire
~uld be an excellen~ lo~ation as it already had access to t~e
Texas ~ical Cente~.
Mo one spoke im
The ~yoz exceed ~e p~bl~c
Denigo Gpivey, DeVmlO~ent Revtov Planne~, ~epozted t~ eight ~eply
~o~ls ~d been M~led with one ~ecoived ~n ~avoE a~ none
opposition. ~e de~lop~nt would ~nclude a t~-stocy, 50-bed
with existing eu~:o~ing medical Eat[little. The moderate
sub~vigio~ ~e~la~ion8 excep~ ~o~ curb cuta. T~e petttione~a ~ad
agreed V~h the need ~o~ an additional curb cut. The landscaping
and qeeen azeaa ~e a~thez positive and ample pa~king di~ exist.
Pla~i~ a~ ~ning zee~ed appzoval.
- ~ ~io~, Choy e~cond to approve the petition al p~e~ented.
E. T~ Council ~ld a public hea~ing o~ Burke
eep~e~ing M. Bluon~ B~own, ~equesting a c~nge ~n zoning E~ou the
agz~o~l~uzal (&) olaggi~taation to the uulti-~auily (~-1)
claetigieation. The tzoet vas located on 6.922 acres as shown
the J. Fte~e% 8ucvey, ~t~act 421.
The ~o~ open~ ~he public hea~ing.
~. ~. ~t Bz~ e~Xe ~u iavoz. He stated that. il approved, 2
and 4 ~a~ily ze~idenc~ ~uld be p~ovided ~o~ ~o~e special people.
I~ aV~eoved, all Clem e~ee amd atandazde ~ould be ~et, in ze~azd
· et ~c~ ~eete a~ the like. Felt that the~e ~e~e
mot be 2~ unite pez aeze developed on the p~ope~ty and at no tine
was the~e an in~en~ton co do cha~. When wen~ to ~ & Z, ~he~e vas
some coa~elen Eeqa=dt~ ~C type GE zoning was being =equemted.
~ent with 11 unite cZ leis, ~he p~opoeal might be ~e aero,ably
zeceived, and he ~elt ~t ~ been co--Bloated. T~t deatze
not e~ica~ed tO V & Z. a~ the day become. P & Z va~ asked
plate ~or 12 ~ze z~y. T~G plate were obtained and then veze
T~a~lo ~ 8~4~ ~uXd be ,ho~ to be an addi~onal St ove~
conceptually, BE~ ~te~ed t~t it Would be 3t with t~a~ic
· ov~ la ~ d~tt~eat diEeatione- north on billian, west on
Teasi~ a~ ~uth oa ~ 218~. Bto~ stated t~t one cE the
neighbors ~d stated ~blicly t~t 8~o~ ~nte~ed to obtain t~e
change tn aching a~ t~n resell the property. He coutended that
t~t ~uld not be the ease and that he ~ould participate in it Etom
the ~ginn~ to the e~ el the development. BZ0~ explained that
the de~lo~t ~uld ~u4e 8o~ 2 and 4 tauily zeatdeacea
people who a~e phyat~lly hendicapped. ~o specific a~eas to
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
~eating o2 July 16, 1985
Page Twelve
address: (1) the building would have not only the approp~iate
ingress/egress and railings, but also walkways with turnouts on the
g£ounds. In additiom, outside recreational ~acilities such aa
tennis courts, shuffle board areas, swiming pool with handrails and
special equipment for the handicapped ~ould be installed.
inside ~acilitiem would be developed to adjust to the handicapped.
Bzo~u emphasized that around 75-80 units on the react would be
acceptable and in the initial stage did request 100 units due to
sn~e financial unknowns. It would be conceivable that upon ~inal
(o~Elce/~eta~l) directly ac~o~ the It~eet i~ the Bent
addition. B~o~n ~elt that the~e ~eee 5 point~ to ~e the
ideal to their request: (1) e~ll tn e~ze- would not ne~ativelM
iupact the a~ea, (2) accessible ~o I35, (3) t~eEe aec other
subdivisions ~n the a~ea t~t were geared to~a~d Special people-
these types o~ co~uu~ties were in the aa~ location, (5) elevation
~ould be ~deal- no mo~e than a 12' diE~e~ence bet~en the low spot
Council Ne~be~ ~tephen~ a~ked tf Bro~ kn~ the zoning before
bought the
~a~a~dtm~ ~he zoning.
~o~ ~epl~ed t~t he tooW Eull zeepon{ibili2y aa ~o the conEualon.
He ~ae out cE to~ on bueineea. Originally aubmtt~ed t~t We wanted
lO0 u~te (~-~) but did not know that he could ~o up ~o ~5
pec acre aa he only Wan~ed ~00 uni~e ~ximum. Received a lettec on
~zch 21, 19~5, which stated that the {~-~). becaume tt did allo~
~en agreed to go aheaa ~o P & Z, ~ W~S W~h h[~ unde~etanding
would be ae 8~a~ed in the lette~. A fo~l,l lette~ o~ ~eplatting was
not done. Wag astuued verbally. Day before, P G Z dttcove~ed
was e~ll (~-1) and that it was too late to change.
~evelopment would be a de[intte plus ~oz the City because she ~id not
know cE am~ othe~ complex tn the C~tM o~ ~nton o~ the surrounding
area which would o~e~ aa many outs[de zec:eatto~l ~aetlitiea
~n~icapped ~n the City but they did not o~fe~ the OUtlidl
that thin one would. She [alt that the City o~ ~nto~ ~ul~ g~eatly
benefit 8zo~ a development such aa ~z. ~ze~ ~a~
~. Je~M Colt apo~e ~n oppoai~ion. Ha ~elt ~t he ~aa ~ot quite
sure ~at being diecuseed. He ca~ in believing t~t (~-1)
being ~equeated. He was against that type of lon~ng. Regardless cE
the uae, 7~-100 unite tn t~t area would a~ect all of ~he
surrounding property. He suggested tha~ the p~eeem~ petition be
denied and table the p~opo~al untl~ tt was clea~ ~t type of zoning
~uld be ~equeated. 5ug~este~ a zonin~ cE (8F-~6). The
~ould appcove o~ ~ha~ type o~ zoning. He also elated ~t ~.
~old h~m t~t he (8~o~u) had no in~ea~ion o~ eo~pleting ~he
and, ~n light o[ that co~en~. ~uld eu~ee~ a beqiant~g date a~ an
ending da~e Eoz the p~oJect o~ the zoning ~ould ~evezt back
agricultural (k).
~. Xyle Thompson s~o~e ~n op~os~ion. He could not go along
the zon~n~ cE (~-1) as it ~ould allo~ the o~ez ~zeedo~ ~a
whateve~ he wanted to do wi~h the 9~ope~t~. He 2elt t~ M~. B~o~
waa no~ au=e wha= he wan~ed to do
159
City o~ Denton City Council Minu~es
Page Thizteen
M£. ~loTd C&lvezt speke in opposition. He vas concerned about the
ttag~lc pzoblem~ ~ticb the development would create.
The Mayoc alloyed Mt. B~ to speak b~tetly in £ebuttal.
Brown listed that the traffic would inczease, but since it would go
in three dt~eetioms amd ~ith t~ eventual widening o~ ~ 21el. theze
~ould 'be mo p~oble~ ~i2h the t~a~ic. ~ith ~ega~ to the
developing, 8co~ stated t~ them would li~e to put ~n between
60-~00 unite so as to co~ ou~ ~nc[ally, but aa yet do not
the ~int~ ~be~ o~ unite. ~ould agree ~o hav~ng t~e petition
tabla~ eo as to ge~ the p~opez zoning and also wcul~ ageee to a
be~tnnt~g a~ end~ date as suggested by M=. Corr.
Coune~l ~/~ Hopk~nm amked iC Mfr. Bco~ had considered (8F-16)
zoning.
B~o~ ~eplie~ that they ~d not studied the ~eaeibtlity o~
but ~hough2 ~hat i~ ~uld not be [i~ncially ~eastble. l~ the
devel~n~ ~e mo~ ~he ~YPe he ~as suggesting, but ~athez a
stza~ght deval=~en~, ~eu pe~ps (5F-~6) would be
Council Me~ Hopkins asked t~ the uni~ was a ~lti-atozy unit.
8zo~ zeplied Mci with the lo~z units ~oz the ~ndtcappmd a~ the
uppez ~oz n~n-ha~icapped.
Council ~ ~p~tne stated that ps,have it wan bette~ to ~eny
The ~o~ closed the public hea~ing.
oE~ioe/~ltt-~altl~ de~lop~ents tn the aces. ~i approved, the
interCOM a~andaz~ ~uld be exceeded bM 12q. P & Z was no~ opposed
to t~ concept, but wee oppoeed to the location and the ~eeltng that
the azea ~a too ove~l~ con,eared w~th d~e~ent zonings. Seven
~epl~ ~o~ ~ea ~l~ ~lth none ~etu~ned in Eavoz, Eou~
ovvo~itton. ~launin~ aa~ Zontn~ denied the zequeat.
StepPes ~tiom, Rtddlel~zge~ mecond to deny the pmti~ion.
Couno~l ~bez ~a~a ad,ed ~at ~he Councit was not opposed
this t~pe o~ housing, bu~ ~as opposed to the ~ zontn~ ~equeet.
~oti~ was ~enied umantaously.
Thl Council held a ~bl~c hla~tng on the petition o[ the
City o~ ~ton ~QE anme~a~on oi epp~ox~tely tls ae~em o[ land.
The tenet Was located' tn the J. Meet Survey, Abstract 1331
locat~ ap)Eox~toly 5,000 ~eet no,th cE U.8. H~ay 380 Ra~t a~
The ~yez o~ned t~ ~blic heactng.
~epo~.i~ that a~ne~t~ p~oceedings had begun app~oxi~tely
the ii,It ~blic b~ct~ o~ the n~ pe~ition. ~11 the ptopett~
belonged to the ~it~ 9g ~llae. Mext scheduled action ~uld be a
public heazi~ on ~uq~st ~th. I~ continued ae scheduled,
anme~tion ~uld be 6eptembez 2A,
The ~yo~ ~lole~ the ~bl~ heating.
160
City ct Denton City Council Kinutee
Meeting at July 16, 1985
Page Fourteen
unanimously.
The Council held a public he&zing on an oEdinauce alen~tng
appendix B-Zoning cC the Code cC Ordinances cE the City cC Denton to
sa~e o~ less restrictive zoning ~ist~ict Wi~h~m a t~elve-~nth
~o ~yo~ opened ~he public hea~ing.
~epocting that Eot Mea~ ~lamning an~ Zoning ~ act allo~d a
t~8 ~ould be a good [a~th pol~c~ a8 Ea~ as ~l~hbOEbOOd8 were
No one spo~e tn op~osition.
Tbs following o£dtnauce wa8 p~eiented:
AN O~DZNANCE OF TH~ CITY OF DLqfI~N, T~EA6 ~DXN~ APPENDIX B-Z~I~
OF ~ COD~ OF O~IN~8 ~ P~IBIT PBT~TI~
~ 8~ P~OPE~ FO~ ~ S~ OR A LEeS ~8~ICTI~ ZON~ DI6~I~
· FF~CT~ D~.
~a~ ~oved, Che~ ~econd to adopt the o~di~ae, On ~oll call
· ~ddleepe~ge~ "aye." C~ev "aye," a~ ~yo~ Stewart "aye." Notion
H. The Council be~d a publ~ ~e&=~ on In ~=dt~nee ame~tng
~pend~x B-Zoning o8 the Code
a~la ~e~lat~on~ a~91[cable to zoning d~lC~tot8; ~ov~4t~g ~o~ a
~x~um pe~l~y cE 81,000.0o ~o= v~olattons thereof: 9~oviding ~o= a
isys=ability clause; and p=ovid~ng ~o= an
The ~yo= opened ~he public hearing.
Jet~ ~ye=, Di~eoto= o~ Planning ipo~e ~n taro= Ot the o~di~nce
~t9otting that tbi~ would e~ ~ulative zoui~.
fa~ity zoning and =hat ault[-~a~tty could go all
It~le fauily. Thil type o~ ZOning had thzee
was costly- unilit[es had tzouble locating ~e ~,J~ea~e 8~uld
go, e~c. (2) neighbozhood integEtty- could change aspect of
ne~g~bozhood, (3) ~e8 land sales
land sold and ~e8old) with no building being done on ~heu. Took
these above three tteme ~nto accou~ a~ tr~ed to ~o~e up wl~h gone
~YPe o~ zoning. ~at practical
L~ght indu8~rial cz conezcial would bo able ~o do ~ything exeep~
Tony Repons spoke tn ~avo~ o~ the pet~tion. He had attended the
developuent meettn~ o~ July 9, ~985.
161
City o~ Denton City Council #inures
Meeting of July 16, lgss
Page Fifteen
and aapoea hoped that the Council vould agree to it also.
Mt. les Mallace spoke in ~avot o~ the petition elating that he
supported the gtauA~athe~ clause a~tet having had seve£al meetings.
He a~ad that the Council also support the petition.
Mz. Jack Millet spoke in ~avo~ of the petition. He stated the the
Boa~d o~ Directors and Executive Comttttae cC the Chaubez suppo£t
the petition. Hhe Cham~ezs conce£n dell with the el[active date
the change. I~ too eoo~ &[[e~ a~opttOno the£e would be a
p£obleu.
No one spo~e tn opposition.
The 14&yo£ closed the public
step,ese ~ion. I~da~a second ~o approve pent,ion aa race.ended
by ~e Dizec~oz o~ Planning.
council ~et Mc~ame oo~en~e~ ~hat she apptecia~ed ~he o~et o~
~he develo~m~ plans ~zoa ~e developezs because
hat ~ ~he ~evelopet~ u~etn~ood ~he degree o~ the problem ~e
The ~O~lOv~ng ot~noe vas presented:
DI6~I~8; PRe,DING ~R A ~ PENALTY Of 81.000,00 FOR
On ;OX1 041I ~te, ~aat "aye," Hopkins "aye." Stephens "aye, Il
A1COEd says," Riddlel~tget .aye," chew "aye,*' an~ ~yo; S~eva;~
"aye.** ~t~on catEie~
4. Ot6i~moee:
A. The Cou~l cone~dete~ a~o~tion of an ot~inance
acce~tin~ coape~tve bide an~ pzovid~ng ~o~ ~he awaz~
~oz the puzc~se o~ ~eziale, equipmen~, supplies o~ ee~vicea:
pzovid~ng ~oz the expe~u~e o~ ~unde ~heze~o~ an~ p~ovid~n~ fo~
an e~ec~ive ~a~e.
The ~o~Xowiag o~l~nce ~ p~e~en~ea:
PH~IDI~ FOR ~ EEP~I~ OF F~B ~REFOR; ~ PROVIDING FOR
HOV~ ~t~on. M~a~ 8e~o~ to adopt the oEd~nanc,. On =o11 call
VOte, Me~ii8 "aye," KOpk~l "aye," Stephens "aye," Al~otd "aye,"
RlddleipetgeE "aMI," Ch~ "aye." and ~yor Stewa~ "aye." Mo~ion
caz~ied u~nl~oualy.
B. ~e Co.oil considered adoption o~ an o~dinance
accepting eo~e~ive bids a~ p=oviding fo= the awa=d cE contzacta
~o= publ~o wo~ka cz iap=ove~nte; provtd[n~ Eoz the expe~tu~e
~unda the~e~o=~ and p=ovt~ing ~o~ an e[Eective date.
162
City of Denton City Council Wtnutaa
lleeting of July 16o 1085
PaSt Sixteen
The following ordinance was p£asantad:
NO, 95-139
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE RIDS AND PROVIDXN(] FOR THE
OP CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC MeEKs OR IMPrOVe: PROVIDIN~ FOR
RKP~NDITURE OF FUNDS THeREFOr= AND PROVIDING FOR AN EPPEC~I3fli DATE.
Chew motion. Algocd second to adopt the o£dtnanee, on roll call
VO~O, Mc&dame "aye," Hopkins "aye," 6~ephene #aFa," Al~o£d
Eiddlespergaz "aye." Chew 'aye.' end irdyoc Stewart "aye." Motion
car:ica unanimous~y.
C, The Council considered adoption o~ an ordinance
providin~ fo~ the expondituze of funds ~o~ emergency puzchaeee of
u~terials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with
provisions of s~&te law exempting such puzchaae8 f£om requirements
of competitive bids~ and providing ~or en effective date.
The ~ollowtng o~dinance wes presented:
NO. 85-140
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUND8 FOR
PUt,HARES OF MATERIALS. EQUIPMENT, 8UPPL~R~ OR SERVICES IN
]~:OiDANCE WITH THE PROVISI0~qS OF 9TAT~ LAN KXEMPTII~3' SUCH PURCHAPE8
FROI( REQUiREMeNTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS~ AND PROV~DIN(] FOR AN
8FP~CT IVE DkTE.
McAdams motion, C~ew Second to adopt ~he o£dlnauce. On roll call
vote. ~cAdams ~ay®o~ Hopkins ~"aya." Stephens #eye.~ Alford ~e~e,
Etddlaaparger "eye.~ Chaw "aye," and Ita¥o~ 6tewa~t "&ya." Motion
ca=rind unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption o! &n o=dtaance
accepting the dedication by deed from Texas Utilities Electric
Company of that portion of certain zeal pro~rty situated in the
William Teague Survey. AbstraCt iii&, l~nton CountFo Tax&e. aa
described in said dedication deed. to 't~ City et IMnton. Texas.
the usa of said property as a publtc strait; end declarin~ an
effective date.
Chris Itartung. City Manager. explained that this was fo£ the
extension of Colo£ado Blvd. and ~oodrow.
The following ordinance was p£eeented:
NO. ~
AN ORDINANC~ ACCEPTIN9 TH]~ DEDICATIOM BT DERD erda TEXAS UTILITIES
~LRCTRIC COMPANY OF THAT PORTION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPRRTY 8ITUATRD
IN TI~ NI~LIAM TEAGUE 5UR~EY, ABSTHACT 1266, ~ ~, T~XASo
1~ D~SCRIBED IN 5AID DEDICATION DEED, TO THE CITY OF D~MTON,
FO~ T[~ USE OF SAID PROPERTY A8 A PUBLIC 8THEFT A~D D~CLARIN~ AN
~ECTIVE DATE.
MoAdama motion. Al~ord second to adopt the ordtn&noa. On =oll call
vote. McAdams "aye.' Hopkins nays." Stephens "aye,, Al~ozd "&ye,"
Eiddleaperge= "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewazt "a~e." #orion
carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption o~ an o~dtnance
setting a date. time and place fo~ public hea~tngs conca~ning the
petition of Mille~ of Texas ~o~ annexation of approxiRately 304.9
ac=em composed of four parcels ~oc&tad no=th and south o~ PM 426,
east and west of Trinity Road, end south of Higlude¥ 380 last.
163
city o~ 'Denton City court, il Minutes'
2o~ fez ~he ~bl~c hea=iage.
T~ P~ ~TI~ ~ CBRTA~N P~gRTY AS D~SCHtBED ~[N BY
~ P~GH ~IC~ OF 8U~ P~C
vo~e, ~Adall "aye," bpk~nl .aye." S~ephens "aye," AlCo~d
R~daleepeEgec ,,aye. ~ Ck~ .aye. ' and ~yoc G~ewac~ "aye."
ipp~oxtutely 3~8.66 aa~el ~n 8~ze being a pitt o~ the S. Myers
Butvey. ~et~aet 843~ a~ the A. Ktlle~ Survey, Ablttaot 887, and
begtnalaq ~lt o~ U~e~o~ ~oad, eaBt o~ ~. Wolfe ~oad, south
~1 C~zietal Hoed, a~ ~=t~ oE To~ Cole Road.
David Elli~ 5enio~ Planne:, repoz~ed that ee=vice Diane we=e
available i~ aeeded.
Council ~lbez Hop~nl inked ig the p=opezty was tn ~he co~=ido=
the atzpo~.
Ellieon' temgonded
T~e ~o~lowtng ordinance vas pteaented:
CX~ ~ ~. TE~; BRI~ ~h ~T ~, T~CT OR P~L OF
C~XGTI~ OF ~P~X~Y 258.66 ~RE5 OF ~ LY~ ~
SI~A~D ~ ~ ~ OF DI~. STATE OF ~S ~ BEI~ P~T OF
~ 8. ~5 6~Y. ~ ~43 ~D T~ A. MILLER SURLY, ABSTRACT
867, ~ ~, TE~= C~GS~FY[NG ~ 5~ AG AQRZCUL~L "A"
HopKi~, ~tiO~, ~W Imco~ to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, Mc~a~ "aye," ~pkine "aye," 8tephenl "aye," AlOof4 "aye,
Rid41eepetgec "aye," ~ "aye," a~ ~yot s~e~t~ "aye."
cat,ii4 u~ntmou~ly.
~. The Co--il co,midi=ed adoption og an o=d~nance
appz~vi~ an a~en~a~oc~ a~=ee~mnt between the City og Denton and
Se~vicee PEog~am ~ot ~ing Nmed8 (SP~); au~hotizing the Mayor ~o
execute ~he ag=ee~nt; a9pcoving ~he expenditu~e og ~u~a thereto=;
and pzcvtding ~o~ an e~ec~ve date.
Elizabeth Evanm, Co~u=iCy ~=ant ~ge=, a~ked t~t the cont=act
between t~ C~M ~d %P~ (Hand,hop) be amended. The ~otal coat
Chi a~mt ~uld be
The ~ollowing o=~nce wee p=elented:
~ ~DIM~ ~PH~I~ ~ ~A~RY ~HE~T BE~EN ~R CI~ OF
~R~R; ~ PROVXDI~ FOR ~ EFFECT~ DA~.
164
City cE Denton City Council Minutes
~eeting of July 16, 1985
Page ~ighteen
AlCotd motion, McAdams s®cond to adopt ~he Qtdina~t~e. On Eoll call
vets, MeAd&il "aye," Hopkins "aye,'* Stephens "aye," Al~oEd "aye,"
Riddlesps~ge£ "aye." Chew "aye," and Mayo~ Stoa&Et "&ye."
oi~ied unenilouel¥.
H. The Council considezed adoption of an ozdinanne
&ppgoving an agreement betyeen the City of Denton and
Niobols, Inc., ~o~ enginee~ing consulting sotvioes in eo~necton with
p~ov~ing ~o~ an e[~ect~ve da~e.
upgrade the ez~sting wate~ tee&anent pla~. The oou~ee~ cost ~u~d
be a~ou~ 9406,0OO. ~hould be on-line by ~987.
The ~ollow~ng o~d~nanee was
~. 85-144
~ ~IN~CR APPR~ING ~ AQR~ BE~RN ~ C~ Of
~ION ~I~ T~ ~5~U~I~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~!
~e action, ~e~ ~eco~ to ad~t the o~dtn~ee. ~n ~oll call
VO~e, Mc~aa~ "aye," Hopkins "aye," 8tephe~t "lye," A~o~d
itddleepeEgec .l~e... C~ew "aye," end ~yoE 5tevig~ "eye."
clE~ie~ unan~uoue~y.
z. The Council cons~deced adoption oE an o~d~nce
app~op~[ating the gum o~ two ~und~ed seven ~houaind a~ ~ive hu~ed
dollars (1207.500) ream the unapp~op~iated ~len~e o~ t~ ~ene~al
~ to account ~unds ~o0-004-02~-8938 and ~00-~5-0~5M-89~6 and
deela~ng an e~ect~ve date.
Ch~ts ~tung. City ~nage~, ata~ed ~ha~ ~htg ~ ~be budget
a~uduont Eo~ F~ Hospital and
The ~ollow~ng o~dina~ce was
~ O~[N~CE ~l~ ~ 1984-85 B~BT Of ~ Cl~ Of D~,
~8, BY ~PROPRIATING ~ 8~ Of ~ ~D 8~ ~US~
FI~ ~RED ~L~S (~207,500) f~ ~ ~P~IA~D ~L~
GE~ F~ ~ ~ F~8 ~00-OO~-020~-~938
· l~ord motion, Ch~ second to adopt the ocdinanee. On
RiddlempeEge~ "aye." ~hev "lye," &~ ~yot 8~agt ..aye.. Mo~lo~
caeE~ed u~uimouely.
S. aeaolut~ons:
A. The Council conside~ed a zeeolution autho~z~n~ the
David T~na~ey, Planning ~nte~n, asked ~oE approval to 8ubu~t
appl~cation ~o the Texas Department o~ Couuntty AEratES ~OE ~und~ng.
~e ~ollow~ng ~eeolution wa8 p~esented:
165
~OLUTION
Denton to &utbo~ize the tubRie~ion o~ an application to the Texas
Rental Rehabilitation P~o~aR Fund [o£ ~ede~al ~unds; and
~A5. the City et Denton ia eligible to zeceive such
~unds amd ~eei£es to apply Eoz [ederal [unds administered by the
Texas Rental Re~abilitation P£og~am Fund; a~
~8, the C~tM o~ Denton, as an ent~tle~nt Cit~, has
p~epa~ed a p~o~a~ ~o~ uttliz[n~ tt~ mha~e o[ the fund
ze~ltta~ion of pEXvately owned zental pzopezty to bo used
p~i~tly fo~ zel~denttal zental puzpoeel Xn the auoun~ o~ ~XO0,O00;
and
~8. the City cE Denton deeice8 these ~und8 to support
the ze~abilitatto~ eT privately o~ed ~ental pcope~ty:
T~t the City Council el the City el Denton, Texas
authorizes ~e City ~ge~ to sign and subai~ to the Texas Rental
Re~bilitatton Pzo~aa Fun~ a gzant application and appropriate
assurances io~ sntttl~n~ lends unde~ the Housing and Co~unt~y
~veloD~nt ~ct cE 1974, as aae~ed.
T~t ~he Ci~ Council of the City o[ Denton, Texas
authorizes ~he City ~nagez to handle alt itecal and ad~niatzattve
~atte~a ~etated to the application and the assurances ~equi~ed
That the City 8ec~eta~y ts hereby authoctzed ~o iceland a
U~ban Developmemt.
P~58~D ~ ~P~D this the 16th da~ o~ July. 1985.
RICED O. BTRkT~T, MAYOR
CITY OF D~NTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHAR~OTT~ ALLEN, CITY
C~TY O~ D~N, TE%AS
APPROVED
DERU ~DA~I D~AYOVITCH. CITY ATTOR~Y
CITY OF
BY:
Siphons Ration, Chew eecon~d that the ~eeolution be app£oYed. On
roll call Vote, Mc~aml nays," Hopkinm "aye." StepheBs "aye," ~l[ord
166
C~ty o~ Denton C~ty Council Minutes
Keeling o~ July 1.6, Xg85
Page T~enty
"aye, "Biddleepe~ge£ "aye," Che¥ "aye," and Mayo~ Stewart "aye."
B. The Council coneide~ed approval o~ a £elOlUt~on
accepting p~opoeed Level II ~unding ~o~ the L~b~aey f~om the Denton
County Comaiseione~.e Cou~t ~o~ the Etecal ye&~ 1985-8&.
The following resolution wee p£eeented:
~[ER~A$, on the 25th day ot June, 1915, the
Cou~t cE ~he C~7 o~ Denton, Texal. voted to ~p~La~e the
~85,308.00 ae Level II funding to ~und ~tb~a~y services p~ov~ded
the ~mily Fo~le~ Public Library: and
~S, tAe C~ty Council o~ the CLty o~ ~n~on,
th~ ~un~ng and ~ecogn~zes the County's Interest in en~nc[ng the
N~, ~REFO~E, BE ~T RESOLED BY ~ ~IL OF T~
OF DE~ON, ~X~S:
5ECTIO~ ~ ,
The C~ty Council o~ the C~ty o~ ~nton, Te~i hereby
fiscal yea~
PAGeED ~ ~PRO~D th~8 tho ~&~h day ct July, ~985.
RInD O. STEWART,
CITY OF DL~dTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY 6RC~ET~HY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
~PPROVED AS TO LEGAL FO~M:
DEEP& AD&MI DHAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Chew second that the =elolution be approved. On
~oll call vote, NcAda~s "aye," HopKins "aye," 8tep~lno "aye," Alfo~d
"aye," ~tddleepe~ge£ "aye," Chew '*aye," And K~yo~ Stew&Et "aye.'*
Motion ca~[~ed
167
Meeting of July l&, 190S
Page T~enty-One
C. The Council considered an approval of a £esolution
amending the cu£~ent Overt[ne Policy (106.04) and elimi~ating the
cu~£ent Compenm&to£y Ti~e Policy (10&.05).
The ~ollo¥iug zelolutton was p~eeented:
RESOLUTION
MHERRAS, the Dt£ector oE the Pe£sonnel/Kmployee
Depa£tBent fo~ the City of Denton has p£esented a p~opoeed policy
~egaeding elployee xules and ~egulation~ fo~ the Council's
14H~F~G0 the City Council desires to adopt such policy aG
an official policy ~eg&~dtng e~ploy~ent with the
~, ~F~B, BE IT REGOL~D BY T~ ~CIL OF T~ CI~
The fol~ov~g pQliCy, attac~ed he~eto an~ ~de a pa~t
he~eo~, is hereby adopted as an off~cial po~tcy of the C~ty of
~n~on, Te~a:
~e~t~Be (~e~e~enae No. 106.04)
T~ ~o~egoing policy is attached he~eto a~ ~de a
hezee~ an~ shall be ~tled ~ the Q[~lctal ~eCO~dS V~th the
~ec~eta~y.
The Elployee ~le8 and Regulations of 1976 adopted by
~eeolut~on o~ the C~y Council on February ~, 1977, ,nd ~he
the extent t~y conflict with the ~o~e~o~n~ policy and with
adui~strat~ve pzoeedu~eg a~ di~ectives issued unde~ the authority
T~ Policy ~e~ence No. ~06.05, add~esa[nq coBpenGato~y
t~, ~e heeeby, ~n ill th~8, ~emc~ed.
This ~emolut~on e~ll be effective f~o~ and af~e~ itm date
el passage and appzoval.
PkeSED ~ ~P~D thi~ the 16th day cE July, 19S~.
HICHABD O. STEWART, ~YOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
CHAB~FI~ ALL~. CZTY ILEC~Tk~Y
CITY OF D~NTON, TBXAG
168
City of Denton City Council Minutes
M&ating of JUly 16, 1985
Page Twenty-~o
· ?PIOVSD AS TO LEGAL FO~M:
DEB~A ADAMI D~YOVITCH, CITY ATTOR~I~Y
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
NcA~ame motion. Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote. McAdame "aye." Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Allord
"aye," Riddlaeperger "aye." Chew "aye." and Mayor ~tewart "aye."
Notion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered approval o~ a resolution
requesting the United States Congress to exempt state and local
government employees from the iederal Fair Labor Standards Act.
The following resolution was presented:
MHEREAS. in 1974, the United States Congress extended the
application of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act to the 50 states
and their political subdivisions: end
MHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court two years later
invalidated that action for mo8t purposes, holding that the Congress
had no power to enforce overtime and minimum wage provisions against
states tn areas of traditional govermaental ~nctione [National
Lea~rue o~ Cities v, Usair. ~26 U.5, 833 (1976)]: and
~RE~6, on February 19, 1965. ho~ve~, ~be Court overruled
its ea~lie~ opinion, iinding
opinion to be unworkable while co--sting that the states and thei~
political subdivisions, i~ dissatisfied with the couct'e new
opinion, could encourage the Congress
all sta~e agencies and political subdivisions subJeo~ to the law
~REAS, the ~esulting ~iseal i~paet on Texas state an
local 9overn~ents will be siqnilioant, overlies ~equire~ents
state and local qovec~ents could be particularly burdensome, since
the Ee~ezal law ~equires ti~e and one-~lE pa~at Eo~ hours that
were previously coapensated by equivalent time o~
~AS, the City o~ Denton has, ~o~ ~ny ~ea~s, p~ovide~
an equitable compensatory ti~e systea Eo~ cit~ eaployeea w~o ~ozk
oveltiae, and many City e~ployees pEele~ that syste~ cE co~pensatton
to the one that is mow to be ~equi~ed:
~REAB, the reduction o~ house worked asr Fi~e Fiqhteza
irom an averaqe o~ 56 ~ou~s per week to 5~ hours pe~ ~ek also will
czea~e an excessive Einancial burden on the City o~ ~ntonl and
Court in 1976, is an inter[e~ence "with the tnteg=al gover~ental
~unctions. o~ state a~ local gove~e~s to such a degree as ~o
'impat~ the Statel' ability to ~unetion e~eottvely in a
~tue el limited ~evenue, weakens
the citizens el Dentsu, and penalizes the City io~ choosing to ht~e
169
City o~ Denton City Council Minutee
Macring o~ July 16, 1995
Page ~Venty-Thgee
gova~Glaent&l employees on te~ms that a~e d~[e~ent ~£om, but not
the United Steles Conggees is ~teel~ exempt ~rom the law; NO~.
THJ~.RBFORE,
BE IT BIGOteD BY ~ ~CIL OF ~ CITY Of D~. TR~S:
euployoog ~EOU the Fa~z ha~g Standards ~ot.
T~t the City council ol the City ol Denton hereby requests
the 8ee~etaEy o~ ~a~z, ~tle we atteupt to influence the Congress
to m~ the Fa~ ~bo~ Gta~a~d8 Act, to work with the
~nie~pal Lea~a a~ othe= public tntezest g~ouva to p~ovide
administrative ~elisl u~e~ the ~pa~tment ol Labor's ~egulato~y
T~t ~m City .SecEe~a~y ~o~va~d o~ictal copies O[ this
~esolutton to ~he P~esiden~ o~ the Un,ted States. ~o the PEestden~
~ubez, o~ ~he Teza8 delegation to the Congzes8. vl~h the ~equeet
that tt ~ en~e~ed tn the Conq~esilo~al Reco~d aa a memo~ta~ to the
Co~eml o~ the United Sta~ea o~ ~tca.
T~t ~la Eetolu~ton s~atl becoue ellecttve t~edtately
upon t~a passage and appEoval.
RICHARD O. 5TEMART, NAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, T~XAS
ATTB6T:
CHA~L~TTR ALLIM. CITY SIB~I[BTAIY
CITY ~ ~, ~EX~3
J%PPROVRD AS TO T.EGAL FORM:
DRBRA Al)AMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON. T~A5
BY:
170
Oity o~ Omnton City Council Ninutmm
Nesting of JuX¥ 16, 1ge5
Page T~enty-Fou£
NoAdams motion. Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, NcAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye.,, Al~ord
"eye," Riddlaeperger ,'&ye,~ Chev ~aye,~ and NayO£ stevart "aye,"
Notion oa£ried unanimously.
Z. The council conmidered a remolution designating
certain city officials as being ~emponmihle fox, acting for and on
behalf of the City of Denton in dealing Pith the Texas P&rkm and
Wildlife Depa£tmsnt for the purpose of participati~g in the ~and and
Niter Conservation Fund Act of 196S; certifying that the City of
Denton is eligible to receive essimtance under such programs.
The folloving resolution vas presented:
RESOLUTION
~ RBSOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF T[~ CITY OF ~ DESIGNATIN~
B~F OF ~ CI~ OF D~ IN D~LING NI~ ~ ~ P~[5 ~
[ItDhI~E DEP~ FOR T~ P~POS~, OF ~MTICIPATINI l~ ~ t~ ~
~R CO~RV~TION ~ ACT OF ltt~l C[~TIFYI~ ~T ~ CI~ OF
~ IG ELIGIBLE TO ~CgI~ ASSIGT~Cg ~BR ~UCH PR~,
~ater Conservation Fu~ Act cE 1965 (Public Law ~-57~), authorizing
the Secretary o[ the Interior to p~ovide fi~eial assi~tance to
states, and political subdivisions the~eo~, ~oz out,ocr ~ecreatton
purposes: and
~REAG. the Texas Le~imlature has adopted Article 6081z,
V.A.C.S., fo= the purpose Of alloviug the 5tats o~ Texa~, and its
~olit~cal mubdivimionm, to ~artieivate in the Federal program
eltabttshed unde~ said ~bltc Lay ~-578, or such other p~ogra~ aG
are he~etnaite~ established by the Fedmral ~overnme~tl and
~R~AB, the City ot Denton is Sully eligible to receive
assistance u~er this Pro,ram; and
~RE~5, the C~ty Council of the C~ty o~ ~nton is desirous
ot authorieing t~e ada~nistrative sta~ to re~esoG~ a~ act ~or the
BE IT RE~OL~D BY T~ CITY ~CIL O~ ~ C~TY OF DEN~,
~ection ~.
That the City Council oi the City o~ Denton hereby
certi~iee t~t the City ol Denton ia eligible to receive alsiatance
unde= Public aa-ava: as au~ented bM ~ticle ~OSlz. V.~.C.~.
Section )).
That the City Council hezebM autbozt=es and dizectm itc
CttM ~na~ez to zevzement and act toz the C~tM ct ~aton in dealin~
~ith the Texae Pa~ke amd WildliEe Department (cz the puzpose ct tbtm
Program. The City ~nage~ is hereby oiliolally demignated aa the
C~ty~s ~ep~esentative in this ~ega~d.
The City Council hereby designates its Director o[ Fiance
~eceive Federal ~unda ~o~ purposes o~ this Program.
171
Denton C~ty Counoil M~nutee
Tho C~t¥ Cou~e~'L he£eby epec~[~cally autho£~zaa the C~ty
a~eenbel~ PeEk tn ~he City o~ Denton.
X~C~. t~ ~ ~AS~nD by ~e a~rma~ve vote mc tho
Cl~y ~unet~ o~ ~he City o~ ~n~on. on ~bim ~6~b ~ay o~ July. 1985.
RICHAHD O. STJ~WAHT. MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
CHARL&)TTR A~.EM, ClT~
P~PRO~ED AS TO FORM:
DERma I~OAMZ DRAYOVZTCH, CITY ATTORNEY
Hop~ne mot~on. MoAAanui eeoond tha~ the £eeolut~on be accepted. On
£oll mall vo~e. M~Xdama "aye." Hopkins "aye." Stephens "aye." Al~o£d
"aye," RtddleageEge~ "&ye," Chew "aye." and Mayo£ 8~aw&£t "aye."
Hot~on a~=~ed unAn~uoue~y.
F. Tho Counotl considered a £eeolut~on ~n oppoe~tton to
t~a P=eetda~t*e tax 9=opoeale ~o~ municipal honda.
The ~ollow~ng =eeolu~on was 9Eeeented:
WHZRRAS, on Itay 29. 199~, p~emtdent Reagan eubmttted
tax p~opomat ~oc .~&i£u~eeo gKowth and etm~l~tty" to CongEemm; and
D=ov~etone which would el~utu~a o= l~m~t ~ho ~ax-exeup~on o~
and xo~m~ goveE~n~ ~nd8 ~no~ud~ng boring ~8iue~ by tho C~ty o~
~S, ~he P~os~eu~'8 p~opoeals would deny
m~a~s ~o. bo~l v~e ~ 9~vl~e 8e~t~on ~ne~t8 ~cectly
bo~.; ~uld zeetEio~ =ho ~nveo~men~ o~ bond p=oceo~ wou~d
to t~ U. 6. TOe,HEy ~9actMnt; would cequ~ce that an Intecnal
Revenue Secvtee tnCocMCton cepo~t be ff~led Eo~ every bo~ ~88ue;
bo~l~ and
~R~, eioh o~ ~he Pcelident'~ pcopoted l[m~tationa on
tax-exempt ~unic~pal bo~m would adversely a~Eect the City o~ Denton
cevl~ o~ ~ ~8ues a~ the use made mi [aotl~tiel ~nced with
=ev~ow by ~he Into=ual Revenue 8e=vtce o~ eaeh bond ~s8ue. and
172
City of Denton city Council Ntnutes
#eeting of July 16. 1985
Page Twenty-Six
Jeopardizing the tax-exemption on bonds vhs£s the private seotor
benefits directly or indirectly from the use of more than one
percent of a project financed by such bonds: and
~RF.~G, the President's municipal bond proposals will
result in an increase in the cost vhioh must be passed on to the
residents of the City of Denton. will reduce the ability of the City
ol Denton to provide vital public services to such residents and
will impose added federal bureaucratic controls over the provision
of such services: NON, THEREFORE.
BE IT REZOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS. THAT:
The City Council goes on record al opposing the limitations
and restrictions on municipal bonds proposed by the President.
which, ti enacted into law would adversely affect all tax-exempt
emntcipal bonds, including bonds issued by the City of Denton: and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON. TEY~S,
TI~T:
Copies of this Resolution shall be sent to members o~
Congress urging them to oppose the provisions of the Vresident~s tax
proposals which would impose new limitations on tslue£a and
purchasers of municipal bonds.
This Resolution shall be effective from and after its dace
of passage and approval.
PASSED ~ APPROVED thls the lath day of July. 1985.
RICHAHD O. STEWART. I~YOR
CITY OF DENTON. T~XA~
ATTEST:
CIt~RLOTTE ALLEN. CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TE~A5
~PROVRD AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH. CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF D~NTON. TEXAS
BY:
Chew motion. McAdams second that the relOlUtiO~ he approved, On
roll call vote, NcAdams "aye." Hopkins 'aye," Stephens "aye." Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "eye," end Hayor Stewart "aye."
Notion ca~£isd unanilOUSly.
~. The Council considered a resolution in opposition to
the proposed decrease in Revenue Sharing ~unds.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
NIAI~R~AS, the United States House of Representatives has
proposed to cut the ~ene£al Revenue Sharing Prograu, unde£ the
provisions ol the Local 9overn~ant Fiscal Assistance Act. by 25
percent effective October 1, 19S5: and
173
c~.t¥ of Denton City counc~.l
Page ~en~y-eeven
of th~ ~enezal Revenue B~a~ing P~og~al fo£ anothe£ yea£; and
~R~.~&5. a teduction of £evenue sha~[ng funding would make
it dif~icult fo£ the City o~ Denton to maintain the cuzzent level of
~. ~HEFO~. BE IT RESOLED BY T~ CO~CIL OF ~ CITY
T~ ~he C~y Coun~l O~ the City of Denton hereby Kequests
P~og~ un~e~ the Local ~ove~ent F~mcal ~ae~atance ~ct as the
~t the City Sea,stagy Eo~wazd o~etal copies o[ th~s
~e~olution ~o the P~es~dant o~ the United S~atea. to the P~esident
o~ the Se~e and 8pea~e~ o~ ~he House o[ Rep~emen~ativee o~ the
Unt=~,,~a2es tong=ese, to,,~he Secreta=y of ~boz. and to each
t~ i~ be aniseed ~n ~he Cong~e~sional ~ecoEd ag a ~mo~al to the
Congress o~ the United S~ateg o~ ~e~tca.
its paeeaqe and approval.
P~ED ~ ~P~D this ~he 16th day o~ July, 19~.
RICHARD O. STENAHT. MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
CKAH~.OTTE ~LL~N0 CI'IW
CITY OF D~. TEXAS
APPROVED A5 TO LEGAL FO~:
DEB~A, l~D~, D~AYOV~TCH, CITY, ATTORNEY
CITY OF iY~)M. TE~A~
BY:
Chew ~ot[on. &lfo=d second that the =esolution be accepted. On toil
call vote, McAda~S "aye," Hopkins "aye." Stephens "aye." Alford
"aye." Riddleepe=ge= "aye." Chew "aye," and
Marian ca££ied
H. The Council cone~de£ed a ~emolutton approving
amendments to tho Benjamin Beunttt lease ag~eeuent o~ FebEua~ 28.
1985 at the Denton ~Anictpal At£po~t.
174
City of Dentou City council Mtuutms
Meeting of July 16. 19as
Page Twenty-Eight
astra five years was added to enable Mc. Jay Hoga=l to secure the
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
NHEREASo the City of Denton has leased land upon the Denton
Municipal Airport to Mr. Ben}amin A. Bennttt, pr. tncipal stock-
holder and President of Airplanes. Incorporated, a Texas
Corporation, by lease agreement executed Pebruary 21, 1985; and
WHEREAB, the City of Dentou and Mr. Benjamin &. Bennttt,
individually and on behalf of At£plenee, Inco£pozatmd, ag=aa that
into a new lease et=cement; and
t~IEREAS, the Airport Advisory Board fo£ the City of Denton
has recommended app£oval of the attac~ed lease agreaueut: and
~REAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas,
believes it to be in the beat inte=elts of the pmblic and in the
BE IT ~ESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS:
~ncorpo£ated he£e[n by reference, ia hereby approved.
SECTION II.
The attached Airport Lease Agreement shall have an
ells=tire date of Ap=il 1, 19S5. and shall supersede that certain
Lease &greeaent between the City of Denton and BanJ&~in A. Bennitt
executed February 28, 19S5.
SECTION III.
The Mayor il hereby authorized to execute the attached
Airport Lease Agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION ~¥.
This Resolution shall be effective i~u~ediately upon ~te
p&esage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 16th day of July. 191%.
~lCHAID O. STEMART, MAYOR
CZTY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
C~ARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
175
City o~ Denton City council Xtnutee
Page Twenty-Nine
&PPROVRD AB TO
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY 'O~ D~,
BY:
Hopkins Batten, Chew e®eond that the ceeolution be accepted, on
£oll oell Vote, I~Maml "aye," Hopkins "aye." Stephens "aye," Al~o~d
"ayes" Ri~ZelpaCgaE "&~," Choy "aye," and Ma¥o£ Stevact "aye."
~t~Qn ~a~m,~ unau~mou61y.
7. ..,' T~ .~ncL1 e~g~daced the petition of 3. P. ~ygood
~eque.~ing a Variance o~ Ae~tcles 4.03 and 4.15 o~ the City
Den~ou ~tvimiou I~ Land Developuen~ Re~latione zequ~ctng
pe~tM~eet a~ d~ improvements. This t~eot is ~0.00
encee, ~i~ed a~ ~ ~e~emt cachet o~ Bonnie Bcae 8rEset and
Payee ~l~. T~e Ccac~ La doaecibo~ as Bloe~ 1, Lot 1, o[ the
Tabee~cle ~LCio~ a~ 8ho~ tn the Fcanc~8 Bateau 5ucvey. Abstract
43. ~e pEo~eety 18 zon~ aq~icultu~al (A) an~ the ~evelop~nt of a
aeveze~ ,~ygood a~ke tn ~avoc o~ the petition. He stated that
d~d ~Ot k~ ~e~e they greed legally in cogac~8 to him vaE[ance.
He 8ta~ed ~ ~e Eel~ ~heEe wet 8one con~usion ~ega~ding ~he
~lluom, I~ ~980, lev. ~ygood went to David Ell~go~ v~th the plans
~ca~ th~ wee not golaq ~o 91at. They ve~e not tEytng to get a
new SQGIGI OC to OU~tVt~' U~oc the 8ubdiv~sion la~ pctoc to
~e~la~to~. Alga ~ou~ out ~t ~he~e Wala ~lood p~obleu that a8
a la~eE ~ ~d to,,,~le. They ~nt to F,B~ and afte~
con8i~bto a~u~ c~ ~iM i~ money dimcoveEed t~t they ~e
the ~l~d plai~ b~auee o~ an eE~oc ~de by ~he
departing. Ao~ EoE a vagiince due to ~e unusual c~zcuuatances.
~d ~ e~E ao~ ~ened, ~ygood f~a~ed ~hat ~heM ~uld have
buil~ t~e e~uEch u~ez ~he Ee~latton8 ~ would ~ve not ~equtzed
pco~,lr. , ~llt H~qo~ ~E~ to get tho p~opec, ~lo~ pl&[n
allo~, t~ ehu~eh ~ld ~ be able to build.
Coune~l ~C Riddles~goE asked if ~ygood was asking ~or two
vazianeea- o~e with t~ 8tceetg a~ one with dcai~ge. ~d the
the butldiM ~uld go o~.
leave the eoEne~ alone e~ go ~o tho u~dd~e o~ the p~o~e~ty to buitd.
176
City o~ Denton City Council ~inutes
~eting el July 16, 1985
Page Thirty
The Church does not want to do that. They tell that they we£e in
due p£ocese, and that the City changed the ~ules while "playing the
Council Nembe~ Riddleepe~ge~ ae~ed how te~ R~ygood would here to
pave ti he only paved that po:lion whe£e the chu=ch ~ould be built.
Haygood =eplied ap~oximately 250' do~n Bonnie R~ae and Payee inetead
el 996' by 458'.
Council Neabe£ Riddleepe~0e~ asked il that ~uld be a zeaeonable
oomp£oaise.
Haygood ~eplied that ha did not ~no~ ~t th~ could do
Itnaneially. He d~dn't know ii the budget could ~te $~.
paye~8 would have to pay ~oc ~t. Mo~au~ had t~ouble with the
· ~Atg~ss et that. noco~din~ to t~ Iul~ the City ooul~
z~qutzed the d~aina~ impzovements at the ~tme ~ithout ~azd to the
platting. The platting zelated to ~hethe~ cz not the etz~ets
.~v~ had to ~ done. The ~s not the a~me ~oz..the
~y~oot :epl~et t~t on ~y 2~. l~TA. the City entez~d ~nto a
deaf,ge. The cont~ic~ wis b~ought ~iore P, ~ Z ~tth M~. LaFo~te
-a~ Joe ~:~ts :aiding it. Je~y Cla~, City Engi~ez elated that
it was not the intent el the City to d~ t~t. ~ethe~ it was the
Ctty*s intent to do ~t now, the City obligAt~ ltlell to ~o it
~y 21. 19~4,
Council Meube~ McAdaus stated that the develoDe~',,lou~h.ol Haygood
~d been asked to pay Eo~ the d~a[~ge a~, tf the City Vas going
take on the whole p~oJect, then eVeZyone ehould be excluded
~ent, not lust the church.
vazianee weze ~an~ed on the pe~taetez, that them ~ul~ ooopezate on
~ included tn the street bond p~eg~aa, and tf ~hey witted two to
thzee yea~8, the City vould pave t~ at,eot a~ do the
~mpzovement~. But until then, ~hey ~u~d have no
Council Hembe~ McAdama stated that could be tzue ~o~ any nuubeE
o~hez place~. That ~E someone Waited long enough It would be do~e.
~lio p~e~tme: te Hayqood going to pay lt~,o~hez ~vetopeca
sE im the couuntty in geneeal going to pay IcE the c~uEoh.
Hayg~od, ,~egponded that he iolt the chuzch ~d aleeadF paid ~o~ the
David Rl~gou, ~enio= Plannez, =epozted that p~loE to July 1983,
,ltnc~ p:ioz to January 14, 1969, it did not have to go thEough the
plattin~ pzoce~e ~hich ~e~nt ~t ~ae not ~b~eot to ~i~ete~ ~t~eet
pavin~ pzooes8. ~llteon cecalled t~t he pe=e~alty
Hayqood about the chan~e in zules and h~ it ~uld a~ect hi~. The
zules ~eze chan~ed so that theze ~uld be no ~M azound the
,~a~taetez t~pzovements t~ the develovez did not plaS.
Chzts ~tun~. City ~naoez. stated that the zule ~ae chanoed
because theze weze d~ainaOe pzobteaa on pzopeztM t~t was bein~
developed and no way to addzess the pzobleae.
/'77
City o~ Denton city Council I('l, nutel
~aIet~l~ o£ July 16. lgs~
Page Thirty-One
CouUd~l MIDIc)et Stop~Ine i~lted that he felt the drainage problems
pete being ta~eu cate al, Since sonnie B£ae vas a umJot thoroughfare
and we all could ula it. and it ie in the bond program, the
tequi~e~nt should be ¥&~ved.
Council Mather stephens motion, itddleepe£gi£ second to giant the
" va£ianoeo
council Mothers Riddlospotge£ and Stephens had a discussion
~agazdtng platting Yheza the chucch would be and paving only that
Coun~l Mombot ~iddleIIMl~geE IU~geated the comp~ou~se
and t~ wanted to do t~t, wou~d need to eecon~ appcoval. Ocant the
va~ance.
vould ~ve to ~o ~8 ~avi ~hat ~act vhece the chuEch ~uld bt- which
~yqOod ~eIpO~od t~t t~ tlood ~latn ~equt~euentl ~d alzeady been
att. Re,letting ~uld dolt~oy the chv~ch~I plans. The budget ~ould
not allow ~hi ~iplatt~ng and
Coune~t ~oz ~a~ aI~ed about taking out a loan- was the church
opposed to t~t.
~ant tO ~0 t~t at thai tlII.
Chits ~ctung, City ~gec co,anted about the o~iginal ~pe that
had beau te~etted to. ~ ~tated that the ~pe ~ete not ~ntended to
~yOZ 5teWaCt ca~ed ~OC a vote, Motion to SCant vac~anoe vas
ca~g the ~y"
appo~nt~n~g ~o tho C~vil SeEvice
one =,=~ vacant due to a acre by the ~embe=. He =eque~ted
cad,Led u~n~u~ly.
Cou~o~X ~ubec ~pkine asked that the u~ccophonea be moved
City o~ Denton City Council
Meeting o~ July 16, 1965
Page Thirty-Two
10. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discu,s
legal uattete, teal estate, personnel, and board agpoi~uents. No
o~e~cial action was taken.
#~th no ~utthec items o~ bus,ness. ~he meeting was adJou=rLed.
179
City Council Minutes
July 30, 1985
The council convened in the Civil Defense Room into the Special
Called Meeting at 5=30 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Council Members Alford, Chew,
McAdams, Riddlesperger and Stephens
City Manager, City Attorney and city Secretary
ARSENT= Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins was out of town on family
business
1. The Council considered the emergency agenda addendum item
to consider approval of a resolution accepting the final report
of the Flow Memorial Hospital Task Force and the Flow Memorial
Hospital Board and endorse the concepts as set forth therein.
council Member Riddlesperger introduced Dr, James Killingsworth
of the Task Porce.
Dr. James Killingeworth introduced Mr. Stent Rosenburg of
E. F. Hutton and stated that the purpose of this presentation
was to supply information on the context of the resolution.
Some questions had been asked on the capital structure and
formation of the 501(c)(3) corporation.
Mr. Rosenburg stated that he was not present to make a formal
proposal tO the Council, but rather to answer any questions
which they might have on the 501(c)(3) concept. The conversion
of the hospital to the $01(c)(3) corporation was a beginning to
build a solid financial t~ack ~ecord for Flow.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked why it had been recommended
to use the 501(c)(3) vehicle as opposed to having Flow Memorial
Hospital remain a city/county hospital.
Mr. Bosenburg responded that there were two advantages to the
501(c)(3):
1. The 501(C)(3) structure would allow health care
professionals to preside over the facility to provide
quality care; the overall effect would be the shifting
of the hospital out of the political spotlight.
2. It would allow flexibility regarding financing (all
options would then be available); at the present time,
only one kind of financing is available to the
city/county hospital.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that there was a difference
between the hospital's being owned by a "pool" and
E. F. Hutton's previous position which revolved around the fact
that the City and County would turn over ownership of the
property. Riddleeperger then asked Rosenbur9 if E. F. Hutton
was ~ow offering new possibilities.
Mr. Rosenburg responded that he was not prepared to discuss
this issue at this time, but there were many possibilities.
The City and County could lease the buildings to the 501(c)(3)
corporation who would run the hospital. Another option would
be to sell the land and structures to the corporation.
Council Member McAdams stated that the recommendations on these
issues would come from the Blue Ribbon Committee.
Dr. Killingsworth stated that the resolution listed six issues
that the Blue Ribbon Conittse would consider and on which they
would make recommendations. The lease negotiations would be
done in the future.
180
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 30, 1985
Page Two
Mr. Rosenburg stated that the hospital needed to get into the
501(c)(3) and establish a good financial track record and then
negotiate the lease agreement.
Council Me~ber Stephens asked if the 501(c)(3) was a public
corporation.
Mr. Rosenburg replied that it was s non-profit corporation.
Council Me~ber Stephens asked if there was an escape clause in
the 501(c)(3) corporation vehicle in case in the future a
hospital district was formed.
Dr. Killtngsworth responded yes; this had been done in
Huntsville.
Mr. Rosenburg stated that all options should be kept open from
the beginning of the corporation. The 501(c)(3) Board would be
appointed by the City and County. This would allow the City
and County to have control.
Council Member Stephens stated that another option had been
discussed earlier which was to lease the hospital to another
entity, such as Baylor. He then asked why the 501(c)(3) plan
was better.
Dr. Killingeworth replied that the Task Force had looked into
the actual track record of some of the systems, such as Baylor.
The multi-system hospital organisations tended to drain off the
good patients to their own facilities. The Task force felt
that flow could move to the 501(0)(3) and still maintain flexi-
bility and yet have the benefits of a multi-system organisation.
CoUncil Member Stephens asked that if the Council went in this
direction would the hospital still have the opportunity to join
in shared services.
Mr. Rosenburg responded yes.
Council Member Stephens asked if the 501(c)(3) board was
appointed by the City and County or if the members were elected.
Dr. Killingsworth responded that the board members were usually
appointed.
Mr. Roeenburg stated that most 581(c)(3) hospitals were owned
by religious organizations and congregation me~bere were placed
on the board.
Mayor Stewart asked, regarding the lease of proprietary
interest, in the event of mismanagement over a period of years,
could the City and County lose the hospital facilities and
property all together.
Dr. Killingsworth stated that was a good point. Under the
501(c)(3), ideally there would be a continuum.
Mayor Stewart stated that a continuum should be the goal of the
Blue Ribbon Committee.
Mr. Rosenburg stated that the lion's share of the problems would
be taken care of through the board appointments.
The following resolution was presented~
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in April, 1985, the Task Force on ~low Memorial
Hospital convened and met regularly for several months to
consider the issues confronting Flow Memorial Hospital and to
develop recommendations on how best to feasibly address those
issues; and
181
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 30, 1985
Page Three
.~HEREAS~ on July 16, 1985~ the Task Force on Flow Memorial
Hospital and the Flow Memorial Hospital Board presented their
Report and Recommendations to the City Council of the City of
Denton~ Texas; and
WHEREAS, the Flow Memorial Hospital Board has endorsed the
Report of the Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of accepting said
Report;
NOW~ THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DENTOM, TEXAS:
SECTION I.
That the City Council hereby accepts the Final Report of
the Flow Memorial Hospital Task Force and the Flow Memorial
Hospital Board and endorses the concepts as set forth therein.
SECTION
That the creation of a Blue Ribbon Committee to oversee
the negotiation of a lease agreement for the non-profit Section
501(c)(3) corporation is hereby authorized. The members of
said Co~l~ittee will be as finally determined by the City Council
and the commissioners Court of Denton County, based upon recom-
mendations received by the Task Force. The number and qualifi-
cati(N~s of said membera shall be as set forth in the Task Force
Report. The duties of the Committee shall be to oversee the
negotiation of the terms of a lease agreement between the City,
County and the non-profit corporation and make recommendations
to the City Council and County commissioners in this regard
with raapect to the following issues:
1. Term of the lease
2. Protection of the assets of the City and County
3. Obligations of the City and County under the terms of
the lease
4. Consideration
5. Existing and future indebtedness of Flow Memorial
Hospital
6. The de~ree of authority to be vested in the
non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation.
~urther, the Committee is hereby authorized to make
recom~endatione, after careful study and subcommittee analysis,
with regard to the issues of capital formation, admissions
policies and management enhancement of the hospital under the
non-profit corporation; provided that said recommendations
shall be submitted on or before March 1, 1986. Additionally,
the City and County, by resolution, may charge the committee
with additional duties.
The Committee is hereby authorized to act in the
performance of their duties until such time as the City Council
and the County Commissioners have approved the creation of said
non-profit corporation and a lease document has been prepared.
SECTION III.
The City Council hereby endorses the following timetable
for creating the non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation:
182
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 30, 1985
Page Four
Activity Time Frame
1. Organize and incorporate pursuaat to Immediately
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.~ Art. 1396
(Vernon Supp. 1985).
2. Obtain non-profit Texas Corporation 1-3 months
exempt status according to Tex. Tax
Code Ann., Sec. 171.063 (Vernon 1982)
and 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
3. Obtain Federal Employer Identification concurrent
Number and Medicare Provider Number.
4. Structure and Appointment of Governing 1 month
Boards.
5. Prepare management/lease agreement 4-6 months
between non-profit corporation, the
City of Denton, and the County of
Denton.
6. Select Chief Executive Officer. 2 months
SECTION IV.
The City Council authorizes the attorney for the Flow
Memorial ~ospital Board to initiate the procedures necessary to
incorporate the non-profit corporation upon coordination with
the City and the County.
SECTION V.
The Council hereby expresses its appreciation to the
members of the Task Force for the dedication and tireless
efforts they have shown in addressing concerns vital to the
community and the County.
SECTION VI.
That this resolution shall become effective immediately
upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND A;PROVED this the 30th day of July, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON~ T~XAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Riddlesperger motion, Stephens second that the resolution be
approved. Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
183
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 30, 1985
Page Five
Dr. Kitlingsworth stated that the key was having the right
people on the Blue Ribbon Committee.
Council Member Riddlssperger distributed a list of potential
members for the committee and asked the Council to give addi-
tional names to the Task Force.
Council Member Stephens asked if someone from the Flow Hospital
nursing staff could be added to the Blue Ribbon Committee.
Dr. Killingsworth reported that this had been suggested;
however, there was a problem in opening up the committee to the
different positions at Flow (such as lab technicians, nurses,
therapists, etc.) and then trying to set a number of how many
people from each position could serve on the committee.
The Council then returned to the regular agenda.
1. The Council held a discussion of strategic planning
issues.
City Manager Chris Bart~ng reported that staff had put together
a structure to work through the strategic plan.
Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager, reported that staff would
like direction on what time frame the Council had for the
various issues and what action (such as report, study, recom-
mendation) would be required from staff. The strategic plan
was a dynamic activity which would constantly be updated and
changed.
The first issue discussed under Transportation/Planning was:
1. What are the mass transit needs in Denton?
Mayor Stewart stated that he did not believe there was a problem
with mass transit needs now.
Council Member Chew stated that he did believe there was a
problem. There needed to be formal transportation in town,
such as fro~ the mall to the downtown square.
Council Me~ber McAdama stated that the Council should look at
where the City would be shortly and look at corridors for the
traffic patterns.
City Manager Chris Hartung stated that the Council needed to
plan now to push during the next legislative session to be able
to 9et a portion of the sales tax to fund transit needs. Some
current modes of transportation, such as SPAN and Handi-Hop,
were tied to the federal budget and may or may not receive
funding in the future. These programs met a real need in the
community.
Council Me,er McAdams stated that Council might want to
consider a privately owned bus system or park-and-ride type
service. A study should be done of projected need and possible
locations.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if this would include
transportation to Dallas.
city Manager Chris Hartung replied that the City could contract
with Trailways bus system to connect with DART in Lewisville or
Carrollton.
Council Me~lber McAdsms stated that work needed to be started
for legislation to save SPAN and Handi-Hop. In looking at the
various types of bus systems available, it should be remembered
that they should not be too expensive to use. If the City
184
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 30, 1985
Page Six
should go to some type of bus system, Council should look at
whether they could move in the current traffic patterns. This
was not considered now during zoning requests or requests for
curb cuts.
McKean reported that the consideration of a bus system would be
a long-range planning issue. I~mediate staff action would be a
resolution requesting the 1% sales tax earmarked for mass
transit.
Council Member McAdams stated that the street system should be
studied to see where people go at what time of the day, with an
eye to future mass transit needs.
City Manager Chris aartung reported that there was an effort
being made to expand the ride share program into a regional
plan.
The second issue discussed under Transportation/Planning was:
2. What is the possibility of designating a portion of
the sales tax to fund transit needs?
This issue had been covered in the previous discussion.
The third issue discussed was:
3. Designate South Loop.
City Manager Chris Hartung reported that the County
Transportation Committee plan was dealing with this issue.
Council Member Stephens asked about the timeframe for the study.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, reported that the study
should be completed in approximately six moBths. The
consultants were about one month into the study.
City Manager Hartung reported that, given past history, this
issue should go before the state as part of the County plan.
Council Meraber Riddlssperger stated that the Loop should be as
far south as possible.
Council MeI~ber Alford stated that close cooperation should be
maintained with the County Transportation Committee.
Mayor Stewart stated that this was going to be an important
issue.
Council Member Riddlesperger asked if it would be appropriate
to designate the south Loop and try to obtain right-of-way.
Council Member Stephens asked if the area designated should
include land by the Municipal Airport.
City Manager Hartung reported that al1 was included; indeed, it
could be called the south/west Loop.
Council Member Stephens asked if it would be to the City's
advantage to talk to the state about the west Loop separate
from the south Loop.
Svehla responded no.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Council needed to pin down where
the Loop was going to be and try to obtain right-of-way.
185
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 30, 1985
Page Seven
The first issue discussed under Infrastructure was:
1. Provide an update of the long-range thoroughfare
plan.
The Council felt that the long-range thoroughfare plan should
be moved under the Transportation/Planning category.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City manager, reported that the Denton
Development Guide and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations
were being updated. This issue was part and parcel of those
tWO documents. Thorouqhfare issues should be considered very
carefully in zoning cases.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development,
reported that the thoroughfare plan was being updated all the
time.
The second issue discussed under Infrastructure was:
2. Study the feasibility of connecting Denton with
mid-cities-360 County plan.
Council Member McAdams stated that, once the County plan was in
place and the Loop was in place, staff should go back and
review the thoroughfare plan to see how these were impacted by
zoning.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, reported that this was
another reason the dedication of 1% of the sales tax was very
important.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development,
reported that the tax would pay for such a study and help
purchase right-of-way.
The next issue discussed under Infrastructure was:
3. Discuss the need for building and repairing
sidewalks.
Council Member McAdams stated that the Council needed to be
aware of the areas where sidewalks were needed for children and
olde~ citisens.
Council Member Chew stated that this should be considered as a
requirement in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations for new
residential construction.
The fourth issue discussed was:
4. ~tend runway at Airport to 6,008 feet.
Mayor Stewart stated that this would be the next item funded
from a grant which the City had received from the FAA.
Betty M~Kean, Assistant City Manager, asked if staff action was
required.
Mayor Stewart responded that staff could inform the FAA of this
need.
The first issue discussed under Economic Climate was:
la. Develop a questionnaire to send to local industry to
determine why they located in Denton (likes and
dislikes, etc.).
lb. DeYelop a questionnaire to send to industry that did
not locate in Denton to find out why.
186
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 30, 1985
Page Eight
Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager, reported that the
development of these questionnaires could be a Joint effort by
staff and the Chamber.
The second issue discussed under Economic Climate was:
2. What financial emphasis should bm placed on ~conomic
Development?
Council Member Alford stated that the City should continue as
they have been. Further financial emphasis should be tabled
until the results from the above-discussed questionnaires is
available.
Council Member Chew stated that the City needed to actively
pursue industries, as did the Chamber of Commerce.
Council member Stephens stated that there needed to be
cooperation between the Chamber and City staff.
McKean reported that the Council needed to decide
philosophically what the role of the City staff is, in
conjunction with the Chamber, regarding economic development.
Council Member McAdams stated that the Counoil needed to know
why people decided not to relocate in Denton.
The next issue discussed was:
3. Create a master plan of sites for Airport area.
Council Member Stephens stated that the area to the east of the
Airport was used up and asked if the City should acquire
additional property on the west side.
Rick Svehla, Assistant City Manager, reported that a ~aster
plan for the Airport was being completed. The master plan was
being funded by grant money.
Council Member Stephens asked if the master plan would address
the issue of whether the Airport would be adequate if the City
continued its rapid growth.
Svehla responded that the plan would be completed in
approximately six months and could be discussed then.
The next issue discussed was:
4. Discuss creating a plan for the Morse Street area.
The Council defined this area as being between Woodrow Lane and
the Loop. It was further determined that this issue was not a
priority at this time.
The fifth issue discussed was:
5. Study and develop a report on the feasibility of
creating an experimental steam heat/cogeneration
plant.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the City could
take advantage of the proximity of industries to the steam
plant. It might be necessary to hire a consultant to study the
feasibility of this steam heat/cogeneration plant at a cost of
approximately $30,000 to $50,000. This particular project
might possibly be tied to the ongoing resource [scoYery project.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of July 30, 1985
Page Nine
Council Member NcAdama stated that the Council and staff should
look at all possibilities to bring the utility rates down or to
at least remain co~etitive,
The next issue discussed was:
6. Hold utility rates in line competitively.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that there were two
types of competitive rites: one with other cities and the other
between classes of customers.
The seventh issue discussed was:
7. Annex as much as possible.
Council Member Stephens stated that the City must protect its
needs in future expansions and should expand north to protect
its lakes.
The next islue was:
8. Airport expansion (2f500 acres south of Airport).
There was no discussion on this item.
The last issue discussed was:
9. The City should address alternate ways to use solid
waste.
Staff recommended that this issue be included in issue 95
referring to steam heat/oogeneration.
2. The Council convened into the Executive Session to
discula legal matters, real estate, personnel, and board
appoi~tments. No official action was taken.
With no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
1232&
C~ty Council Minutes
&ugust 6, 1985
The Council convened into tbs Wo~ session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room o~ the Municipal Building.
PRlSEF~: ~ayoc Stewact; ~ayo£ Pco Teu Hopkine; Council MambeE8
Chew, Me,dams, Riddlespe£ge~ and Stephens
ABSENT: Council Membe£ Al~ocd was out on business
The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
legal uatte~e0 ~eal estate, pe~sonnelo and boa~d appointments. No
o~tcial action was taken.
The Council then oonvened into the Regula= M~eting at 7:00 p,~.
the Council Chambers.
PR~SR~: ~yo~ Stewart: ~yo~ P~o Teu Hopkinn~ Counc~
Almond. C~ee. Mc~am8, Rid~eepe~geE and
ARSR~: None
The Counet~ cous~de=od app~ova~ o~ the M~nu~e8 o~ the
Re~la~ bating o~ July 2, 1985 and the ae~a~ Meeting o~ ~uly
1985.
Rtddlespe~gec motion, 8tep~ens 8eco~ to approve the Minutes
p~olented. Motion carried u~nimoully.
The Council moved itel 3 Eorwa~a tn ~he agama o~deE.
3. The Council conside~ed approval cE a Eelolution
app~eciation o[ Mr. John
The ~olloving resolution vas p~ese~ted:
RESOLUTION
~RRA~, on ~y 4. I985, the City of ~ntou lost one oC it~
valued employee8 due to the untimely demise ct John
~ell; a~
~R~S, John G. ~ell seEved the City o[ ~n~on with
dedication a~ time,ese devotion to him dutiea ~o~
leventeen yeac8 altec retttinV ~cou the Un,ted Btates
eo~ce vtt~ ~he ~an~ o~ L~eute~nt colonel:
E~e~gen~y ~nagement Coo~di~to~, R[~k ~gor, and
Dtrecto~, John ~ell p~epa~ed a~ advised not only the
City o[ ~ntou, but also p~ovide~ tEafni~g ~oE
~o~ other cities ag ~1 tn o~gency pt~ntng and
p~ocedures, developed county plans ~oc eue~genoy medical
county-~de a~bu~ance service and devetoped a ha~ ~d~o
netwock t~at today Eo~ns one cE the best in the State
Texas; and
~I~S, in addition to his duties aa Ruecgenc~ ~na~e~e~t
Coo~d[nato~, John h~e~ ~a8 tn~t~u~ntal ~n
a~d ~upecvising the City's ~neucance and cigk
p~og~au. [nst~tutt~ an accident ~eview boacd.
programs, de~ensive dziving ooucset and u~ged all the
~adto amd telecommunications systems ~o~ the uuni~i~a~
operatton8 o~ t~e City; a~
~l~S, John ~ell's interest in the ~teld o~ euecgency
management led ~tu to pcovide the ilpotus ~oc the
establishment o~ course week and a degcee 91an in emecgency
adminiit=at~on and planning at No~th Te~e State
Un~vecs~ty, Vhe~e an e~ovod soho~a~sh~p ~ been e~eite~
i~ his hono~: and
189
City of Denton City Cou~ll Minutes
Meeting of ~u~uet 6, lg85
It~ERRAS, John G, Itek-well secved ~a oo~u~y ~bove a~d beyond ~he
~ull teepees a~d adui~at~on o[ hi~ colleagues a~d
as~octatea;
N~. ~RR~ORE, B~ IT R~L~D BY T~ CO~C~L OF T~ CIW OF DE~ON,
~hat the gcatelul apprectatton ~elt by the citizens,
employees a~ o[~toe~s of the C[~y of Denton loc
~ll causes thtl Resotutton to be Co~lly t~anscctbed
talc t~s ofltotal ~tnutes oi t~e City o[ ~nton. Te~s a~d
t~tcated to the ~e~abzauce cE .John a.
PA8~ ~ ~PPR~ th~s the 6th day oi August, I985.
RICHARD O. STEMAHT, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
C%IAR~ ~L~N, CITY
CITY OF DEMTO~.
DERR&&D~MI DIL~¥OVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY O~ ~, ~
Unant~us ~2ton, unanimous second to appcove the =mlolutton. On
cote east vote, ~a~m eaye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Almond
"aye," RtddXelpe~gec ,,aye," Chew "a~e," and ~yoc Stewart "aye."
M~s. John~elt was p~esent to =eceive the ~esotutton.
T~e Coune~t ~e~u~aed to ~he ~e~u[a~ age.s
2. Consent
~aml Bottom. AlCocd second ~o app=ove the Consen~ Agenda
p~e~ented. ~ttou ear,ted
~ils, ~c~se O~de~a. a~ Change O~e~s:
Bed ~ ~483 Raluse bags
Bed ~ ~4.~ Cathodic p~otecttve
3. Puce~le Ocdec ~ 69~30 to ~rt~n ~qutpmlnt ~n the
a~unC ol $4,000.00
4. ~=c~se O~de~ 9 69305 to Henntngson. Du=~n and
Rtcha=dsOn tn the amoun~ oR $~1.000.00
5. Purchase O=de~ 9 69335 to Boyd Excava~ton tn the
a[ou~t o~ %42,250.00
C~nge Ocdez ~1 to contract with ~tlas
Engtneectng, Inc. tn ~he aaount of $941.00 (Bed
9354). (The Public Utilities Board ~ecomme~s
190
City o~ Denton City Council
Meeting o~ August 6, 1985
Page Th£ee
7. Change O£de£ ~1 to oontgaat With
Constcuctton Company in the amount o~ $20o52&.32
(Bid # 9391). (The P~bl~c Uttlittel Boa£d
=ocom~ends appcoval.)
B. Plats and Replats:
1. Approval O~ p£el~mtna£y ceplat o~ O£ig~A1 Tow~
o~ Denton ~E~Eon, Lo~
Planning and Zon~mg Co~88~n =scovill
app=oval.)
2, Approval o~ ~oXtuL~y ~ll~ o~ K~owa
Rmtato8 ~dLt~on, Lots ~-i, ilo~ ~. CT~e
App~ova~ o~ p~e~u~na~y pXa~ of
~dtt~on. (The P~ann~ng a~ Z~n~ng Co~88Lon
c. TaK Refund:
1. Conside= app=ov, 1 o~ a tax =e~und
8. lsme~ in the amount o~ ~1,21g.15
4. The Council cona~aezea appEoval o~ a c~uest by the Rig~
Noon Lions Club to han~ a banns= ICCOII Ca==oll Boulevaz~
Be~ Avenue ~o~ a~ ~ntique Auto 8how 6epte~bec 28th a~ 2gth at the
uoctb Texas Fairgrounds.
~ counc~ a~ s~a~ed ~a~ ~he c~ub bed been no~d~ an automobile
Job ~n ca~eing fu~s ~oc ~cippl~ oh~ldzen.
access Ca~coll Boulevacd a~/oc BeLl Avenue ~oc ~he ~tique &utc
Gh~ at the Nocth Texas Fatcgcou~s. MotLou oa~rt~ u~ni~usty.
The ~yoc a~ Council then g~ve aok~l~nt to the
Beaut~C~c&t~on Coutttee.
vas a pleasuce to peasant these awacde to t~
~uld be an on-going pzog~am ~COB ~Eoh to ~to~c eaoh yeaz:
~owevec, t~t8 was the C~cet t~me t~e awacds ~d ~n gXven. Thece
~ce ~i~ecent eategocLe8 o~ awards ~ncludt~ cest~acee
coneccLal emt~tiee.
· ~e ~icet avac~8 wece pceeented to:
~tom Fedecat~on o~ Mo~n'8
2.Oca~y's at t~e
3.Texas Woman,s UnlvecsLty
the Inspection D~vte~on oE t~e City o~ ~nton
~z. To~ ~pool
$. M~. 5~an~ey Lovetace
city og Denton CLty council Mimutas
I<oettug og August 6,
Pa~e Youc
&. T~e ~utet~ he~d a public ~o&E~ o~ ~o proposed
· ~e ~yoE opened Zhe pubZie
z~a~ ~s ~ocpoca~Lon ~d en~ece~ in~o a con~cac~ w~h Coz Cable an~
Mc. ~eZon ~o ~c~age ~e ~n~on ~cano~ee. Gauche
co~u~y. 8a~ns vaB nQ~ as ~azge aa Cox Cable, bu~ vas ~he
~acgoJ~ ~n ~he Untied S~atea amd rag a private company.
recovered approval. ~en ~he ocigi~l ~camc~ise vas be~m,
Cou~il ~d tn mL~ a go~uu ~Q~ l~al pcogca~ug. ~ zben asked
pzogza~tug.
~. 8~a~ ~po~ ~ ~ did not anticipate any c~mgee at this
t[~ ~, l~ a ue~ ~c~ co arise, the company w~ld ~easaess.
cou~it ~ec S~ep~eu zhen s~a~ t~z he voul~ lige zo have the
az. strafe zeplted ~t pubx~c service pzog~a~ing would be
Cou~tl ~z ~m e~iC~.~t Cox Cable ~d dona am
~ob., Con. ti Met~8 a~ ca~ldt~e ~o~uts ~d been ~El~d ~o~ the
~y~c P~e T~ ~p~t~ 8ta~ that the Council ~d ~em very
satisfied with ~he ~ble 8ezytce ~ieh ~d been pzovided by Cox
Cabl~ a~ ~ld lt~e Ce MinCain ZhaC gZa~acd cc ~e It
Nc. Boy ~pleton, Vioe-~cesideat o~ Denton ~bltshLng Company,
in ~avo~ staC~n~ t~t ~n Coz Cable ~ approached hie 2ism with a
destEe ~o gott ~ ~, ~n~on ~b~[o~lng ~d as~ Cox ~o locate
a 8~b~ buyeE. Tho gys~ ~d been in Denton ~OE a ~ile amd
vou~ bo ~ce ~o~ a 1~ ti~. Nhile Sa~ml vie not t~e highest
btd~c, it ~s t~ c~otee o~ ~nton PubZiahing.
Mc. Bob ~llec, cepc~tinq Coz Cabla, spoka in ~avoc listing t~t
~eu Lt ~ beoo~ k~ ~n the L~uetcy t~t this particular
~ca~tise ~8 go~ sale, Lt ~d generated a lot O~ interest. Cox
Cab~ ~elt t~t ~o~ ~o~unteat~ona vas t~e best o~ the ~ot.
No one a~e tn opposition.
The ~yoc closed the ~ublte ~eac~ng.
tel~8to~ gca~hi4e ~o ,S~l Co~nlcation~. IGc. ~tion cacc~ed
unanl~ue ly.
B. T~o Cou~tl held a public hanging on t~e petition o~
~he C~y o~ ~utou ~oE annexation o~ app~ox~ely ~5 ac~es si ~and
being pact o~ the ~. Wel~ Survey, Abetcao~ 13~1, a~ begi~ng
app~ozi~te~y 5.000 ~eet north o~ U.S. Highway 380 Bast, and vest o~
aocabizl ~ad (h-2a).
192
City o~ Denton ~ity Council
Meeting of August 6. 1985
Page F~ve
the tecond public hea£[ng on this annexation. Two £aply forms had
been umiled with none retucned. &ll o~ the prope£ty In this p&~cel
was owned bM the City cC Dallas. The next action Would be on August
20 to institute annexation proeeedLags with final action on
September 24.
Council Mouber Riddlesperger asked how ~ar this l~aeeel vas ~Eo~ ~e
p~o~eed dan e~te at ~a~e Ray Robe~8.
· ll~son ~eaponded appzoxi~tely ~lve
No one spoke in oppouitton.
The ~yoz closed t~e public heaEtng.
~pX~m8 uo~on, ~Adam8 8ecomd ~o pEOCO~ With ~ho annexation.
C. The Council ~eld a public heaE~ng
Fields, Rdwa~dg ~ Associates ~epEeaem~tng MilleE o~ Texas EOt
voluntary annexation o~ apptox[~tely 304.94 accel o~ la~ ~ocated
north and south cE ~ 426, east and west o~ T~lnity Road. and 80uth
oR U.S. H~ghway 380 Ea8~ (~-23).
The ~o~ opened t~e public hea~lng.
vas a totally volunta~F annexation. T~eEO ~Ee no structure8 o~
ee~Eate pa~cele. T~e purpose o~ tha an~xation va8 to p~ovtde ~o~
~u~uEe zonLng ~eque8~e and deveLopuea~. T~e pa~el ~ located
close to Vacation Village but not close enough ~o a~loV fo~ the
voluntary, the acreage ~u~d not ~educe the auo~ o~ taco vh~c~ the
otCy could annex ~hie yea~. The~e ~e 3 ~ly ~ ~tled vt~h 0
~etucned, A plan o~ 8ecv~ce8 ~oE newly anne~d stoas wag ava[tab~e
Ho one s~oke ~n o~positton.
T~ ~yot c~osed t~l ~bl[c
8te~n8 mottos. Che~ second ~o p~oaoed with the annexation. ~t~on
catered unanLuously.
D. The Council he~d a pub~Le hea~i~
c~aitiC~ca~on to the p~anned deveLe~u~ (~) d~tE~t On a 63.7
a~ U~e~od Road. I~ approved, the
9e~[t light ~uet~lal land use. Z-tTS~
Tho iayo~ opened the public
~. Gules ~eegg, t~e applicant, spoke ~n favo~ ,tatUng that
~4 ~eeo~ed plann~ develop~t wl~h co~t~lonl. ~ did not
o~lo thLs ~eco~ndat~on.
T~o ~Fo~ c~osed ~he public hoaE~ng.
~G~BO 8pivey, U~ban Planne~, ~epo~tod t~t 5 ~eply ~o~u8 ~d been
~vetopBent Curds destg~te~ th~s a~ a high [~te~tty a~ea and
193
Ctt¥ o~ Denton City Couno~l
~eettng oC August &, 1915
Page
~e~L 8~te ~ot l~g~t ~ICt~l ulim. ~taCC ~d ceco~end~
deveL~nt ~ont~g lo ~ to =ontto~ land ule amd bu~ld~ng
~m~at~one due ~o ~e ~ole ~o=~ai~y ~o ~he a~=poz~.
No omi Ipo~e ~m
McAda~e ~t~on, Ho~k~ml second to approve the petition. ~t~on
oatt~ed uum~uously.
E. The Coumo~l ~eld · public hea~ng om the petition oC
~ay~e ~lea Conattu~o~ Cold,ny. ~mo., tequelt~mg a change
claasl~i- ~aCton. ~be property i8 ~oeated at t~e 8outhvelt cornet
o~ U.S. Ht~ay 360 a~ ~l~h B~an~h Road a~ ~8 apptox~te~y
~bstzaot 514. l~ t~e o~nge ~n zoning ~8 app=oved, the pzopezty ~M
dLltziot by the C~ty o~ ~nton Zontn~ Ordnance. Z-1752
The ~yot ope~d ~he public
Company, Inc.. e~oke tn [avotetattng that the mite ~as located
The ~yOt closed &be ~bl~o
ttac& tn a ~detate tatenstty area with m~x~ la~ uses. ~o areas
probity vas legated tn t~ Clood ptatn. B~x ~eply to~ul ~d been
~atl~ wtt~ one tetu~ tn ~avot and nons ~etu~ned in opposition.
1. The ~oumetl coms[de~ed adop~tom o[ an
approving a c~nge tm ~ontng on a 1.59 acre ~act located at the
NO, 85-~46
~ ~D~N~ ~INQ T~ ZONING ~P OF ~ CI~ OF DENON.
~ ~ 5I~A~D IN T~ 5, ~, HUIZ~ 5UH~Y. ABST~T 514,
D~ C~. ~8 ~ L~A~D AT T~ SO--ST CORER OF
U. 8, HI~Y 380 ~ ~ B~ RO~; ~ PKOVI~ FOR
C~ ~ Z~I~ C~S8IFZCATION ~ ULE ~I~ATI~ FR~
~I~L~t "~" DI6~ICT C~5IFICATI~ ~ USE ~ LIGHT
1~8~ .~N C~ASZ~F~CATION ~ U~E FOH 8A~D PHOPEH~;
~= P~DI~ P~ A 5~BILITY C~USR; ~ DECLARING
8top,hi ~ttoB, Chew ~eo~ to a~opt t~e ocd[~nce. On ~oll call
vote, ~W~ ~a~e, ~ ~pkt~l ~ayI. ~ 6~ephenl "aye." Almond "aye."
Rtddlelpetge~ "aye," Chew "aye," and ~yot Stewart "aye.' Notion
cad,ted
P. ~he Counctl held a publEc hea~tn~ on ~ha pet[tton
~a~tt · Nas~. Inc., ~ep~esenttnq hedge Const~uctton, ~equesttn~ a
o~e tn zontng ~cou the agctcuttucal (~) to the stnvte fealty
(GF-X6) cZaustltca~t~. ~he p~opetty ti legated south
· ozzeetztdqe ~dtttom, P~se II. a~ north et Ryan Road and
citr o~ o~nton c~.ty counc~.~ muutee
~ pcope~M ~y be u~zed ~oc any ~a~ uae ~Em~ed ~n ~e
e~ngXe ~aa~y (6F-16) A~l~c~ by ~e ct~y o~ meu~ou Zoning
Ozd~nance. Z-1753
T~e ~yoc opened ~e public ~eaz~ng.
No one spo~e in ~lvoc.
No one epo~e ~n oppos~ton.
T~e ~yoc closed ~he public heaztug.
Ceo~le Ca~lon, U~b~n Plennez, ceVoztod ~t t~e Was t~ Phase
ex~ene~o~ o~ ~he Foc~egtz~dge ~d~t~ou. The ~ti~ou vas compatible
to dca~nage would be addcesaed dv~ng platting. A V~ovo8~X
zeoeutly been ~eee~ved ~o~ P~se XV o~ the &ddtttou. ~hece were 4
EQ~XF ~ocll ~led v~th o cetuEne~.
1. The Coumc~l come,dozed adoption o~ An
app~oviu~ a c~nge in zoning on a 23.09 ~cce ~g~t Xoea~ south
Foc~est~dge Addit~on. Phase ~l, a~ no~th o~ RFan ~ad.
· he tollow~ ozdi~uee was
~. 85-147
~ ORDXN~CE ~XNG ~ iONi~ ~ ~ ~ C~ OF D~.
ORDINal9 OF ~ CITY OF ~. TKO, BY ~IN~CE 69-I,
~ BI~A~D ~H ~ A. ~XM 8~, W~ 490,
P~g XX, ~ ~B~ OF RY~ ~; ~ P~Z~ ~
~RI~L "A" DXS~XCT C~88ZFICATl~ ~ USB TO
F~X~Y "GF-16" C~8SZFXCATI~ ~ UGR ~ SAID
PROVIDING FOR ~ ~I~ P~ OF SL,~O.~O ~
~ EFFECTI~ DA~.
Hopkins morton, He,ams .eeo~ ~o adop~ the
Council ~mbe~ Stephens asked why P~ae l~l a~ IV oo~d not ~ve
~eeu pettt~omed at the sa~ t~.
~aou ~es~onded t~t t~ts was a Z3-acre ttaot which vas
zfltdential. P~ae ~V would eneou~gl appcextuteLy ~oo ieee8
a~x~ ~an~ uses.
On EOl~ ca~l vo~l, ~l "aye," Hop~t~ "aye," S~ep~ens "aye,
ALCoEd "aye," atddlespe~gec "aye," ch~ "aye,- .~ ~yoc St~a~t
olde." ~t~on cavE,ed
7. Ocdt~nces
A. The Council constdoEed adoption o( an
~oc ~he pucc~me og ~tet~ale. eq~p~t. ~upp~ oE
pcoviding ~o~ the expe~ttuce oc fn~e tbece~oz: ,~ ,tcovtding
mn et~eottve date.
The folloW[hq o~di~nce vas pzeeeuted:
NO. 85-148
~ FOR ~ P~E ~ ~RI~8, ~Z~, 8UPP~XE~
~R~FO~ ~D P~OVIDI~ FOR ~ RFFECTI~ ~,
Meeting o~ ~ugus~ 6,
~age R~ght
C~e~ ~t~on, ~ 80~o~ to ~dopt the ocd~nmn~e. O~ ~o~ ca~
B. ~he Cou~ ~ons~e~e~ a~o~o~ o~ l~
~o~ ~ub~ ~8 o~ ~p~oYeuen~s: ~ov~d~ng ~o~ ~he expenditure o~
~l ~EI~OE; and p~ov~ng ~o~ an e~ec~ve ~..
The ~o~l~ug o~nau~e Wag p~esen~ed:
~. 85-149
~ ~DXN~ ~CR~ C~KT~T~ B~D8 ~ PROViDiNG FOR
~ ~ ~ ~~ FOR P~L~C ~RK6 OR ~~NT5
~IDIN~ ~ ~ RXP~T~ OF ~G ~FOR:
Chew ~tiou, Hopktn8 leco~ to adop~ ~he o~d~nce. On ~oI1 call
vote, ~aB8 ,aye," HoVkinl "aye." Stephens "aye," Xllo~d "aye,
Riddl~vez~ 'aye," ~ "aye,' a~ ~o~ Stewart "aye.'
ca~Led
C. The Council considezed adoption oE a~ ordinance
pzovLdi~g ~oz ~ ez~i~uze o[ ~unds [o~ emergency ~uzc~aee
o~ co~e~ttve bt~a; a~ p~ovtd~n~ ~oc an e~Eect~ve date.
The ~ollo~lq ordinance ~8 ~esented:
~. 85-150
~ ~DI~ 'P~DZ~ FOR T~ EXPR~I~RE Of ~S FOR
~~ P~9~6 OF ~RIALS, E~I~. SUPPLIES OR
BID6~ ~ PR~IDI~ ~ AN KFFE~I~ D~TE.
Chew ~ti~n, ~a~ second to adop~ the o~d~nauce. On ~o1~ cal~
vote, ~a~ "aye," Hopk~n8 "aMa," StephenG "aye," ~l~otd "aye,"
Rtddtee~tgeE .aye, · C~ "aye, . a~ ~yor stevatt .lye.,
~. ~ CQU~tl constdeted adoption o~ an ordnance and
· etvtee ptar auuextng a ttae~ o~ land app~oxL~tely 36~.708
~a~lo~ Suave, ~tzaet 452. and beginning ~st o[ ~ 2~64 (No~th
Locust) ~zeX~tely 7.~0 ~eet no~th O~ ~e~cule8 Lane ~-16
The ~O~OW~ag ozd~uee ~t p~eeented:
~. 85-151
~T OR P~ OF ~ CONG~STINQ OF APPEOXI~LY 361.71
~E8 OF ~ LY~ ~ BE~NQ SI~D IN T~ ~TY OF
~, ~ ~ ~ ~ BEIN~ PART OF T~ V. E. GAILO~
~, ~l~ 452 ~ H. ~Y 8~. ABS~CT 807.
~a~ to~io~, Ch~ eeco~ to adop~ the o~dtnance. On ~oll call
vote, ~a~l "aFe," ~p~s "aye," Stephens "aye." Almond "aye,"
Riddlllpe~ge~ "aye." C~w "aye." and ~yo= 8tewazt "aye." ~tion
oa~L~ u~nt~u~ly.
i 9 6 C~ty o~ Denton city Council #~nutes #coting of August 6, 1985
E. The Council considered
a~ov~ng ~e ~e~tton o~ R. O.
zoning ~ou ~he ag~cul~u~a~ (A) c~alB~ioa~ .~o ~ planned
8~de o~ FM 426 (East MoK[nney Street) app~oxt~tely 2,0~ feet east
of ~yh~ Road Z-~725
~ OEDIM~ ~ING ~ Z~I~ ~P ~ ~ CI~ ~ D~,
T~B, AS 5~ MAS ~ AB ~ ~P~ZX ~ ~ ~ OF
O~tN~CES OF T~ C;TY OF D~, ~E BY ORDtN~CE 69-1,
AB ~ED. ~ ~ BAlD ~
L~A~D ~ ~ 8~ G~ Of F.M. 426 (R~T ~KZ~Y
FOB A ~E IN ZONIN~ C~8~F~C~TZ~
D~5~I~ C~8GZFICATI~ ~ UGB ~SI~TI~ ~ P~D
DE~O~T "PD'* D~S~Z~ C~ZPI~TI~
DEG~ATI~: PHOVIDI~ FOR A P~AL~ IN ~ ~I~ ~ OF
81,000.00 FOR VIO~TIONS
EFFECT~ DA~.
Al~otd ~t~On, Hopkins seeo~ to adogt ~ke ocdi~aae, ~ ~o~1 call
R~dd~espetget 'aye," Chew "aye,"
ca=Eted unantmous~y.
f. The Coune~ considered adoption o~ a~ o~dtnanee
in zoning ~tom the agt~cultu~a~ (A)
development (PD) dtBttLct ~o~ ~ght ~ndustt~al (LI) uses on a S0.1
ec~4 ~=act located on =he west s~e o~ ~h~L ~ad 4,300 Ceet no=th
o~ Ilks=state 3~ No=th Z-1727
~. 85-153
OF L~ L~ATRD ~ ~ ~ST 81~ ~ ~I~L ~ 4,300 F~T
NOR~ Of I~RSTATE 36 ~R~, ~ ~ ~TICU~LY
D~GCRTBED ~IN, ~ P~I~
CLkGSIFTCAT~ F~ ~I~ "A" DIS~ICT
"PD" DIBTRZCT C~GSIFICATI~ ~ ~ DEBT~ATT~ PR~IDZ~
FOR A P~NAL~ IN ~ ~ ~ ~ 81,~0.00 FOR
VIOhATION8 ~REOF: ~ PR~DI~ FOR ~ ~F~TI~ DATE.
GrOping uot~on, Chew 8eco~ to adept the o~4L~e, ~ tol~ ea~l
~to, ~a~ "aye, · ~p~tns "aye, ·
i~Lespecge~ "aye, . Chew "aye,,' ~ ~yoE 8t~tt "aye. N Mo~oG
eatt ted u~ntuoualy.
Q. The Council conBtde,Eed adopt~o~
a~pcov~ng the peri,ton o~ To~ cotgoeat~on I.V.. to~ceeented by
f~e~8. ~va~d8 a ~aoc~ate8, Inc., t~esttng a e~nge ~n zontng
~ the agricultural (A) ctaeetCt~tt~ to ~ plaid develop~nt
~ad a~ 8ho~ ~n ~he Gideon Na~e= Survey, ~Bt~aet 1~0. Z-1742
Tho ~ollowtng o=d~nance ~a8
~.
Choy ~tton, ~tep~na second to adopt the o~dtnance. On ~o~1 call
eic~t~ u~nt~usly.
R. ~e Cou~tl co~tde~ed ido~tton o~ an o~d~nce
appcGving ~a agte~nt ~t~ea the City o~ Denton a~ Black & Vea~ch
~oc eagi~ct~ setvte~ tn cegacd to utitiC~ dtstctbutton p~oJects,
dtstct~tion .yat~ ~oc the city. This function noc~ly would be
do~ by city stail; b~vec, due to the wockload, statt could not
~ ~u ideatt~t~ a~ Blae~ and Veatch would design the system.
The ~oll~lnq ocdt~nct ~1 pceeented:
~. 85-155
~ ~I~ ~P~IlG ~ A~ ~ T~ CITY OF
~ ~ ~ & ~ FOR ~I~ERI~ 6B~ICBg.
~p~[~ ~toa. s~e~h~ second ~o adopt the o~dt~nce, On
"aye," Ri~telplEge~ "aFl," C~ew "aye," a~ ~yoE 8tlwact "aye.
I. ~e Co~tt oonetdezed adoption o~ an ocdtnanea
a~t~l~ ~pe~iz B-Zo~g o~ the Code ol Ocdi~nces ct the City DC
nonc~nt~ttat zo~t~ ' distctCts, except the central business
dtnt~t~; ~ 'a~t~ C~ aces ce~latton8 applicable to zon[n~
distEtats; ~covidt~ ~oc a ~ziuuu Verity o~ St.ooo.oo
vtotatto~ ' t~l; ~'~ov~4tn~ ~o~ a 8eve~abtttty Disuse: and
pcovKdtuO lot an et~eoCtvl date.
Rio~ ' ~ekta, ~stst,at ~tty ~nagec, ~epocted t~t this ocdtnance
~d ~en ~Co~ce4' due to a o~e Ln the e~ecCtve date o~ the
pcev~8 ~lativ4 zo~t~ o~dt~nce ~tch vas appcoved July.
~bca DeaF, itch, Cit~ ~ttoc~y. cepoc~ed t~t ita~ Pal bctnging
~. 85-%56
i 9 8 city o~ ~enton ctty councit ainutes
Meeting o~ August 6, 1985
Page Eteven
T~ ~A R~LATI~ ~PLIC~L~ ~ Z~I~
P~OVIDI~ FOR A ~I~ P~ O~ ~1,000.~ ~O~
~REOF; PROVIDING ~OR A I[~ILI~ C~tl; ~ PR~IDIN~
~ddtespe~ge~ "aye," C~ev "aye,,' end ~yoc s~evac~ "eye.. ~ton
J. ~he Couucit constdn~ed adop~iou ol au o~di~u~e
~e~a~ing ~o consul~tn~ se~vtces ~ega~d~mg ~pleMu~a~ton o~
~boz 6~a~azde ~c~ ~nd decl~z~n~ an e~eo~ive da~e.
Ka~h~yn Us~ey, Di~ec~o~ o~ Pecsonmet, zepoc~e~ ~ oa february
S~a~a~d8 Ac~. In o~de~ fo~ ~e Ct~y ot Denton ~o ~ tn co~pltanoe
~t~h ~he vaztous p~ovistons ol ~hie ~, s~ai~ was zeco~tng
ht~in~ a consul~an~ ~o help ge~ ~he p~ogza~ s~az~ed. The consul~an~
~uld be working at the City io~ ~ee to Itve days. The City
u~tt Oo~oba~ 25 ~o ~ep~og~au ~ oou~u~eE, e~o.. ~o ~o~ tn~o
eompt~an~e.
counotl bsbe~ Stephens asked how ~ny peopte wou~a be used at the
~700 pe~ d~y ~ee.
UsEoy =esponded one.
The iollowtng o~dt~nce vas p~esen~ed:
NO. 85-157
~ ORDIN~CE A~RIZI~ ~ ~HE~T NI~ ~Y ~ISRHOD
ASS~TAT~S, INC., RE~TING ~ ~SULTI~ 6~VX~
Ch~ ~ton. ~s second =o adop~ ~he o~d[~=oe. On ~oll oall
vote, Mc~eus "aye," Hopkins "aye," Ste~he~ 'aye," Altocd "aye,"
Btddlespe~gec 'aye." C~ "aye, . a~d hyo~ 8~i~ "ayo," ~iou
oicltid unantuouety.
8. The Counett cecetved a ~I~o~ on a p~opoge~ auenduen~ ~o
Section 27-24 (d) ol ~ho Code oi Ozdi~noes zegacdtng gacage~eepezs
tiabtlt~y tneuzance.
RtcX Svehla, Asats~am~ Ct~y ~nage~, ze~oE~et ~ i Counctl
~d ~equea~e~ s~all ~0 zevtew Chis pa~Cteulaz seo~tom ol ~he Code
OEdt~nces ~e~azdtag ltabtli~y. S~all Cel~ ~ t~ze ~uld be
p~oble~a wt~h ~he ct~y adutnts~e~tng ~he tusuEi~e and
~eeo~end ~ha~ coverage b~ pzovtded by
~bza D~lyovt~c~, Ct~y A~o~ney, ~epo~ed ~ ~ts code ~d been
aue~ed ~o p~ovide ~o~ ga~agekeepe~a 1tabilLty t~uzauoe. T~
had zecetved ctalue by ~ndtviduat8 whose autos ~ ~em da~ged tn
~. P~esen~ty ~he City used a zo~a~ton tte~ ioz wreeke~ oe~vtoee,
Ii t~ City ~ndled ~he tnsuzance on an esoEov acco~ b~eis.
~uld ueaa an ex~zeuely de~atl~ adutnte~za~Lve Junction bet~
~Elo~ed by
Council ~ube~ Chew stated t~t an t~lvtdual had ap~zoac~d
abou~ th~s and, ~le ~ had sou~ed good on ~e sub,ace, t~ ~uld
zepEeeent a vezy costly pzogzau ~oz ~he City ~o
Cou~oil ~enbez Stephens e~a~ed t~ he would lt~e ~o have
eoutd be given. ~ sta~ed that he vou~d pcele~ co eeo a ~epo~ o~
dollars and cents ~atho~ t~n Just optnto~s.
Page
Sveh~a ~epo~ed that ~ case o~ a claim ~o~ ~a~ge0 staf~ would
to detetu~ne how the damage occulted.
Coun~t ~ez Ch~ zel~nded that he ~d called seveta~ places amd
could not ~t~ thil he,ag done an~heze else.
Counetl ~ Hopkins stated that ~ecker services had tnsucance
and ~e bonded.
9. The COUnCil ~a~ to coneide~ appzoval o[ uae o~ ~c~
1. COUnCil ~be~ ~tephem~ ~equa~ted to ~ve the
a~czop~ones ~o~ ~he Con, il ~beca ~oved c[oeez to the bac~ o[ the
desks.
11. T~te was no o~ic~a~ action on Executive ~e~s~on Items of
legal Mtte~s, ~eal estate, personnel, o~ board appointments,
5tephen~ ~ttom, ~p~lne ~econd to a~polnt ~. ~eune~h F~ady
place ~ om the ~bltc U~tlI2~ Boa~. ~o~ton ca~ed unanimously.
~tt~ no ~u~he~ ~te~ o~ bu~ine~ the mee~n~ was a~ou~ned.
1235a
2OO
City Council
kuqu~t 15. 1985
The Council convened into the Mock 5eec[on at 1:30 a.m. in the
T£atning Room o[ the Ge£vice Cente~.
PBESENT: Kayoc Stevart; Mayor P£o Tem HODk~GI~ CQUnOi~ Iqembere
Al~ord. McAdame. mud Btddleeperge~
~SIU~T: Council Member Che¥ wac out on
1. The Council eonsi~ered a9provat
u~mbars to the Blue Ribbon Colamittea ~or Flow Memorial
The follow~ng resolution was V£esented:
REqQ~UT ~ Q~
NHRREAS. on July 31. 1985. the City Co~cll eDAoreed the
Tas~ Force Report on Flow He,oriel Hospital and authorized the
creation ct a Btue Ribbon Coemittee~ and
I~I~REAS. the City Council wishes to agpoi&t ~at~ Com~ittee;
~K)M. T~REFORE.
BE ~T RESOLVED BY Tt~ COUNCIL OF TI~ CITY OF DENTON. T~:
The ~ollowtnq me~be£e a~o b~eby aplmint/d to the Blue
Etbben Committee to oversee the negetiation
a ~on-profit Section 501(o)(3) Corporation betYeen the City. the
County. and the Co£po£at~on regarding Flo¥ #elorial Holpital:
Charles HoD~ins. Physician
Roger Nunn. Physician
Don Holt. Physician
~ahlon F~eeman. Physician
Oeorqe Hilz, Flow Memorial Hoevital Board Member
Jim RiddlesVe:ger, City Council Member
Ruth T&nsay. County Commissioner
Bob ~nktns. Cect~Eted Public Accountant
Bare,lee Ba~. ColmunttF
seanett K~gk, Community Loade~
Tracy Xun~et. Couuntty ~eade~
Ken Neon, Co~ntty Leader
Ntlt~e Ketth Pate. Couuntty LeadeE
Dr. Barbara C~auec. ~ Representative
Ds, Stll McKee. NTSU Representative
Dc. J~n Xil1[nOavocth, Health Vlamnec
David ~odec, Health ~n~nietcatton
Bttt ~cFacltng, Consumer Revreaemtative
Levee Price. Consumer Representative
C~y o~ Dento~ C~y ~OGD, C~I M~MI~eS 2 0 1
Page ~d~
~e ~utiee o~ the Committee s~all be ~o ovecgee ~e
me~o~ia~oa o~ C~e ~e~
county a~ ~e non-p~o~ co~po~a~on a~ ~Xe ~eco~enda~ons ~o
~e City Coumo~l a~ C~n~y co~si~one=a
(l) Tezu o~ ~he ~eaee
(z) Pco~ec~tom oC ~he alie~e O~ ~he C~y an~ County
(~) Obligations o~ ~he C~y a~ Coum~y u~ec ~he ~ecue o~ ~e
lease
(4) Coas~deta~toa
(S) Rzis~tng a~ ~u~u~e [~eb~ednesa
(6) ~he degree o~ aU~t~y to be veered tm ~he ~n-pzo~t. S50~
(c)(3) Co~pora~ton.
Fu~hez, the CoUit~ee
om aE be~ ~ch 1, Z9e~. ~d~t~onally, the C~ty amd County. bM
zeso~u~on, ~y ahazge ~e Co~C~ee v~b additional duC~es.
T~ Co~ee is ~e=eby av~o~zed ~o ac~ ~n ~e
pe~o~nce o~ ~8 duties unttl such t~me as the C~ty Council and
t~ ~y Co~t~mto~a ~ve approved
~n-p~o~ coEpocatton a~ a tease docuMnC ~8 been p~epaced.
PA68~ ~ ~ th~8 the ~Sth day o~ August, 1985.
RICHARD O, STR#ART, MAYOR
CIT~ OF DL'N~o TEXAS
&TTR~T:
CHAR~3TT~ &L~L~, CITY
GY:
~8 aa appzoved by t~ Cou~il on ~uqust 13, 1985. Om roll call
"aye,· a~' ~yoz 8t~a~t 'aye.s ~o~ cazzted umamtuouety.
2. w~ councit ~m b~am a zev[iv o[ the p~opoged 1985-86
bud~.
· ~e ~dge~ ~zKl~op Io~u~e vas ag Co~lo~:
C~ ~CIL B~KT ~RKS~P
c~t¥ o~ oenton cLt¥ council #~nutee
J~eet~ng of August
Page
Public Mo£ke
Po~ce Hugh Lynch
Data ~cocemetng oacy Co~ne
M~scellaneous
~bt 8ezv~ce ~und
Joint ~un~ng
Opecat~ons A~ly8~8 ~u B~u~n
~ann~ng an~ Couun~ty Oeve~op~nt Je~
ConCc~buC~ont ~o
~bza Dcayov~tah
B~
U~cF Sys~eu Rob Nelson
R~eccc~c
~a~ez sad
Pay-plam Reco~eu~a~oms KaC~cyu Uecey
~yoz 8~eva~ le~ ~he ~e~ng a~ appzaz~u~ely 10:00 a.u.
~yoc Poe Ten Hopkins left the neett~ at appcox~tely 11:00 a.~.
~yoc Pco Ten Hopkins )o~ned t~e meeting at appcoztM~ely ~2:00 Goon,
Council bubec Chev
~yoc G~evac~ )otmed ~he uee~mg aC appzozL~tely Z:OO p.s.
3. The Council convened ~n~o the Rzeeut~ve Seeiio~ to ~seuss
lega~ ~Ceca, teal estate, peceo~l, a~ boacd a~o~m~n~a. Ho
o~ie~al actLon ~ae taken.
~th no ~utthec ite~m of bus,ness, ~bo uootl~ ~,~dJ~ucmed.
L234a
2O3
City Councit Minutes
&u~st 20. tg8s
The ~e~oi~ eo~veud into the Work Session 4t3O ~,l, in the City
1. ~ Cou~Q[1 oo~d [~to t~e Bzecut[ve SeGa[on to discuss
~e Co~[~ t~en ~onve~ [~to the NotK 60i8[o~ it 5:30 p,m, tn the
Al~ocd, ~, Mobius, a[ddlem~ecge~ a~ Gtevbens
~. ~ ~ Jenkins. ' ce~dmeatk~g t~e Denton County K[atoc[cal
lotto: r~mt~g ~e*~y o~ eld C~ty o~ ~flton tax ~ococd8. She
outz~eb ol~c~u~ttee. ~o t~ co,unity. ~esecvation
PEe~ ~t[v~c~e8, ~e ~tce tcueK vas Ln t~ cestocatto~
the ~4~ ~d ~em 'e~ed. ~o exerting acquLsLt~o~ ~d been
~de~ ~ ~he ~tl~i~ this Feat. T~ desk amd china eabinet of
John CeE~%I ~ ~ .added a8 welt as the o[~iee a~ uedical
oqui~a~ e~ t~ ~[~et ~ decree in ~m~on.
A le~tec '~4 ~en ee~ to the ~yot a~ Council ~ubec8 ~uesting
cuat~y a~ ~ceht~ o~ the old tax ceooEda, MLnu~ee and
ee~[ecy cecocda ~teh ~ce being pcesently mieco[tlued by the City
SeecO~zy'a-,o[~[ee. ~i8 vas a ~coJeet ~[e~ the ~ua ~ anxious
to ta~ on.
the l~ o~te~y due to coo~zatton ~coa the city, ~[e tenting
avat~te., ~, Je~k[~ 'co~%~ed by' ezpcena[~g t~e appreciation of
City ~4 ~iveu ove~ t~ Fence.
2, ~ COU~[1 bold a ~iseusaton o~ pacticipatiou tn a
Gout~cu ~ton Co,tV ~t[tee of the ~u[uce.
hy~ It~t aI~K [~ [hit c~tttee was ~cou t~e entice county.
204 City ct I)enton City council ainutee
Meeting ol August 20. lg85
Page Two
Hayor Pro Tea Hopkins eta~nd that it appeared ~hat the~e was
duplication ol activities with this ~omatttee and tw~ or three other
groups.
Council J(eube~ MoAdaus stated ~ the Ct~y should send soueone
~he meeting to get uo~e
Council ~ube~ ~tddlespe~geE 8tatet that the City should
with ~htl gEoup.
T~ consensus ol ~he Council ~as ~o se~ eoaeone g~oa the staif to
~he Southern ~n~on County comities oi 2he FUtUre
3. T~e Council ~ecetved a ~epo~ on the e~t o~ elate
legislation upon the p~oposed Denton sign ordinance a~ eonstdeged
alterations to t~e p~opoeed ozdt~e in ~eeponee to state
ze~lattona.
Council ~eabe~ Rtddlespe~e~ stated that this ~ae an e~ple o~ a
Council ~n~im~ ttseli bM delaytnq t~e paeeaqe ct the proposed
ordinance.
C~atlte ~atktns, City gtali, repotted t~at the state statute as
ap~o~d contained a ~equt~e~en~ ~t i~ a~ s~qn ~ ~o be ~e~ved.
a~oumd ~ht, ~equt~euent ~tch ~ut~ co~t ~e C~y a g~ea~ deal
~ul~ ~ve a st~mtttcant l~paot on ~ budget. ~ al~e~tive
~ to delete all ~efezeaces to eziatt~ ~n-eoatoEutuo
applicable only to new signs. T~i8 eevi~ centimes could be
p~e~ented ~o~ approval at t~e Sept~bez ~ Council ~eettng.
T~ consensus o~ the Council ~as to p=oeeed ~ta~ ~ts
T~e Council ~eld a discussion o~ petition ct ~tt
appEoxi~tety 92,80 ac~es located ~h O~ ~ig~ay ~Y
l,O&O ieet east ol 1-35~ io~ ~he pu~pos~ ol dete~mtltn~
~gtn the annexation process.
~vtd Elltson. 6ento~ PinnacE, ~eported ~ha~ ME. ~EMh ~S the sane
l~ivtdual who ~nd p~esented a petition icc annela~l~ loc 198 notes
~ot~h cE the Ct~M which had o~ ~el/de~ tn p~ee., 'T~ Council ~d
decided no~ tc proceed ~t~h that paztteulaz a~ion. ~o~ez
deuces, which vas tn p~o~ees. T~e staC~ ~el~ this pe~tttom via
s~eulattve in na~uze; ~ove~z, no ~puta~ton ~e 4iteo~ed and ~here
Cou~tl Membec Stephens sexed ii ~heze vas any ceases ~o pcoceed
with ~h~a annexation nov.
seEvtees standpoint.
Council ~mbe~ Rtddtempa~ge~ ,tat~ t~ ~ a~xed, the p~opeEty
~u~d be om ~he ~ax
Coune~l Meube~ Step~en8 asked v~eEe ~he t~ac~ vas located.
Elttson ~eplted t~ vas by t~e Texas Zns~u~n~g
Chew uo~tou, 5~ephen8 second ~o begin ~he an~attou ~ecess. ao~ton
cad,ted unantmous~y.
S. The Council held a discussion ol petition ol
Lacquemont ioz voluntary annexation o~ app~oxt~ely
toea~ed at the nozth~at oo~ cC ~ 2~64 (~h Locust) and
p[oposed Loop 2~9. A-29
Meetin~ o~ august 20,
Page Three
Oavi4 Elltsea, Senioz ~lanneto pointed out the location o~ the t£act
Gm a ma~ amd £epotted t~at ~t. bacgue~ont was ~mteteeted tn eventu-
ally obtatatng sea,ag ~oz the ~ole pa£cel east amd slightly no£th
6, T~ Co~no~ ~eX~ a ~lcu~stom o~ ~eoo~at~on concerning
th~l ~l~ue. ~ then ~e~o~ted that the sole purpose o~ ~chedul~ng
t~m, ~tem ~oz t~e ~z~ aeee~om vas to ga~n ~nput ~zom the Council
~t~o~ to a ~ubl~c ~at%~. ~e Plamn~ a~ Zo~g Co~tme~o~ ~a
zeco~e~ t~t a ~ee ~ ~a~osed ~o~ those petitioning ~oz voluntary
amme~t~on. ~ i~ea ~ to o~set so~e ot the cost o~
the ~91~oat~oa ~ot a~tion althoug~ the tee ~ould mot covet the
coetI o~ service. ~t t~ pteeemt t~me, apptoz~telM 50t to ~o~
t~e aw~t~on petitions ~te voluntary. The P~ann~ng amd Zoning
co~tse&oa ~eSt St ~uSd be am economic hardship to o~at~e a ~ee tot
those ~a~e te~ueat~a~ a~exat~om on tracts lees t~n ~ive ac~ee.
~n n~se. ~ ~ee be e~gged, for pascals o~ t~ve o~ mote motes, a
~ee ct ~3~0.00 be assessed.
council ~ec Stephens ~ta~ed that the P&Z ~ ea~ ~t you,d be an
ever, patoeXe o~ lens t~n g&ve acres ~n oetta~n loeat~on~ oou~d be
sah~ee ~e ~sed e~ the etas o~ the ~opezty.
211~som teapo~ed t~t theze va~ a ~ee schedule ~oz g~ate, etc..
~ch cae ~ee~ on the ei~e o~ the tzact.
Counctt ~ez Ste~heae rhea asked i~ it took ~ze ttae to ~coeess
~acgez ttaate due to t~ ~teld notes.
3e~ ~yec, Dtzectoz og Planm~mg an~ co,unity Develo~ent. ~epozted
t~t it ~ae almost a ~ot go,mt as ~e did not te~mbez a zequeet
votumtacy aa~xatton ~z aay ~atcel o~ S aatee oz tees.
Cou~tt ~z Rtddles~tge~ stated that ptopett~ whtc~ vas annexed
i~Lmtely began to ~y taxes and the City Would recoup the ~ney.
Cou~tl ~U~ ~a~ etat~ the City ~d to beg~u to ~utnish
so,vices. Such a, ~t~e amd police Dtotecttou, tmdtately upon
~eyeE ~epotted t~t t~e ~ope~ty ~as added to the tax toll the yea~
aftag a~t~on. ~$t speculators bought the pzopezty, had
anne~ into t~ City ~ t~n ~old tt be~oze the end o~ a Meat.
out d~ oG t~e numbaz o~ volu~ta~M annexations.
~ye~ ~ee~ed t~t ~t was dt~tcult to judge. The number
petitions ~o~ voZumta~T annexattons ~luctuated an~ay. I[ lass
aggLta~tton8 ~o~ volunta~M anne~ttoms ~ze zece~ved, sta~ would
not be able to detec~ue t~ the ceasen qa~ the n~ ~ng ~ee ct
Cou~il bmber Btddlea~gez ll~ed why the C~ty would charge a lee
~eye~ ~eB~Q~ ~t t~ae ~e~iona ~equest~ volunta~y annexation
were not acing lo to ~ta~n the [[~e and po~ce service - they wets
wan~tng ~o k~ a qula~ 9Eo~l~ OU the
206
City o~ Denton C~ty Council #inures
Bleating o~ August 20, 1985
Page ~out
los000 pet acta, A $250 tee was not much money,
Counsel Meuba~ McAdams stated t~t the question was whathat the
council wanted to ~ollov the coat o~ services ~htloloQhy. If so,
she did not know u~y th~s g~ou~ o~ people should
peCgon hid ~o buy you ~o ge~ you ~o ~ooE a~
developers.
p¢ovtded.
~a~ mo~om to ~eoo~end the ~eo schedule ~ot voluntary a~ezatton
ttaot oyez tire acte8 a~ 8o ~o~ u~et ttve notes.
~ot Pto Ten Hopkins state~ that $o~ o~ the 8~1~ tEao~s vets vezy
&uctative tot developers.
~tLoa ~ied ~ot Sack st a second.
~aus motion. AS~ota geco~ to ~eoomaa
voSuataty ianeEat~one.
Kc~aU8 8tared t~t aha ~utd p~e~et to begt~ at tbS. ~ate and
byez zepoE~ed ~ha~ ~h~8 ~ou~ no~ be a ft~t~o~e om ~he ~ee. bu~
za~hez tn~o~t~on ~ot the public ~eaz~ng ~oh would have to be
VOte.
7. The Council teoonvened ~n~o the Rxee~tve
~egal uattezs, ~eal estate, ps,sensei, and boned
o~lo~a~ actton vas taken.
~he Council Chambers.
~l~ozd, C~. ~c~dama, Rt~dlel~zgec a~ 8~e~hens
~: None
T~e Coumcil cona~dezed appgo~al o~
· ~ec~at Called ~eettng o~ July 30,
ItddlespeEge~ ~t~om, Ne~aus neeo~ to approve tha
2. Con~en~ Agenda
~p~lns motion. Che~ seco~ to appzove ~he
~zelen~ed. ~otton ca~ed unanimously.
1. Bid ~ 9489 - ~8p~lt repaying
city cl y coun i
Meeting o~ ~ugust 20.
2, ~Ld ~ ~g4 - ~e~lecttvs lane
3. Bid ~ 9498 - Traffic signal 9oles
4, Bid # g~o1 - Cable and air switches
5. Bid # 9502 - 4O-~oot platform trailer
6. P~ro~als Orda£ ~ 69362 to Boy~ Ezcavatio~
7. P~o~ee O~der ~ 69401 to ~to~o~a Co~u~t~atio~s
8. P~EO~GO O~e~ ~ ~9409 to J. S. Rquipuent
g, ~u~o~sI OEd8~ ~ 69469 tO Basic Naste
the ~u~t o~ 83,386.~3
zo~t~ c~tsston ~eeo~n~m
2, A~tova~ o~ ~te~tuina~y ~lat o~ t~e Connolid~ted
Pzope~t~e8 ~dition No. ~, Lore 1 a~ 2, ~ock
1, (The e~anning and Zoning Co~isa~on ~eco~end8
~nt~ ~dit~on. Lot 5R, Block 18. (The
and Zoning Commission ~eoo~e~e approval.)
~1~ ~a~k k~d~tion. Lot lA, Block 5, (The
Planm~ng and Zouing Co~lilon teoo~mende
ap~zoval.)
5, ~p~tovit ot Ri~l ~ep~at oK the ~atnvtight
~d~t&o~ a~ the Otig~l To~ o~ ~on ~dttion
(vie&nrta ~quate, hot S, ~lock ~). (T~
The Couno~t then ~e~t the regular agenda otdez.
5, ~eeolutto~
~. T~e c~{1 ~8~de~ed approval o~ a '~esolut~on
a~p~tUg am aq~e~nt by the City o~ ~nton ~nduettfal ~velopuent
Authority to ,tse~ a bo~ ~oz ~ztino Realty Company and a gua=antee
ag=~n~ w~th FEank ~. ~zttno, Jaue~ B. Maztino, David C.
FZa~ M. ~=tino, J=., a~ R~cha=d D. ~=ttno and the bond Zeso~utton
9=o~t~g ~oz t~e te~e o~ such bond,
o~heta ~ic~ ~d been be~ote tbs Council. The Denton I~ustttal
bo~.
P~ N. ~T~, J~8 B. ~RT~, DAVID C. ~RTINO,
~ ~ ~ ~ESO~ION PHOV~DIN~ FOR
~ 16SU~CE OF SUCH ~ND
208 city Denton city counoil
aeeting o~ August 20, 19S5
IImRE~8. City o~ Denton ZndustciaL Develo~nt ~utho£tty
vas o£eated unde£ the auspices o~ the City o~ Denton, Texas;
~IER~o the City Council o~ ~he C~ty o~ ~a~m (the "C~ty")
~e. by ~z~ttem ze,olut~on decXa~ t~at cez~a~n a~eas o~ the C~y
the ~velo~mt Co~o~a~iom ~ot o~ 1979, as m~ed. ~t~ole 5190.6.
V.~.T.C.5.. am~ the ~ules pzoaulga~ed t~ezeua~ez (~he "~ct"); and
~RE~S. ~t~no ~ealty Co~amy, a general ~a~tme~ehi~.
~eetzes to ~nce, Vu~euant to the &ct. t~e co~t~uotiom o~
~ac~l~tY oomta~mimg t~ build,age agg:egattmg a~oz~tely 120.000
aquaze ~eet (~h~oh ~ilX be leaaed ~ ~zd pa~t~ee a~ ~tll be
located a~ ~he ~U~e~ect~on o~ ~se 8tEeet a~ ~yh~11 Road
~nton. Texas (the "P=oject"): and
· lighted A~ea: a~
Resolution be adopted,
T~RRFOEE. B~ IT ~6OL~D BY ~ CX~ ~CXL OF T~
OF ~ ~T:
Sec[ion 1. The "Loan Ag~eeMn[ be[ween C[[y o~
~dus~ta~ ~velop~nt Authority a~ ~gc~no ~alty Comgany",
Bo~ ~n ~he pc~nctpal auounc o~ ~.5oo.ooo, ~y ~ tssu~ pucnuaut
constructing o~ causing to be acquK~ed an~ constructed the
as de~ned a~ deBe~bed thezet~.
Section 2. The "Resolution ~uthocig~nq the Iasuanee o~
· ~ ~e Execution ol a T~ust ~nt~e (~ztino Realty Company
~eeolution and nde a pa~t ~ceof fO~ all puc~osee, ts ~ceby
Ipec~lically app:oved, a~ the Bond ~y be teeu~ al Vcovtded
theEe~.
Section 3. ~he ~ouacaut~ Agce~mt ~en CUe C~ty og
~mton Induatctal ~velopuent ~uthoc~ty a~ Fcank N. ~c~no,
~cCL~', ~n substantially the goc~ a~ m~a~e a~4~d ~o th~e
appzoved.
Section 4. The City ~ece~ approves t~ ~elua~e o~ the
a~ozesa~d Bo~ in the aggregate p~tne~pal a~unt o~ 82,500,000
~c~t~ Real~y Colpany, a~ ~uc~bec,~s t~ P~oj~t as descc~bed
La a oceuaid oan Agce~ent, a~ su~ avpzovale a~ll be solely
~ee ~ purposes of Beck,on 103(k) og ~he En~ez~l Beveaue Code
~9S4, as aaended, a~ the C~y shall ~ve ao l~ab~ll~ie8 ~o~ ~
paint o~ ~he Bond no~ 8~11 any o~ it8 aB~etg be pledged ~o the
pa~ent ot the Bond.
Section 5. The C~ty hece~ assigns to t~e City o~ ~ntou
I~uetzial ~velo~mt ~uthoz~tM i~s alleeabte pox~iou o~ the state
pztvate activitF bo~ volu~ ~ith gespec~ ~o the zesezvat~on zequeat
to be ~led [oz the Bo~ bM the c~t~ og ~nton ~uet~t~l ~velopmen~
~uthozity.
MeetLug o~ &usual 20, LgIS
Pe~e Seven
Hopkine uotion, 8~ephene eecond that the reeolution be approved, on
~oll call vote. MoAdaus "aye." Hopkins "aye.' Stephan8 "aye." Almond
"&ye~" lieLdlee~4t£ge£ "aye." C~ew "aye." I~ ~yo~ 8~ewl~ "aye."
~anc~Ese en~ cable ~e~ev~s~on pole ~eate ag~eeuon~ C~ou Do~en
· ~a~g%o ~n~oa~o~ ~o Sawn8 Conun~ca~on8, Inc.
· ~ 8vl~l, ~ll~l~i~ C~y ~nage~. 8~a~e~ ~ ~E8 tssue ~ been
app~ove~ by ~ha Cable ~ ~v~go~y Boa~ a~ a pub~e haa~ng be~o~e
· ha ~o~ovEng ~eso~u~on WaG
~ab~o ~eLevEsEon ~Eanoh~se pu~suan~ ~o O~noe No. 79-~ o~
~S, Sa~ns Co~n~ca~Eons, In~., an~ Golden T~angle
Co~Lc&~oms have ~~ sppEova~ C~om ~ha ~n~on C~y Counc~
~o~ ~s~Mm~ o~ ~ha C~ano~se ~o samuons Conun~ca~ons, ~nc.; and
~R~AS, ~he Cable ~e~ev~a~ou 8oa~d has ~eco~ended
approval o~ tho ~Eanch~se ans~gn~nt; a~
~, pursuit to Gect~on ~-1/2-23(3) GE t~e Code
O~d[~neei o~ ~he Ct~y o~ ~nton, Texas, a~te~ d~igent tnqu~y and
a pubttc hea~ng on ~ust 6, 1985, the City counct~ ts o[ the
op~oa ~ belteC t~ ~a~ns Co~un~ca~ions, luc,, ueet~ the
~6, the ~tty Council believes it is in fha be~t
GE IT RRSOB~ BY ~ ~t OF ~ ~ OF DENTON,
T~ Ci~F o~ ~l~on, Texas, heEeby consents ~o and approves
the ~cins~e~ and austg~n~ o~ that certain cable ~e~evtsion
[~a~a8 ~lEded by OEdt~nce Ho. 79-1, attac~ed he~oto and
po~a~ed ho~e~n by ~e~ouee, ~om ~olden T~angle Co~unica~on8 to
5a~8 Co~uniea~ion8, Ina., a vholly-o~ed subsidiary o~ Sa~onu
Cable Co~n~eat[ons, Inc., to~ the Ee~intng te~m ot such
~I~ II.
T~ City o~ ~aton, Texas, heEeby consents to and approve8
t~ ,tE~{e~ ~ as~lg~ o~ all o~ Golden T~ianqle Co~unication8'
~tq~, t~t~e a~ ~n~ tn and to t~C co~ain cable ~elevision
pole lease agreeing, attae~d he~eto and incorporated herein by
~e~ece~o, to Gains ~unicat~ont. Inc., ~o~ the ~e~ining
o~ e~e~ ig~ee~n~ a~ eubJ~t to all t~e te~n~ and comdition~
The ooziest i~ &p~toval o~ assistant ot ~ha cabXe
eo~itton~ u~n Golden Tcfan~le Co~unica~ions and Sa~ons
Co~ntea~o~, lac., ~t%~ng docuuen=8 o~ t~ansCe= and
with ohm C~ty Geo~etaEy w~hin days [~om the e~Kective
date o~ this ReIOlUt~OG.
c~y o~ ~nton c~ty council ~nut.
Meeting o~ August 20, 1985
Page Eight
sEc"rIo~ ~V.
Th~s aeeotution enact become eggeo~ive t~edtately upou its
gaeeage and aDp£oval.
P&BSED ~ APPROVED' this ~s 20th d~Y ~ ~ugus~. t985,
ItICKAHD O. 8TWIO~T; 14iWOR
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
&TTt~T:
CI~AILC~TE ALLEN, CITY 8ECHETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
/%PPROVeD AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DERMA PLDAMI DRAYOVITCH. CITY ATTORNEY
CITY Of DENTON, TEXAS
~da~s uotton. ,llgoEd secoad that the ~esolu~toa be agp~oved. O~
"aye,~ Eiddlespe£gec "aye." Chew nays," a~ ~ayo~ ~tew~c~ "aye."
~to~ ca~ied urmnt~oualy.
The Council then ~e~u~ned ~o ~he It.ll[ Igt~l
3, Pubti~ Hea~tnga
· , The council held a ~blte hea~t~g ou ~he pe~i~tou og
Jau8 D. Lynch, ~epceeea~tng Lynch a~ Ly~h, zna,, z~uee~t~ a
classtltca~ton on a t.402 acco Ccio~.
524 boo~ 288 and ts shown tn cbt ~y G. Austin 8~ey, Ibs~cao~ 4.
u~lLzed eec any use pecm~ed ~n C~ aomee~al Sc) zonLng
alaf~C~ca~on by the C~F o~ ~uton Zoning ocdL~e. Z-1754
T~ ~yo~ opened ~he pub~o heac~np.
NE. James D. Lynch, the Deterrence, spoke ~n ~avoc stating t~t the
t~aeet coulotued ~tth ptesent zoning tn t~s azea. '~ ~ submitted
· Eawtug8 lot the p~oposed ollice de~lo~nt.
· o o~ 8po&e ~n opposition.
The ~yot closed the public heactng.
Cecile Cacaos. Ucban Planne=. cepoc~ed ~ ~e ~tCton was goc
com~etal zoning on 1.5 aoce8 tn a high intensity a~. ~ cequee~
vas conatsten~ with existing la~ uses. gou~ ~egly goons
S~ltg wished co cepo~t ~ ~hts ~tiCton ~ld ,be ~la~tve tn
~t~ce. The Ptanntng a~ zontn~ COaieston ~l gea~ a~coval,
aa ocdt~nee aue~tng the zont~ ~ og the Ctty'ol ~nCon, Texas,
Ct~y o~ Denton, Texas, by O=dt~/aoe No, 69-1,
8eeectbed ~ecetn: ~o pcovtde goc a a~nge
violations checeog; and p~ov~d~n~ gee an egg~ctve da~e.
City 04 D~nton Cl~y Council MiGutel 2 i 1
Mee~lng o4 August 20,
Page
The tollovtng otdtrmnce vas p£elented:
MO. 85-158
~8, ~ ~ ~S ~PTRD ~S ~ APPR~X ~ ~ CODE OF
69-1, ~S ~, ~ ~ S~D ~P APP~RG TO 1.40~ ACRES OF
~ ~KT~D ~T S24 ~P 288 OUT OF ~ ~HY G. AUGT~N
~N~ TO PI~D~ FOB · ~GE ~N Z~NQ C~SS~F~CATION
F~ AQ~~ "A" DIG~ICT C~8SIF ~C~T[~ ~D USE
~TI~ ~ ~CIAL "C' D~GTRICT C~SGIFXCATION ~D
U~H ~6I~TI~; P~DI~ FOR ~ ~ENALTY IN k ~ ~
~ $L,O~.OO ~E V~O~T~8 ~OF; ~ PH~DI~ FOE
G~ephena ~ion, ~pk~n~ seoona ~o adopt ~he ocdtnance. O~ roll
call. vote, ~i~ "aye," Hopkfns "aye," S~ep~n8 "aye," Almond
"aye," Ridd$espeEgeE "iFa." Chew "lye," and ~yo[ Stewart
~, The Council held a public haa~n~ oa =he pe~on
~Lson ~vemt~nt8 a~ Pat 8~ady cequeati~g a change in zonin~
~cou thc ~gctcultuCal (&) district to the light ~ndustcial (LI)
classification on a ~.7 ac~e t~aot located on t~e west side o~
c=aek Koad app=ox~tety 1SO ~eet mo=th of u.s. Highway 380. ~f the
zoning =e%ues~ It appz~ed, ~he p=o~e=ty ~F be u~l~zed ~o~ any
purpose ~aitted Ia a light l~usttial district by t~e CIty o~
Denton Zoning OEdl~nco. z-1757
Tho ~yo~ opened the public hoaxing.
M~. ~thu~ T~oy. ~ep~e~enting ~he puc~haee~, spoke ~n ~avo~ stating
t~a= ~e Was available ~o aus~ any quost~ons which t~e Council
have.
~yoc P~o Tel ~9K~n8 ii,ed Ki~ ~l ~opeE~y be uled ~o=,
H~. T~oy ~o~od a amll ~d~t~al parK.
No o~ 8~te in op~oei~on.
The ~yoE ~toged t~e public
9~edou~ntly co~e~cia~ a~ l~qht tnduat~ial with soue ~etatl use.
No=th, 8outh a~ oas~ o~ ~he e~te was commercial and l~ght t~du~-
~=tat. T~ p=opo8~ la~ u8e was compatible with zoning and land
uses. ThoEo ~e 5 =eply fo=~ ui~ed wit~ 1 ~etu~ned tn laver and
o t~ op~et~ion.
Hopkins mo~ton, G~4~ se~ to approve the ~tit[on.
oiz~t~
C. ~. h~tiQn OE B. J. Button =equesttnga
~n S4~ ~zol ig~c~uKi~ (A) &~d 9~i~ed 4evelop~n~ (PD-54 and
The ~pE~=~y ~l. ~o~*~ noE~h oC ~obtn~on Road a~ eag~ of Lake~ood
~plezee (2-F) 22.23
Fout-plexes - 4.70 acze8
Ge~l ae~atl - ~.83 acces
Open Space .48 acts
city o~ Denton City Council Minutes
~eeting o~ ~ugust 20. 1985
Pegs Ten
The Kayo£ opened the public
#£. H. J. Button, owne~ and develope~ o~ Lake~ood ~etate8, spoke in
~avo£ and dist£ibuted a copy of the site plen ~o~ the p~opoeed
the eaet o~ Lake~ood Estates. Itghteen notes et the pactel vas
9~ev~oualy o~ed by ~z. Co,prom a~ was z~d ~oz p~anned develop-
uen~. ~z. Ru~om ha~ come ~o s~a~ ~n ~We a~z~n~ ~o ask ~o~ zoning
~ck in~o one plamn~ development. 8one zea==a~tng ~a~ been done
oa ~ o~tg~nal planned development ~ue to the aaa~oa o~ ~e
aszeo. S~a~ ~d a~tached lo conditions ~o ~he pe~l~ton. ~. 8u~on
s~a~e~ ~hat ~heee ve~e acceptable ~o h~u as he ~ld ~ve done ~e
~e~ues~ed ~em8 ~n ~he oondi~ons an~ey, b oo~luded by 8~a~ng
~ he ~d ~nvee~e~ appzoE~e~y 8~0.000 ia ~he ez~en8ion o~
u~l~e8 ~o ~hi8 a~ea and ~ould ~e ~o oouple~e devolop~n~ eo
~o zeoe~ve a poz~ion o~ ~ capital ~nvea~uen~ bac~.
C0u~i bubez Riddleape~gec auked wheze ~he pEopoeed sou~h loop was
Hz. 8u~on Eeeponded ~ha~ ~ was eae~ o~ ~hi8
Mo one spoke in oppoe~ion.
The ~yoz closed ~e publ~c
~ao~ ~o be zoned ~o~ planned ~eve~opmemt. Ueee would
~ouz-plezee. duplezea and ze~a~l. This ~e~i~ton ~uX~ add 11 ~oEe
~ealtgnaem~. The~e weze 4 zeply ~oza~ ~lle~ wl~h 2 ze~u~ned
~avo~ and 0 ~n
1. T~e Council coneidez~ adoption o~ an
a~naing ~he zoning ~p o~ =~e City o~ Denton. Tezas, a~ saia ~
appliea ~o app~oxt~e~y 1~ ac~es o~ land, ~o p~ovtde ~o~ a c~nge
In zoning dts~c~ claesiftea~om and use ~zon ,gtte~l~uzal (.A.) ~o
p~anned develop~en~ ("eD"); zepealing planned devel0~en~
zoning Otdt~ncea Nos. 83-62 a~ 13-93 aa said otdt~neea a~ply ~o
ap~toxi~:aly 6.2 a~ l~.5 acres o~ la~. teipectively: enae:ing a
~w ~lanned developeent district ~ot' all~ aais pt~zty, being locates
for a eevetabili:y clause; and providing ~ot an e:~eotive &ate.
NO. 8~-1~
~G, ~8 SAID ~ APPLIES ~ ~PROXZ~Y 11 ~1 OF
L~, TO PROVIDE FOR ~ ~R EN Z~I~ D[8~ICT
CAT~ ~ USE FK~ AGRI~ ("A") ~ P~D DM~P-
OED~N~CES NOS. 83-62 ~ 83-92 AS SA~D ~lN~8 ~PGV
~PPROXI~TRLY 6.2 ~ ~.S ~S OF ~,
PROPERS. B~I~ ~A~D ~ ~ ~Z~ ~ ~ RAST OF
L~D ISTA~S, ~ BBI~ ~~y 29.2 ACRES,
~RE FULLY DESk'BED ~RE~N; P~tDt~'~ i ~
OF I~,000.00 FOR VIOLATI~ ~HEOF; M~ ~E A
· BILITY CLAUGE/ ~ P~IDI~ F~ ~ ~(~
Stephens ~otton, Hopkins second =o idop~ ~he o=dt~ce. On
"aye," R~ddlespe~ge~ "aye,. Chew "lye," i~ ~yoE 8t~a~t "aye."
ao~to~ caz~ed
City O~ Denton C~ty Cout~ol~ M~l:~teS 2 i 3
t(eetin~ o~ August 2o,
D. ~he ~t~ ~ld * Vubl~ hem~ o~ the Vet~t~on
pzopezty ~a xoeato~ sa t~e south s~e o~ ~oop 288 eiit o~
~ a~ovd, the ~o~t~ty ~y be ut~sed ~o~ ~y use ~e~t~tted
zon~ag Oc~uae, Z-~75~
No one 8po~e ~u ~mvot.
No o~, l~o~ ~n o~e~t~en. r I
~etuc~e~.
adopt~au an ap~z to the Code si o~nees o~ t~e c~ty
~ntou. ~%aa by ~t~m ~o. 69-1, as a~ed, ~nd aa said
~lalSt~ication i~ ubs ~8tg~tion to light l~uet~tal "LI" dtst~t~t
~laegt~icmtio~ m~ ulm ~mltg~t~on; p~ovtding ~o~ a venalty in a
~xt~ul &~unt o~ IL,~.~ ~oc violations the~eo~; and
The ~oL~t~ ozdi~ee~e 9~eeemted:
~. 65-160
~ ~DXN~ ~%~ ~ Z~ ~ ~ ~ CITY OF DE~N,
~~% ~, ~ CI~ 0~ ~T~. T~ BY O~DIN~CE NO.
&9-1, '~ ~, ~ AS ~A~D ~P APPLZES TO 7.223 ~KS OF
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6IDR ~ ~P 288 EAST OF ~ ~T
~ A~ IS ~ P~TI~L~LY D88CRIB~ ~RIN; ~ PROVtDE
~ VZO~TI~ ~R~; ~ PB~DI~ FOR ~ ~FFECTI~ DATE.
~,~.t~. C~ e~ to ado9= ~he o=dinanoe. On ~otl call
vote~ ~ ~e~e, ~ ~s "aye." 5~ep~s .a~e." A~o~d
H
g. The Cou~l ~1~ a public ~a=~ on ~ petition
Fields, Z4wazas & ~aoelatee. cepcement~ng M~llet at Tm~s.
voluntaEy aunezatton st apptoxiutely 304.94 aczes o~ land located
T~ ~t. o~ the ~blie hei~tng.
Dav~d ~Ll~aon, 6eale= ~a~ez, spoke in ~avoz e~a~i~ ~ ~h~8 was
the aea~nd ~btic ~ati~ on thee ~etition Co~ voluntary anne%at,on.
Stali aut~et~t~ t~t 6~ ie~es Wou~d be betoze ~he Council loc
~ I
I<aating o~ ~ug~.t 2O. i985
·age Twelve
zoning. The next action on t~i8 aueezat~on would be the
o~ a~exaC~om ~oceed~nge on ~e~t~r 3. ~e ~4 4 ~eply
Xo o~e 8po~e ~
T~ ~yo~ ClQsed the p~bl~c
~itn BO~O~, ~eV Beco~ ~o ~oceed v~th the a~exat~on. ~t~on
A. The Counc~ con.~do~od adoptton o~ an o~d~nco
~covidinq ~oc t~e expenditure o~ ~undl CheceEoc; a~ pcov~diug ~o~
ia e~ect~ve date.
~ ORDIH~CR ACCRPTIN~ ~ETITI~ BIDG ~ ~ARDIN~
~T FOR ~ P~E ~ ~TRR~A~, ~I~T,
OR 6RRV~CB8; PR~XDI~ FOR ~ R~I~B OF
~pk~nn not~on, CEev ~ncond to adopt t~ o~d~nce. On ~o~l call
ttddleepecge~ "aye," Choy "aye," a~ ~y~c SteEr "aye." Mottos
ca,cLod unan[~usly.
B. T~e Coumctl conltde~d adoption o~ a~ ocdt~nce
accepting coBpettttve btds and p~ovidtng io~ tbs ~d o8 contracts
to~ ~ublic wo~Ke o~ tap~ovements; p~ovidtng Io~ t~ ex~d~tu~e
iunds therefor; a~ p~ovtdtng ~o~ an eileettve date.
The ~otlovtn~ ocdt~uce vas
~. 85-162
~ ~D O~ CO~C~ ~ ~I~ ~KS ~ ~O~:
P~VXDING ~OR ~ RX?~X~B ~ ~ ~REFOR:
PB~DIHG FOR ~ ~FF~I~ ~.
Al~ocd mottos, C~ev second to ado~t t~ ocdt~noe. On coil call
vo2e. ~aB8 ..aye,. ~pk~s "aye.' G~e~he~B ua~,. ~l~o~d "aye."
B~ddlelpe~ge~ 'a~e,~ Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yoe 8teva:~ ~a~e."
cad,ted una~ualy.
C. The Counctl conltdeced adoptton o~ a~ ocd~unce
o~ coupet~tive btds: and p~ovtdtn~ ~oc au eef~t~,
The to,low,nc ocd~eee vas pcese~t~:
~. 85-163
~ ORD[H~CE PiOVIDI~ F~ ~ ~I~ OF F~S FOR
E~R~RNCY P~C~SES OF ~Rl~G, ~[~T, B~P~IR6 OR
SERVICE8 IN AC~RD~8 N~ ~ F~ISX~S OF STATE
EXE~TI~ 5U~ P~SE8 FR~ ~ll~ ~ ~RTXTX~
BIDS; ~ PR~ZDXNG FOR ~ ~FF~TI~
~bev uot~on, Almond second to adop~ tho ogd~uaGee. O~ colZ call
VOte, MeAde.s "aye," Hook,ns "aye," 5tephe~ Uayl," ~lgogd "aye..
· ~ddleapecgec "aye," Chew 'lye," end ~yoc StarlEt Says.' ~t~oU
cacrted u~a~[eouely.
Neett~ o~ Augtlst 2o,
eggs
D. T~e ~ouactl COnStde[ed adoption o~ an otdtnamce o~ t~e
City o~ ~on, Te~e, establ~shtn~ o~ ~evtstug ~tttn~ lees provided
Io~ by &~tx ~, ~he ~m~m Devetop~n~ Cede. and
B-ZomLuq. O~ t~ CO~ O[ OEdtMncee ol the City oi ~eaton. Texas;
ce~oaltng Itl ocatnauce, t~ conflict hecevtch; and pCovtdtng ~oc an
Ct~y,~ge~ ChE~8 ~g ~epo~te~ ~a~ ~hts vis the ~ht~d yea~
the ~ve-~a~ p~ogz~ o~' eol~ o~ ae~vtee ~ees ~o~ zoning petitions.
Thte'ozdt~aee yours alt~ ~he tees to be b~ouqht to the ~htzd
level.
The loltovtnq o~dt~nee ~as p~en~ed:
~. 55-164
~ o~I~ ~ ~ CITY O~ DE~ E~T~B~I~HI~ OR
~ILT~ FR~S P~ID~D FOR BY ~PE~TX A, ~ D~ON
~XM~ O~ ~ CITY OF D~, ~81 R~PRALING ALL
~DI~G I~ ~l~ ~R~I~H l ~ P~OVIDI~ FOR
~ ~o~, ~v o~eo~ to adop~ ~he ocdi~nc~, On toll call
vote~ ~a~ "aye, · ~ktn8 "nay," Stephens "aye," ~l~o~ "aye,"
RiddtiB~gez Uaye,' ~ 'aye,' a~ ~yor Gtevazt '*aye," Mot[on
caczLed 6 eo~ vtth ~y~ V~o Teu HopKins cast[hq the "nay" vote.
~ The Couuetl eonitdezed adopttom ol an ozdi~nce
aue~ · zoning MF-o~ the City o~ Demton, Texas, as same vas
adopt~ as'an avve~l to t~ Code o[ Ozdt~ncee oi t~e City
Denton, Tezag by ~di~ee ~, 6~-1, ag ame~ed, a~ ag 8a~d ~p
applies to 14.06 acEe8 o~ 1a~ located aton~ the east 8~de ot
Road, ad~aeent a~ ea~t~ o~ U. ~, ~ighvay 77, and north o~ Nimdoo~
D~ive. at,u point belt~tUg appcoxt~tely 120 ~eet east o~ the
tntea~tou o( Rt~ ~4 and ~t~so~ O~tve, as ts ~e particularly
described hecetnl to p~ovtde loc a chiuge tn zomtn~
i~ou agcteul~ucat "i" dtst~tct ctasstlicatton and uae designation to
ptan~ development "P~ dtat~tet classification and use destq~tton:
pzovidtaq io~ a penat~y tn a ~xt~ua aaount oi Sk,O00.O0 toz viola-
tions t~c~oll and ~covtitng loc an ellecttve date. Z-1730
~ntse Sylray, ~zban Pl~ez, =epo=~ed that this vas the ocdtnance
The ~oitovtlg ocdl~oe~a8 pce~ented:
~. 85-165
~ ~DIM~ ~lN~ ~ %~l~ ~ OF ~ CI~ OF DEN~N.
, K8 S~ NAS ~P~D A8 ~ ~P~ll TO T~ COD~ OF
T~G ~ ~ CI~ OF D~NTON, ~G BY ORDIN~C~ NO.
, A6 ~D, ~ AG GATD ~P APP~T~ ~ 14.06 ~ OF
~A~ ~ ~ ~GT G~DE OF RINEY R~, ~JAC~NT
80~ OP U, ~, HI--AY 77. ~ ~R~ OF NI~OR DRIP.
'~D" DIS~IC~ ~IFICATI~ ~ USE DESI~NATI~; PROVIDIN~
F~ · ~ I~ · ~I~ ~ OP i~,000.00 FOR
V O~TI~8 ~ ~ PROVIDI~ ~ ~ ~FFECTI~ DATE.
HopKins ~ ton. ~a~ seco~ to adopt the o~dtnanee. On =o~1
vote, ~La~ "aye," ~pltnl "aye," Stephens "aye," Attold "aye,"
Ridd$8spe~ ,&~,, ~ ~iye.' and ~yo~ 5~a~t "aye. ~ ~tton
cad,ted u~tmouelF.
city o~ oenton City council I~tnute.
J~aettng o~ ~u~ac 2o,
Page ~ou~ee~
~. ~e Couao~l coms~e~ed ~c~om o~, an
~n~om, ToKes b~ O~4~n~e. ~. 69-1. is i~ed a~ it sa~d
o~ ~yhill Road, a~ Is ~o~e pa~Lcu~a~ly ~e~i~ ~e~e~m,
"P~" clase~ica~Lom a~ use designteam: ptov~d~ ~ot ·
poultry of l~.OOO.OO ~o~ v~o~8~Lo~s ~h~oo~= , ~4~g ~o~
seve~ab~y ~auee: an~ ~ovid~ng to~ an e~ee~ve dace. Z-1737
Cecile Ca~eou, Urban Plan~. Eepoz~e~ ~ ~bt8 pic~C~oa,~o= zoning
~ad been approved bM ~e Council on ~u~y 2. 1~85. X ,L~e plan
~e ~ollov~ng oz~nance vas
~. 85-L66
~5, A~ G~ MA5 ~P~D ~ ~ ~XX ~ ~ ~DR OF
6g-~, AG ~RD, ~ AG ~D ~P ~XIS ~ 36.96 A~R6 OF
L~ ~A~D NOR~ OF PAX~ ~ ~ ~T ~ ,~ILL RO~,
~ PROVIDI~ FOR ~ RF~BCTI~ ~.
~au ~ton, Stephens second' to a~o~t t~ o~t~ce. ~ toll
call vote, ~a~ "aye," KopKt~8 ~aye," 6tep~8 "aye," A~o~d
"aye," Riddlei~etgez "aye." C~ev "aye." a~ ~yoc 6~Et "aye.,,
,~iou cacct~ u~mi~uely.
Cou~il ~abet S~ep~ens le[t the Beating.
~. ~he Council considered a~p~ton et an ocdi~nce
annexing a tzact cE land cont~uou8 a~ adJacemt ~o ~he C~ty
~to~. Te~s: being a~l t~ lot, t~aoc oc ~c~el ot la~ eom~ieting
o~ a~grozl~tety 1SO accee cC la~,-~yt~ and ~t~g 8ituat~ tn the
County cC Denton, 6~ate o[ Texas an~ being pact o~ ~he O.
6ucvey, AbeCcact ~330, and ~he N.E.P. · P,R.R, 5uc~, AbeCcacc
property; and declaciu~ an e~feo~ive date, ~-20
~u~t~tiom ~ot the Council.
~he,~o~lov~ng otdi~nce vas presented:
~. 85-167
T~CT OR P~CE~ ~ E~ ~II~T~ OF ~~y 160.00
~S OF L~ LYZ~ ~ ~ SI~A~D ~Z~ ~ CO~ OF
8~Y, ~8T~T 950, ~ ~, ~ C~GGI~NG
8~ A5 ~RIC~R~ "K" DIS~I~ PROP~; ~
Chew notion, Mc~aus second to edopt the oc6tna~e. On toll call
"aye," Chew "aye." a~d ~yoc 5Cevact "aye." ~Ciou catered
u~nt~u8
~ot. t~a~ o~ p&~cel o~ La~ consisting o~ ~p~oz~tely ~15 acres
o~ ~ lyl~ a~ bei~ situated ~n the County oC beaten. State
TeEas &~ being pa~t o~ t~ J. Meet Guzvey. Abstract ~33~. Denton
· he ~ollov~ng o~dl~mce vas pEeienCed:
NO. 85-
~CT OR P~L OF ~ ~SXGTI~ OF ~PROXI~TELY 115
~BG ~ ~ ~YT~ ~ B~X~ 5X~A~ IN ~ ~ OF
~, GTA~ OF ~5, ~ BRXN~ P~T ~ ~ J.
~ G~ ~ ~Z~L (A) DXGTHI~ P~OPR~ ~ DEC~RXN~
H~d~teSper~ ~ton. ~ew ~econd ~o ~opt the o=di~nce. On
call vote. ~a~ "aye. ' HOpKins "aye." AiEo~d "aye." R~ddleepez~e=
"ayes." Chew "aye." a~ hyo~ Starlit "aye.n ~oG
umamt~ ly.
Council ~ez Step,me ~o~med ~he
I. T~e Council conetdezed ldo~Q~ O~ a20~d[~e setting
a data, tine a~ place CO~ ~bl~c hea~Xng8 conce~n~ag the
oC ~ CtCy o~ ~ntom.-~o~ a~exatton oC app~ox~tety 160 ac~e8 of
Xa~ bet~ pa~t o~ t~ '~ and CB~ Survey, ~bit~act 14~, and located
~ozth o~ ~ ~73, eouth o~ ia~thold ~oad, vest of l-~SR, a~ east
~ech B=aueh R~ a~ t~ ~&SF Railroad. ~-24
David Rtlteon, Sentoc Ptanne~, =epo=ted t~t stair vii
that t~ ~t=st public ~i~ing be held on 6opteubeE 3 an~ =he second
public hea=~ng on 6ep~ ~7.
The ~ollowtng o~at~nee ~e p~egenCed:
~. 85-168
~ ~ ~ P~ED ~TI~ OF ~TAIN PROPERTY AB
&~ ~IC ~;~.
vote, ~M~ "aye." Ggkt~l "aye," Stephens "aye," Almond "aye,"
R$dd~elpeE~g "aye," C~U 'aye." amd ~yor S~eva=t .aye,..
cazz:t~ u~a~uely.
J. The Council comatdezed ado~tton o~ an ozd~namce settin~
a daze, tt~ a~ place ~o~ public ~ea~tnqs concerning t~e
o~ ~i~n ~lop~nt ~z~zat~on and the Ct~y ot ~nton ~o~ anneza-
o~ ~ B. ~c~C Sugvey, Abet=sot 800, the C. Chiton Survey,
Ab~=ae~ ~, a~ ~ ~. Vente= Gu=way, XbGt~act 131%, ~nton County,
amd Hteaozy CEeeX ~oad. A-27
David Klltson, 6e~ioc Plante, [epocted that 8taCC va~ ~eco~e~[ng
~ ~e ~izet public kaztng be held on ~epteubez 3 and ~he second
public heazi~ on Sep~c
city o~ oantno city counct~ ~nut~
~t~ng o~ ~u~ 20,
~u~il bmbec Step.ns aeke~, e~nee ~h~t wee ~n c~, v~c~y o~ the
pcopoeed sou~ loop. v~ va8 being done ~e Ee~ve, ~ ~eCZidoc.
l~80n cenpoude~ C~a~ cezecv~ug ~e OOEELdOC wee ne~ an ~tgue ~oc
The ~o~ov~ng ocd~nce vas
~.
~ OED~N~CR SRTT~N~ k ~TK, TI~ ~ P~ FOR
8U~ P~GIC
t~d~eipocge~ "aye." C~ev "aye," and ~oc SCe~ "aye." ~o~
catered uuntuous~y.
K. The Council eons[dated adoption cc au
~OCUlC and on Moct~ ~acugt 250 ~eeC ~oc~ I~ ~50 ~eet eouth o~
pe~lCy cE a ~[ne not to sxcead tvo hu~ced ~llacl (8200.00)
p~ovtd[n~ a leve~ab~ty o~au8e; a~ dee~a~tng an effective da~e.
Ric~ Gvehla, ~ete~ant City. ~nageu, ce~oEt~ t~ ~h~s ocdi~nae
D~e~cicc a~ the City oC Denton Portia ~picte~t. ~ ee~ol
zo~ wa8 ~oca~ed nea~. ~he ~ Bve~a ~ol a~ .~uLd arrow
T~ ~ollov~ ocdtnanee ~8 pcovtded:
~ ORDZH~CE DESZ~ATIMO ~ EST~LZ6HT~ A B~L
Z~ ~ MI~O~ F~ ,A ~I~ 250 FEET ~T ~ 250 F~ET
~ST OF ITS IN~RBECT[~ M~TH ~R~ ~ST ~ ~
L~UGT 250 F~ ~ ~ 2~ F~ ~ ~ MI~OR
(30) MI~S PRR H~ ~ ~ (20) M~8 ~ ~:
A PRM~ ~ A FI~ ~ ~ R~D ~ ~D
(8200.00); PR~IDINQ A ~M~ILI~ ~{ ~
~ EFFECT[~ DATE.
Hog,tn8 mo~ton, s~ep~en8 ~econd ~o adopt t~e oedt~ace. On ~oll
call vote. ~a~ "aye." Ho~kims "aye." ~e9~ "aye.'
"aye," R[ddlel~ecge~ "aye," Chew "aye," aK ~F~ StM~t "lye."
~[on cacc[ed
. L. T~ Council oongtdeE~ adop~n ~t' aa ocdL~nce
~co~ib[tLng,the pacKLng o~ ve~[ales.o~ ~ i0uCh ti~ ~~'~ Hickory
tool it8 [nteceection with ~venue B Co ice ta~e~oa with Wvenue
C: ~covidimg a eevecabtlt~y clau~e; ~ovidtug a ~1~ ~t to exceed
C~ h~dced dollace: a~ decla~[~ aa e~f~t[~ da~.
was iu cempouee to a cequest Ccou Mocth Te~8 State
couaot~ ~mbe~ Stephens m~ated ~'~ t~gkt, tM ~t~ ~ Danced
au ocdi~nce [o~ this 8a~ p~opec~ tn ~gOd.
8vehla responded this pa~ttcula~ a~ea wa8 by ~e ~ ~king lot
City o~ De,.ton City Council M~RUteS 2 1 9
Meeting o4 August 20,
~. 85-171
~ O~l~ ~BX~X~ ~ P~KXNG O~ ~HXCLgG ON
~LI~ C~USE~ PROVIDING A PENALTY NO~ ~ EXCEED
~D ~L~S; ~ ~CLAR~NG ~ EFFE~ D~TE.
M. T~e Coun~ co~deged adoption o~ am o~d~nance
p~ohtbt~nq the 9a~tng o~ vehicles on ~he no~h and south sides
NtndsoE DE~ [EOm ItS intersection with Hinkle to itc intersection
w~th Bo~mie Boas: pcov~dtng a eevecab[l~ty c~au~e; and p~ov~d~ng
penal~ not to exceed ~ hund~e~ dollaze~ and declaz~nq an
date.
R~ek, Svehla, ~s~e~an~ City ~nage~, zepozted that this ozd~nance
had been E~ue8ted ~ the City o~ Denton Pa~s and Recreation
Depa~t~nt due to the hea~ usage o~ the st~eets thEou~h the
La,es Recreation Ceute~ area. People were patting on the side o~
as ~11 as e~eat~ng saCety 9tobleus ~ot pedestrians ~ov~ng ~to~ the
tec~eatto~ center ac~o88 to the soccer
The go~l~Lng oEd~nance Was p~egented:
NO, ~5-172
~ O~N~ PR~IB~T~NG ~ P~K~N~ OF ~H~CLE5 ON T~
~ ~ 80~ S~S OF N~SOR D~I~ FH~ ~TB
N. The Council constdeced adoption o~ an o~dtnance
amazing ~eet~on ~[-37 of Chapte~ ~L o~ the Code o[ O~d[nances
the City o~ ~nton, Te~8. by deleting the tequtte~nt o[ a tubeccu-
to~ ~est aa a coniston ~o ~e~e~v[ng a ~ood ~dling permit; a~
ptovtd~ ~oc au e~[eottve date.
~eques~ ~Eom ~he City/county birth ~pa~tment [o~ this auemduent to
t~e Code o~ Ordnance. The tube~culos~ test wag no longe~
considered to be necee~aty by the state ot the health department.
The ~oltovtng ordnance was pcesented:
~O, ~5-173
~ ~DI~ ~I~ SECTION ~-~7 O~ ~PTE~ 11 OF T~
~IVI~ ~ ~D ~LING P~T: ~ DROVIDI~ FOR
Me~ ~2~O~. 5~ephe~ second to adogt the o=d[~nce. On =oll
call vote, ~l~ "aye." ~pk~8 w/ye." Step~ "aye." AlCotd
"aye." ~ddleepezgez "aFe." Chew ,,aye. . and ~Yo~ 5tewa=t "aye."
~t~on cazzt~
B. T~e ~$1 cons~deced a~pcoval o~ a teao~ut[on
approvtnq the H~sto~ie La~t~ Pteee~vat~on Plan. (T~e Plann~n~
a~ Zoning Co,lesion ~eco~ends approval.)
c~.t¥ o~ Denton c~.ty council #~.nutes
~e~ng o~ ~uOu~ 20, ~985
Page ~g~teen
~n~ee ~p~vey, Urban Plummet, ta~otte~ ~ t~e H~tot~c bam~tk
Ptele~vatLom Plan had been prepared by Dr. BulXitt Lowtey ~ou the
zoning ot~i~nce and ~ad been ap~zov~ bM ~ ~la~ing a~ Zoning
Co~s~on on June 12 bM a Vo~e o~ 7 ~o O. The ~ should be
· do~ted aa part o~ ~he C~ty'8 couptehene~ve plan,
The ~ollov~ng ~eSolU~On van ptese~ed:
Contsi~oa ~o~ ~eco~n~a~ton
Pzeeezva~ien ~an In~ ~he ~a~ng Con, etlon ~ving zeoomm~ed ~o
the C~M COuncil ~a~ ea~d ~zeee~va~on P~an be
M~. ~REFORE, ~E ~T ~8OL~D BY ~ ~CIL OF ~ ,CI~ OF ~M,
Co~ise~on o~ ~he City
hoceo~, ~s hereby a~opted ~nd 8bal~ be ~nolude~ in the couptehent~ve
p~an.
PASSED ~ ~PR~D ~e C~O 20~h day o~ ~1~, 1985.
~tIC'I~J~D O. ~'~'WA~.
CI~Y O~ DENTON,
AT'~6T:
CI~A~LO~ ~LLEN, C~['~
~ ~l D~YOVZTCH,
GCe~en8 uot~on, Chev second ~t ~he ~eeo~ut~on be approved. On
EcL1 call vo~e, Mc~ams "aye," ~pK~ naye," 6~n8 "aye," Al~ozd
"aye," ~ddleepezge~ "aye," Chev "aye," a~ ~yo~ S~e~z~ "aye."
C. The Council considered agpc~ ~ i te~olu~on
ap~zov~mg an ame~aen~ ~o ~e a~zpoz~ lease agz~at o~ Oc~obez 1,
~979 and authorizing
8~11 Angelo, ~8sietant to the DLtectot oC ~bL~c Mot~8, tepotte6
past se months.
~equ~te Counc~ app[ova~ a~ t~e 8~g~ute o~ ~vet~o~ A~t to
~ t~ue aha enet~ on t~s docu~n~ am ~d C~tut by~, t~ A~tpo~t
~uaget.
T~e CoS~ov~ng ~eeo~ut~on vas pcemented:
ItI~OLUT X ON
~, ~be etc~t~ lance agceeaea~ bergen ~he C~ty of
~. puceuau~ ~o such ~ease aes~gn~. ~vec
oectain poct~ons o~ ~e ~ease ~ cenegot~ated~ an4
~e. ~e ~c~es ~ve complete4 ~e~c ~ego~ia~ione and
~ve pce~ a l~ee a~t ~oc appcoval~by t~e C~y Council;
~G, t~e ALzpoct ~visocy Boat4 loc t~e City o~ Denton
~, ~l ~y C~i o~ t~e C~y oC ~GtQn, Texas,
T~ ~yoc is ~eceby au~cized to execute t~a
con~at co age~gu~uc of ,~tity tmtecest ~n t~e a~tpott lease and
a~z~ed l~se a~nt ou ~1~ o~ Z~e ctty and c~e C~ty 6ecce~acy
~s ~e~eby dtceo~ed ~o ag~E ~h~s ~eso~u~oa, vt~ ~e executed lease
~tebec ~, lVTg. ~neecibLug on ~e oc~i~l agceemenC ~be fact
~ ~s been aueu~ed a~ ~e e~ec~ve da~e o~ euc~ aueu~uen~.
T~ie Beso~ut~ea s~all be effeottve ~uedtately upon
pas~ge a~ appcoval.
PASSRD ~ ~D ~Ls C~o 20th day og AU~O~.
HICHAHD O. STBMART, ~L¥OH
CITY OlP DENTON, TE2tA6
/LTT~T:
~ KLLff~I, O~Y 8~RIT/dtY
C~
BY: *
"aye,
a~ ~z 6~cc 'aye.u ~cten cacc~ed unanimously.
~ Coum~tl oo~tdec~ appcoval o~ york pcogzau ~o update
the ~OU ~veto~at
city o~ Denton c~ty Counotl Xinutee
Meeting o~ &uguet 20. 1985
P&~e Twenty
process in the Denton Development ~uide ~or tenet&at updating in two
ways. One vas was & ye&fly upd&te and the seooGd wes done every
~lve to lo years or whenever there had been i lot e~ growth. There
had been a lot DC growth over the last two years. In the annual
two questions:
1. Do ~he im~ans~ty ~ol~e~ ce~ec~ the ~u~ent
obJeo~ve8 o~ ~he
2. Ace cuc~en~ e~o~tn ~o implant ~he iu~eme~y
~l~c~e8 w~ we ~uld l~e ~heu ~o be
· he~ ~vo queen,one weze vezy de~a~e~ and ~d mot be
anl~ed. The Counc~l then asked l~a~ to p~epl~e a p~opoeed
p~ogzau ~o answe~ ~eee 9ues~om8. ~he p~ocesg p~oposed ~o~
update vas g~u~laz ~o ~ha~ used tm ~980 ~o develop ~e guide. A
eel~-eeleo~ed co~i~ would be u~il~zed a~ ~ould wozk ~hzough a
eez~es o~ wozXs~op8. The scope Vould be so~ ~L~ezem~ ~zou
vo~k ~ome Lm 1980 ia that work vas uoze long-range ~m ~tute amd
~ge ul~e develo~en~ oz~en~ed, T~ ~ ~ee Co~ee ~ul~ be
~he Council to be ava~e o~ ~he ~eae~a~ co~cept and to au~oz~ze ~e
process to p~oceed. The Lamd Uae Con~tee you,d be coUp~taed o~ 36
· elbe~a. T~a back-up ~tez~al ~d ~dveECea~ly om[~ed one
~yo~ 5tewazt asked who would be in c~ge c~ ~he comities.
Fann~ zeeponded h~RsetE and ~EEy Pecsaud DC t~ Planning and
~o~mity ~velop~nt depart~nt
coutttee.
ra~g responded that ~ettet would be d~atted to t~e various groups
StOUpS would appoint cepceeentattves to serve as ~Rbet8. There
~abete ~to~ t~at ~u~bet.
~Ada~8 uotion, Hopkins second to approve t~ work program to u~ate
the ~mton Development Guide am~ Coapzebens~ve Zoning Ordnance,
~t~on ca~ed unanimously.
7. The Council conatdezed appzoval o~ Cak~ a vo~e to cone~de~
Jo~n ~Gtane, D~tecto~ o~ ~nce, repotted t~t state law zequ~ced
~ha~ ~hen the actual ~ax ~a~e ~ncEea~e~ by ~e ~ 3t oyez the
~topoaed e~ectLve tax tats, a public ~t~ ,~ ~ ~ld.
to the public heaz~n~, a notice aunt be published ~m ~ ne~papez.
T~e notice aunt contain a vote bM Council on a p~o~l t~ coneide~
a tax ~nc~eaee and taking a vote.
Council Meubez Rlddlespez~e~ stated that t~e p~oposed budget did not
propose an i~cteas8 in taxes.
MeGrims responded that ~he actual ~az ta~e ia t~t ~uld te~u
e[Eect, at 59d, there would be iota ~han a 3t increase in Ca,es.
to this t~o et thtee yeats a~o. The actual tax tats te~iaed the
I~ett~ o~ &ugust 20,
Page T~ent¥-Ons
coup~ttd s~Cectivt tax cate showed an increase, ~n this instance,
the Council i~stcueted Ita[~ to place an advecttsement neet to the
notice o~ public hea£in~ tnCo£1ing the public that t~effe
~act, m~ pcop~ed ~neffeame ~m the tax cate.
Council Membec Rtddtem~ecqeff stated that th~e should be dome a~atn
this yeac.
~ounct~ ~m~ Step~ena stated tkat the pcev~ous advmct~mmmmnt also
stated that the not~ce og public ~ma~n~ ~as bmtn~ pub~m~e~
Council ~et Riddloe~geE m~ted t~t he ~anted it understood by
~yoc PEg Tam ~p~n9 stated that, as he u~ecstood it, thil action
d~d net ~vm a~thi~ t~ ~ Mtth the tax flare ~o~ the City o~ Denton.
T~t,eould be adjusted ms the ~ouncil adjusted the budget.
Council ~ec Ste~henm stated that the key ~am the ~ock
City ~qe~ ~tu~g ~epocted t~t the e~[ect~ve tax cate ~as a
computed, not a semi, ~e~.
RiddZml~Egee motion, ~ams second to take the vote. ~ coil call
~te, ~ uayo,' ~p~B *aye." Stephens 'eye,° Almond "aye,"
cat,ted 5 to 2 vit~ Council ~mber Chew and ~yor 6tevact casttn~
8. M~
Ho it.s o~ n~ ~a~ss ~co suggested ~oc ~utuEe agenda8.
9. o~cia~ a~tton on gzecutive Ses8~o~ items was taken on
age~a ite~ ~0, 11 a~ 12.
tO. ~ ~ou~ii ~e~ app~ova~ o~ a ~emolutto~ appointing
a City Ju~qe to peemtde ove~ ~e ~nictpa~ Couct.
RE9 0 LUT I ON
~, ~e=tton ~.0~ o~ the Cha~te~ o~ the C{ty o~ Dento~
the ~Gici~l Couct;
N~, ~0~, BR IT RI~L~ BY TH~ ~CIL OF T~ CI~ OF D~NT~,
Mun~e~l Cou=t o~ t~ C~ty o~ ~nton, Taxis, ~utsuant to Sect~Gn
6.03 o~ the C~=te~ o~ the C~ty o~ huron,
This ~OlolUttOn 8~ll ~e~e e~ective ~tom &n~ after its date
~8~ ~ ~P~ this the 20t~ day of ~u~et, 1985.
RICHARD O. 8TL~AHT, MAYOR
CITY OF DRNT~, TRXAS
l~eettng of August 20. [985
Page T~enty-Two
ATTeSt:
C~[LOTTE ALLleNo CITY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
DEEEA ADRM! DE~YOVITCE. CITY
OF Te S
a~gtovid. Oa roll call vote. ~ uaye..
St~a~[ "aye." Mot[o~ carried
T~e Council c~nsideted approval
~ntctpa[ Court tn the absence o[ t~e City Judge,
· he iollo~n~ :eaolut[on was
· EBOLUT 10~
~R~S, Section 6.03 o~ the C~ter o~ t~e C~ty o~ Denton
pet:eta the duties a~ ~unctto~ o~ the City ~udge;
~s[~tant City Judge to ~ndle the Judicial
~n[c[pa[ Cou~t in the absence o~ the City
~, ~HEFOHE, B~ IT RESOLED BY ~ ~CIL ~ ~ Cl~ OF D~.
the ~n[o[pal Cou~t o[ ~he City o[ ~o~. Te~ puKluan~ to
~.0~ o~ t~e Cha=[e~ o~ the City o[ ~nton. Texaa.
This Reeolut[o~ e~ll become e~Eect~ve ~om and a[te~ ~ta date
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPEOVED AS TO LEGAL FOEM:
~)RERA Al)AMI DEAYOVITCH. CITY ATTOHN~Y
CITY OF DENTON. T~XAS
£ell call vote, Mc~daue "aye." Hopkins "aye." Stepttens "aye," AlCo£d
"aye°" Rtddleape~get 'aye,*' Chew "aye." and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Jlotion ca~rted unantuouety.
C~t¥ O~ Dm~ttoG City COU~il Miuutes 2 2 5
Page
T~e ~ollov~ ceeoluti~ ~a p~eaented:
RE S OL~T I ON
~, G~t~eu e.~ o~ the Cha~tec oC ~he C~C~ oC Denton
auc~oc~m t~ city Couuetl to appoint Ammimtant City Judges to
~m5, t~ cit~ ,cou~il deems
N~. ~~, BE IT ~L~D BY ~ ~C~L ~ ~ C~TY OF DE~ON.
~t Jan~m Fla~ga~ ~1 hlceby appointed Asm~tan~ City Judge of
~he ~L~K~ Couct o~ the C~ty o~ ~utou, Te~s pursuant to Sec~[oa
6.03 Of t~ C~c~mc o~ the C~ty of ~nton, Texas.
T~te ~solut~on s~L1 beoo~ e~CectLve ~com and Altec ~t8 date
~8~ ~ ~P~ this c~ 2otb day oC ~u~et, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART. MAYO~
CI~/ OF DENTON. TEFut. G
ATTEST:
CHARLOTT~ I~LL~ll. CITY
CITY ~ ~,
APPR~D ~ ~ L~
step.us notion. ~ame ee~o~ that the ceeolut~om be a~p~oved. On
roll call Vote, ~a~ "aye," HOpkinS "aye," Gtephens "aye," Al~ord
~tion caroled u~ni~ualy.
The Couuotl c~o~a~ taro ~he R~cutive Session ~o discuss legal
~ttmc8, cmaX estate. ~cmo~el, and boacd appointments. No oC~ictal
12384
226
City Council Minutes
Septembg£ 3, 19S5
The Council convened into the Wo£k lalgiOn at 5:30 p.I. in tho Civil
De~®nse Room of the Muntoipal Building.
PRESENT: Hayer Stewa£t: Mayo£ Pcs Tam Hopkins; Counoil Membe£o
Al[ord. Chew. Mc~daus, Riddlegpezge£ and Stephens
A~SBNT: None
1. The Council convened into the 8xecuttve Session to discuss
o~ficial action wag taken.
The Council then convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the council Chambers.
PRESENT: Kayo£ Stewart; Mayor Pie Tam Hopkins; Council Members
Al~o£d, Chew. McAdamg, Rlddlespetget and Stephens
Acting City M~naget, City Attorney and City 8ecreta£y
ABSENT: None
Mayor Stewart repotted that agenda items 2.B.1 and 6.D had been
temevad [EOm the agenda at the tequila o~ grail.
1. The Council considered approval o~ the Minutes of the
Regula£ Meeting o~ August 6, 1985; the Special Called Meeting o~
August 13, 1985; the Special Called Meeting o~ August ~5, 1985; and
the Regula£ Meeting of Augus~ 20, 1985.
Riddlegperge£ marion. Chow second to approve t~e Minutes as
p£eeented. Motion car£ied unanimously.
2. Con, ant Agenda
Hopkins motion° Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda ag
p~egented. Motion ca~£ied unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Pu£ch&se OrdeRs:
1. Bid # 9460A- Skid gtee£ loade£
2. Bid # 9490 - Chain lin~ ~enetng
3. Bid # 949~ - B£ush cht~ping ope~ation
5. Bid # 9495 - CR?~I and contcolle~g
6, Bid # 9496 - XBM disk d~iv~
7, Bid # 9497 - IBM uain~taed u~rade
8. Bid # 9499 - ~efuse containe£g
9, Bid # 9500 - Rtsetion of pickle shelter/fred
Moots Park
ZO. Bid # 9~03 - Printing o~ Par~8 and Recreation
b~oehu£el
ll, Bid # 9504 - 02 diesel ~o£ great plant
~2. Bid # 9505 - 3 ~/2~ bury ~ice hyd£ant
~3. Bid # 9506 P£eess~ uanhole
227
city o~ Denton Ctty Council Minutes
Meeting o~ ~e~embe£ 3. l~B5
14. Purchase O~de£ # 69369 to Alamo T~ans~o£mer
the &mount og $7,460.00
15. Vu£chase O~der # 69371 to Davis T£uck and
Equt~lent tn t~e amount o~ 15,064.40
DUffle Orde£ # 6~37S to Boyd ~xcavatton
the amount o~ $29.617.a0
17, Pu£ehasa Ozde£ ~ 695~g to Southern Eng~e Vum~
~n the a~u~t ol $4,560.00
18. Puzohlse Ozd~ ~ 69~59 to Cu~ns Suppt~ tn the
· ~unt ol
Pu~s~ Otdec ~ 69667 to Boyd
the $~unt ol $21,125.50.
20.Pu~e~se Codec ~ 6966~ to Boyd Excavation
tbs ~o~nt ct $22.000.00
21. Pure.se Otde~ ~ 69~03 to I~ tn the a~ount
$t,76~.O0
BY ST~F 8. Personal 6ezv~ce Contracts:
1. Co~,~de~ l~p~oval o~ pe~sona~ service con~act.
~o~ Rhonda Gattis (tennls instructor). Michael
tnat~uoto~), a~ Dean ~othro (p~e-school
instructor)
C. Tax Ro~u~s:
1.Con~ide~ appcoval of a tax celund
Btae~nvaae tn the amount oi ~000.04
Conaidec appcoval oC a tax
Dttaenbe~ge~ tn ~he anount o~ 8678.31
The Council eon~tde~ed a9p=oval ol a ~esolut~on
appEmeiat~on o~ ~, Chris ~e&ung.
The ~ollow~ng =e~olutton wa8
~KSOLUT ION
~H~. ~. Ch~8 ~tu~ ~e~ved as the Ctty ~nagez o~ the City o~
~nton. Texas i~ou 8epteubo=. 1977 thzouoh August. 1985: and
Fiance Directoz ~or the City oi White Settlement. Texas
~H~. e~nce 19T7. ~a ~. Ch=i~ ~=tung co,encee hie ~e=vice.
w~Cac a~ ~ ~aeilttles. the ~o~stcu~t~on o~ a centra~
~tze station, a poltee administ~at~on bufldin~, a service
sourcE, t~ ~e~eatto~ cen~ez8, a aento~ c~ttzen oente~, an
anl~l contzol eenteE, as well ae the Improvements o~ many
c~ttzens ol ~ton and has ~a~ned the ~espect and
aduiEatton ot his colleagues, associates and e~ployees; a~
228
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ 8eptembe£ 3. 1985
Page Three
MI~SREAS. although the City Council testers the Lois o~ such ·
Ralph &nde£son and &eeociates tn an unlimited and
challenging pto~eselonal opportunity;
NOM. TheREFORE. the City Council el the City el Denton wishes to
ackno¥ledge with since£e and g~ate[ul
appreciation the ee£vice o~ G. ch~i8 Re.tung and
the ti~etess devotion he has given to the
el City Menages and doss he£sby o~de~ this
Resolution to bo ~ado a pa£t o~ the
minutes el the Council. to be a pe~aanent ~eco~d
Chile Hattung a~ a to~iu of out appreciation.
RICHARD O. ST~(~tT. M~YOR
CITY OF DRWFOM. 'L~XA~
MAYOR PRO TEM
JO~ G, ALFORDo C~J~CIL MBMBER
J. W. RIDDLESPEEG~Ro OOUMC[L M~BR
SAY STEPHEN6. CO~MCIL MEMBER
L~l~[E I~D~M~, COU~IL MEMBER
MARK R. CHUM, t'~J~:lL MMBR
ATTEST:
C~E ALLEN. CiTY BECEBT~JEY
CITY OF DENTON, TRY. KS
APPROVED AB TO LEGAL FOR~:
DBR~ ADAMI D~AYOVITCH0 CITY ATTORNEY
CITY Of ~,
Unau[moun ~[ion. Chew second to approve the temoXu[ton, on toll
oal~ vote, ~amn "aye." Hopkins "aye.. Step,ns "aye." ~lfotd
"aye," Ridd~eepe~ge~ "aye," C~IW "aye,', a~ ~yot Stewart "aye..
~t[on ca.tied u~ntuously.
ME. G. ChlOe ~rtung accepted the t~oXution.
he appzectated this very much and lC ~d bess a very great honor fcc
btm to serve as Ctty ~nage~ of ~nt~, ~nton
place co ~ve and he was' glad Chat 8~one ~d eo~uoted a study
4utL~g the past year to ~cove t~t. O~
hie tenure ~t~h the city survivable was the ~u~ott ~tch he ~d
t~eived from the City Council. patt[eulatl~
Council had been a great asset to him. T~e had ~n good times and
those ~h[ch ~e not as good. ~[ng
go~. [t WouZd ~ve boon [mposl[b[e ;st him qtt~ut the support og
the Counot~ and the ~yot. A City ~glt could ~t Survive uLthout
~ served as city ~e~.
229
City o~ Denton City Council Ntnutee
~eetin~ o~ Septaabe~ 3, 1965
Page Fouz
4. , T~e Counoil tbe~ comsidezed appzoval o~ the use of ~£ed
Moore Pa~ on June 19o 20, and 21, 1986 with tees waived and cu~ew
extended until 12:00 ~idmight by the Lilly Garden Club for a
Sesquicentennial Juneteenth celebration.
Ne. #tllte ~£aG~ts Ne~daB~ and Mci. ~illiams, Pcelidmnt o[ ~be Lill~
Gazden ~ub, ~ze ~re~ea~ ~o ~peak. ~. ~da~a ~tated that she wee
a ~be~ o~ t~ ~aton ~e~q~tcentemnial Comities
Denton co~ntt~ wt~b~ ~o hol~ a Juneteenth event in con,unction
CEev ~ttou, Step~ens seeo~ to appzove t~e use
on ~une 19, 30, and 31 vi~h ~ee8 valved and the cuz~ev extended
eponaeee~ ~ the ~tll~ ~zden Club. Motion cazzted
5. ~blLe
~. Tbs Coumetl held a public hea~tnq conce¢ntng
ao~ee being ~t o~ the' BBB & ~R ~u~vey. ~b~teact 142. a~ located
sooth o~ ~ 1173. south o~ ~acthoid Road, ~=t o~ I-3SN, and east
~8eh Bza~ Road a~ t~ ~&SF Rail~oad. A-24
T~e ~yog o~ne4 the p~btte
Jeg~ ~eE, Dt~ecto~ o~ Planning a~ Co~unLty DevelopBent, ~poke
~avo¢ ¢e~o~tt~ t~t o~ o~ tbs ¢eason8 this annexation vim brought
to the at't~ttou eT t~ Council ~as that tbe~e vas 8oue ~evelopuent
~n ~e a~ea a~d t~ po~en~at ~o~ ~u~he~ devetopuen~. TheRe
80~ u~est~abte 14~ u~e8 in place and anothe~ ~eaaon ~o~
eons[de~to~ ~ this a~t~ vas to p~event ~u~t~ u~est~able
~and ~8e8, ~ ~aeueet~' ~d ~en held ~ega~dtn~ ~ou~tng o~E the
a¢ea a~ to qo alon~ eo~ ~zopeCt~ l~mee and na~u¢a~ bounda¢tea.
ba~t~tl~ ~tt ~o ~emezal azeaa people vented to ~imtain a ouzel
poet~on va8 one o~ tEytnq to contzol ~ov~h amd development. Th~u
a~ea Mt ~ Council's eette~ta ~o~ amnexatton. Tbe~e veze 12 ~eply
know ~t ~he city Would ~o ~o~ ~e zeeiden~s, 8uoh as wa~ez and/o~
~oz ~ezvioe ~i~' ~e available at the en~zance to ~he Council
~. 8iapiou ~epl~ed t~t be ~d.
~ounc~l ~u~E ~au8 asked t~ M~. 5[upson would [tke ~o fay
eo~th~ng e~otgt~ abou~ why ~e vas o~poeed oE d~d be Just not vast
to be ta t~
~. ~pee~ ~es~ t~t ~e did not want to be ~n the e~t~. The~e
~ce ap~oz~tel~ 10 ot~z pzopeztM o~e~e who ~e opposed to t~e
amne~at~o~ ~t they eout~ uot be p~elent at thug public hea~tn~.
~yoz P~o ~l Hopkins eta~ed ~Z t~t, vas on~y Zhe ~t~st ~n a
he o~ty o~d a .~lt piece o~ p~ope~y but ~ did not want ht~ land
in t~e city trusts. ~t this ~tue the c~ty did not ~ve anything to
230
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
aeettng ol September 3. 1985
Page Frye
Mayor P£o Tes Hopkins asked Mt. O~ens where hie ptoil~tty was located.
used to be a sell driving tangs.
Mt. OWens responded no,
Council bube¢ No,aug ~8~ed hey ~c~ ~¢ope¢~y vas involved.
M~. ~ens 8~a~ed t~ vis be~en 2 and 3
The ~yo¢ closed ~he public heaCtng.
3e~ ~Fe~. Dt~ec~o~ o~ P~anntng a~ Ce~nt~y ~vetop~t~,
~ any newly annexed a~ea vas ettgtbte io~ all ot~y seaplane, such
~o~t~on. were ~e sase as io~ a~ybody tn ~he cl~y. Ii a cittzen
para ~o~ ~e connec~ton, ~hey zecei~6 ~he se¢vtoo, l~ ~hey did
was ~he sass tn ~he middle o~ ~ city o~ · ~ly a~ezet axes.
Tbte genezal sezvtce plan ~aa been tn e~ec~ ~o~ ~he tae~ 5
anneza~ion. In lac~. in ~be s~o~ ~un, ~he ~t~y ~uld lose money by
p~ovtding service ~o an area Which did no~ ~ve a ~az base. Ia ~he
long zun. ~he puzpose el amnexa~ton,vas ~o OQm~EQi ta~ and lu~uze
la~ use. On t~t basis. 8tall teooue~od that the Council
continue ~ht8 annexation p~ocese.
Council bubeE ~A~a~s e~a~ed t~ she would like ~o uke · couent
toz ~e benett~ o~ ~hoae who weze eo~e~ned eb~u~ ~ts anae~ion.
T~e Council was loo~img a~ ~he lao~ ~ ~e~e was gone devetopuen~
~aking place tn ~ht8 area ~htc~ ~e uot ~at~tcvlaEly desttabte. The
city coul~ not con,tel ~h~8 ~t~lo~n~ untH8 the land Was
~aus no,ton, chew second ~o p~ee~ vi~h ~he a~eKa~toa.
~l~Eiod u~t~usly.
~yoz s:ewazt sta~ed to the Vzopezty owners that ~heze would be
othe~ beattng8 on this annexation prior to Itel action.
B. T~e Council ~eld a ~ubltc ~eazin~ concezntn~ ~e
anmexat~on petition o~ Atk~n Deve~op~nt Corporation and the City
ol ~nton ioz a ~=ac~ ol ta~ avpzoxt~tely 11~.~ dOZes tn size
lying ~n and betn~ pazt cE the B. ~=chan~ 8uzvey, ~bstzaot ~00,
~he C. C~con ~uzvey. Abet=act W29a. and the ~. Veneez Survey,
· bst~act ~1~15. a~ be~tnning at the acushnet eo=~= o~ ~ 2181 and
Hickory Czee~ Road.
The ~o~ opened t~e public
~o~ anne~tton was pzectpitated by a ptelt~t~M ~tat tot a 62.674
acts 8F-7 subdivision, =he ~nton ~noc Recites develovuent.
Council had instructed stall to include the adJoini~ pgovezty to
the east due to ~nc~eased development inte=est tu t~ a~ea. The
~nton ~noz Estates 9=ettatna=M plat ~d been ap9~oved as it met
the City ol ~nton Subdivision Rules and Re,latter. · itel plat
was betn~ p=epazed which would show Itel lot s~aes a~ layout,
~lt ae derailed engineering plane lo= streets, drainage
utilities. Sta~[ anticipated that the linal 9tat a~ ~la~s would be
subui~ed p¢io¢ to the Itnat ac~toa on t~i= aa[atio~. T~e 8eco~
pubttc heating on {h~l petition ~s schedut~ icc Septembec iV.
231
City o~ IMnton City Council ~nutes
Page 8tx
These ~£e O £eply ~ot]ll i~ailed with 0 £etu£ned. Plans cC eecvice.
~£e avatl&ble at the emtcance to the Council Chasbece,
cee~demcee ute located u~in ~he boumdaciea
~nne~atio~ l~ea. App~oz~e~y ~V,s ac~es vas ~ ~o~unta~y
but be ~u~d not oppose s~te burls Eoueg.
epea~ at public ~ea~nge on zoning.
council b~ 6~ep~ens accede. House w~eze
Mx. ~ae zeepon~e~ ~ ~ l~ved due sou~ o~
~. ~ge stated that ~e d~d not wins ~e e~ty ~o be t~at c~ose to
be developed and nett~ ~uld ~.
~. Houle ~eepo~ed that he did un~e~tand t~t.
Council ~z ~ then asked, tn spite o[ t~t. did ~z. House
still ~t ~nt the ~o~ty In,xed.
~z, ~uee ~e~Lied t~t t~t va~ co~zect.
M~, ~uge EOS~o~ed yes,
o~ t~ otho:.
t~n ~i~ ~ beL~mvm ~t someone would petttion ~ot annexation
without a plan lot de~nt ~n u~ a~ ~e dtd not &no~ What t~t
plan wag. T~ece ~ze 8e~zal hu~ted acce8 o~ raw land tn this
vicinity v~e~ ~ one ~d ~t~eted to look at ~ot annexation. II he
~nev ,~t Vii to be ptac~ on the ptopecty, he could be uo~e
CounOtl, ~ ~ i~ked ~t M~. foster was ~n the a~ea p~oposed
to be anneKed.
ME. ~ogtec cee~nd~ yes.
232
C~ty o~ Denton City Council #inutes
Meeting o~ Septemba£ 3. lg85
Page Seven
Council Meabe~ 14c~dams stated that a~e ~ae eon~uee~ ~n ~e was
concern ~egaEd~ng w~ was ~o ~ppem on ~he 1~ ~nd ye~
p~opezty o~e~s d~d not ~ant to be amienS. ~e e~ty ~eF was, as
developuen~ began, ~o amnex la OEdlg ~0 see ~hat ~ ~elop~a~
~. Foster mtate4 t~t the pcopezty vat in tbs seize tezz~tozial
Jurisdiction o( the ckty and thez~oce the c%ty ~d coatzol oyez m
~at development took place.
be~ez be~auie ~ ~uX~ be ~m ~he County a~ ~ ~
Mz. Fostez stated that mobile bo~8 Ooul~ not be placed on
pzopezty because the C~ty o( ~nton ~d oontEot OVO~ deve~op~ut
the extra tezztto~til
~yoE Ste~azt grated t~t the city ~d no ~ontEol o~ Eon~ng ~n the
county.
Council no~ the City o~ Denton ~d amy leveEage o~ oentzol oveE
zou~ng tssue8 tn t~e extca tec~ttoEtal JuEtldiotiot. ~ o~ty
no contcol in ~he aces ol building permits e~ c~ ~ut~euen~8 ~o
~)o~ Btewa~t stated t~t 4evelopezs could ~ut ~t tbe~ wamte~ om
tbs pzopezty unless tt ~as
~yoz v~o ?em Hopkins grated t~t ~ea ~we%~ ~gan to o~ou~
~tcb the Council did not know inyth~ng a~, ~ ~utd ~evtev
a~ea, Potential development keyed the ~nts~ te~ zev~ ol
Coun~l babeE i~ddlespezge~ m~ated t~ t~ tM land ~e tn the
c~ty limits, the pzape~ty o~e~g ~u~ ~ve a 8~y tn ~utuco
development through public hearing8 beloze ~he City ~ounoil. The
Council ~d a zepu~a~ion ~oz listening ~o ~e.o~zae ol ~tg~bozs.
dmvelopment on th~8 ptopecty was 8t~le ~am~ly
Mt. ~azy ~ad~agtt spoke tn oppomtttoa mtoCt~ 't~t ~ ~emtae4
the o~he~ tnvoluntacM react og the pzo~m~ a~tiou and was
t~ area. Him lan4 Was u~eveto~ a~ ,~denly ~ge vas Chic
deveto~ent wttb ~ny ~uees. ~ feXt t~ n~ ~eto~at was
council ~be~ Mc~aM stated t~t ~tm vis ~ tt vis being
const'~zed for audition. The Co~ott ~d us do~co1 over the
~. ~mdcagtl 8tate~ that the pffopezty ~utd be ~zm valuable ti it
theze.
Counctt ~mbec ~aml stated t~t ti ~. ~cagtl ~ the
t~ be controlled to pzOteCt htmael(. ~t ~d to ~ ~.
233
C~.ty o~ Denise City Council Minutes
Kee~ng o~ Be~mbe~ 3, ~85
P~ge ~tgh~
Council MARble Mc&dams asked who ME. MandEagil wanted to stop the
develo~eEs.
ME. leaudElgtl stated that he did not know Il development would sta£t,
Council #e~bec Mc]~lau8 asked ME. ~and£agtl tl he was willing to take
Kayoc Bt~iKt &skid Io£ a show of hands of those in the audience who
we£e QppQsld tO the annexation.
conceEned ah~ut the dlvelOpxaUt tn the a~ea. A 60 ac~e ~bt~e home
pa~ ~d bleu devmtoped behin~ his p~ope~y ~htch had been ~n the
c[ty'~ mg~ta tez~tto~al Juc~dtct~on. The c~ty had had no qualms
about extend~ vate~, s~et a~ electrical service to this ~obile
home ~azk. ~ thouqht t~t the city dad ~ve a choice on ~ethe~ to
do th~s cz ~ot.
~yoc~ 8t~a~t ~espo~ed no, I~ the develope~ pa~d Eot the services,
the c~ty ~d to exte~ them.
could he do
Itayoc Poe Te~ Hopkins stated that this was how the line vas
inet&lied on l~l 2181. ~ devolope~ wanted the w&te£ extended and was
pilling to pay fo£ the line. Be otheE subdivisions occuc£ed up the
by the developoE.
BlanReu~teye£ sta~ed that the Eesidents ~ze shell-shocked
axes. Ho Would like tl eel uo£e contcol but not anothec contcolled
mobile h~xa pack. ~ny o~ t~ p~elent ~os[dent8 ~ved to the a~ea
get away a~ ~uldlake to see the land developed in 1 to 2 ac~e
plata, but ~t 5 ho~e to 1 acco.
Council MoubeE Riddlee~ecgec Stated Chat tho City of Denton was at
one tixa a sxall tovu. OEowth would cone whetheE anyone Wanted ~t
cE not. Th~ only cont£ol wes ti the land wag in the city limits and
then the citizens could petition that~ coucecne belles the Council.
The people Who owned the land could do anything t~ey wanted with the
~copecty an4 mould ~vo utttt~tes extended ~ they paid fcc ~t.
~yoe Pco Te~ ~p~n8 Stated that [~ the pcopecty vote annexed, the
c~ty could co~tzol dcat~ge a~ tca[~ic ~n the aces. The Council
could do ~oth~q about the ~dge-~odge ol ~avel ~oad~ ~[eh would
be ~a place.
Mc. B%ankenlteye£ stated t~at he wanted to see soxa type of control
and ~i ~t wes theough th~ city, that would be the best way to go.
He vas not in farce o~ anything developing. It did seem that the
city wis placing Ill O~ the developnents which weEe not wanted
couneil MembeE MoAda~ Stated Chat the olay had no cont£ol opec that
developulnt; that was up to the owners o[ the pEope£ty.
234
City o~ Denton C~t¥ Council Minutes
I~e~ing o~ Septemba~ 3, 1985
Page Nine
Mr. Blankemmeye~ stated that he u~da£stood that the city could not
control the development unless it was in the city
'The ~ayor closed the public hearing.
3e~ Meyer, Direct0t o~ P~anning and Co~aunity Development,
that he would like to reiterate that in the extza territo£tal
Jurisdiction o~ Denton, the city ~ad absolutely no cont£ol o~ lend
use. The residents were opposed to mobile hobs parks but a
davelopa~ could build facto~ies cz garbage dumps and the city ~ould
~ve no contzot. The city did ~ve Gubd~v~ston eomt~ol t0
developers build etzee~s to speci~cations. I~ a ~eVelopez decided
~o build s~l~ lot Bobile home pa~kl cz a sBeltez plaa~, them Could
as ~ong as tt vas outGtde the ct~y ltBtts o~ ~n~on; The only
~o exercise any land uae control vas t~ the p~ope~ty van ~nside the
a~ea which was ~o~ 8~11 lot single ~aaily housing. FEo~ a planning
8~andpotnt. eta~E ~uld like to lee the t~aot a~exe8 8o eon~ol
could be obtained and develope~8 ~uld ~ave ~o by,It co~atible
housing. The~e were sous "give and 2aWes~ ~ue ~o being ~n
city. I~ the neighbors ve~e ~ightened about ~ ~gh~ be
dtveloped, they should be because ~he Ct~y Council could
nothing. 8ta~ ~ou~d ~ee~ ~[th the neighbors to ~acuss opt[one and
give tn~o~ton ~ega~d~ng ~en _~he ~ope~y ~ould be on the
zotle and ~at ~e~e the obligations a~ bemeEits o~ being tm ~he
c~ty.
~am~ motion, Hopkins ~eco~ to continue ~he annexation
~zoeeed~ngs. Motion cazzted u~n~ue~y.
The Council then ~oved an ad~em~ua i~e~ ~o~az~ in ~he age~a
~deadua 1. The Counct~ held a ~ubltc hea~tng on a ~0poeal to
increase the total ~ax zevenuee.
The ~oz o~ened ~e public ~ea~ng.
Johm ~eGzane, Dizec~oz o~ ~[nance, epo~e ~n ~avoz ~epoz~tng
state lay ~equ~Eed ~ t~ ~he actual ~az ~ate vas ove~ 3t o~
e~eetive ~ax zate, a public hoaxing ~d to be held. In the
~o~osed budget, the tax [ate vas p~O~Oa~ to ~e~tn the ~aue at Sod
~ i10o evaluation. The eEEective tax ~ate ~a8 o~1~ at 55.77~
$100 ava~uatton. This nece~eitated this ~blic heazt~g. 8ta~ was
objections to the toter bud~e~ a~ to 2 cE 3 e~et~tc azeag.
objected because the ~ota~ budget shoued an ~me~e~o o~ ~2 l/2t ove~
~ast yea~ a~ t~e Oene~a~ Fund budge~ Wig Up 10.1~. ?he~e
~d attempted to meet this wi~h tneEeased pEo~uot~v~y a~ to have a
his experience tn the past t~ when an operation gE~ lacge~, ~o~e
an~ ~e oppo~tunittes weze ~eeea~ed ~oz e~tei~ey t~ you coutd
learn ~ow to stand p~o~pe~ity. The tnozeaee8 tn t~ ~dget were 3
to 4 t~mes the rate o~ ~n~lat~on. ~ aisc wanted tO a8~ ~t wa.
concerned. Sm his neighborhood them nevet maw the 9~eet
a~ the city did not now theit o~ pEopetty on t~ TeasleF
Way. The General Fu~ budget ghowd galaEy a~ wage t~teaees
lOt. ~n 1986, even executive ~nceealas ~e go~ ~o average only
~uld b~ng t~e tota~ to ~0 whtc~ oeeued too high ~o~ t~t
depa~t~nt. In the ~btie Weeks ~patt~ent, ealacy a~ wages were
tno~eated 25t with no new 9o8~tione added. This tF9e o~
~ncceaee wag un,ensemble. In ~he Utility ~aE~at budget,
salaEte~ and wages were up 29t. Chiefly because o~ &his
~he elec~=le costs ~o= nex~ yea= ~uld have ~o t~zeaeed
235
Page Ten
Lately 12%. He su$~itt~ t~at the £ates and bills wets alEeadF too
high and not competitive fo£ a city the size o; Denton, The
methodolo~ foe the sewer zestdenttal ~hat~es ~as unreal. ~ ~elt
~nttOued. The budget Rs being advertised as ~no tax ~nctease
bu~ge& but the taxpayett wanted decreases ~n taxes at all
~ovec~ntal levels.
ConsoL1 b~bec Step~me ag&ed ~t vas the amount ~ich ~uSd be
saved by t~e pruning.
Hz, ~tnet etat~ t~t ~e ~id not tun a cost ~gute on the
tmcteaeeg tot the ~b~o Mot&m a~ UtS~ity ~pattmente.
· he ~t closed t~ public hea~ing.
~ohn ~o~ane, Dizectoz o~ ~t~uce, sta~ed t~a~ a public ~eaztn~ on
t~e b~e~ ~ut~ be held ~n 6e~ea~ee 10.
tats ~ld be ~em~, ~epteabet 10, 196~ at 7:00 p.~. tn the City
Counc&l
The C~uuetl t~en ~ved an ad~e~um ite~ ~ot~atd In the aqemda older.
~dend~ 2. T~e CoumeL1 considered establishing an ad hoc
comities ~ot a =~d-4eeade aeee~eaemt o~ t~e ~oa~a identified tn the
Denton ~0'~ et~y.
Count(1 ~t ~tephe~a repotted t~t ptev~ouslM he ~d a~ked the
Council ~t ~bey tb~uqht o~ ~v~m~ a =id-decade assess=emi o~ the
~oale ~4enti~ted La the ~n~on aO's project. ~s he teca~led, ~e had
a u~nt~ua cou~t~tion t~t tt would be a ~ood plan. T~e Council
~d =al~ ~ut deatq~2inQ a Chait~n, ~t. Jetty Cote, ~tch
tecet~ ~nl~ul appEoval. A[te~ v~etting vtth ~. Cote,
appea~e~ a ~od idea ~o ~e ~h~s a pa~t o~ ~e M[nute8. By main
~iou, ~ eoui~ee could be established amd the Eecozdg would so
indicate. T~tg ~uld q~ the annuities t~e de,zee o~ acceptance by
the ~umetl ~teh was neceesazy. Counct~ Membe~ S~ep~ens and
Cote ~ diseugoed ~hts iud ~z. Co~t had obtained t~e zecozds
the Pubtte ~tbEaty and ~d votked on a teptesemtatLve co~ttee o~
the co~ntty, tnvolvt~ the C~mbet and c~t~zeni teem all areas.
~. Jetty Cote g~ated t~t, aa a newcouet to Denton, tho~e who had
chosen ~nto~ ~d done ~o because they saw an involved c~ttzenty amd
City C~ncil and Want~ to coati,buts. He ~ae willing to put the
c~ 'tn to assess and Eev~ev the week done ~m 1980 ~ich vas
center,tom ct ~ VOZk done in ~970. T~e relieving people ve~e
ME. c~tlea Ca~pontet
Dr. 8ondta
DE. lo. Et ~focte
~, FEed
D~. 6~e~ a~ C~ueh ~e~teE ~u~d serve as ex o~[ctos to the
Council ~ 5te~me ate&ed t~at he ~d brought thin issue up to
t~e ~oumeit one evemt~ a~ ~d aentioned t~t Mt. Cote had an
Intelsat. H~8 u~etsta~ng was t~t he had approval at t~t true.
236
City o~ Denton City Council Xlnutes
Meeting o~ SeptembeE 3, 1985
Page ~leven
Cots.
Council Metabe£ Stephens £esponded no. He had chocked with the
Council to see if the idea ~oE the counittee would be app£op£iate
and acceptable with the idea o~ asking #z, Cots to be the
MeyoE Stewart stated that he thought ME. Cots was a very capable
individual.
Me¥o£ 8teeaEt then lake a statement to the City Seczeta£y. "I would
like to state that at no time did I p=e.ide epee cz attend a Council
Meeting in which it was, an ad hoc committee ~s Eozm~d nee a
Chat£lan was to be recognized..'
Me¥0E Stewart then asked Council ~ube~ 8tep~n8 tn ~ Minutes o~
~t Resting va8 ~hts done.
Cou~c~ bnbe~ Hc~Am8 stated ~at 8~e rece~ed ~t ~
8~te~ at the ~ue, though 8he did not object to exhaling.
t~ee~s~on had been one o~ a 3 o~ 4 ~z~on oo~ittee ~teh
the c~ty vas in accomplishing those goals. O~tgl~lly, ~t had been
tn~ozul; hovevez, i~ now sou~ed ltXe this tau~ vas a ~ood deal
la~ge~ and ~e ~o~1. 6he ~elt ~t ~utd be aVp~op~iate,
~act the Council wished to go on this scale, to take action to
~yoz 5tewazt stated t~t he wanted to ~ke the po~nt 't~t theEe
no Counci~ ueet~ng and ~t wag not Ln any M~nute8 o~ any ~et~ng that
etthez had ~o ta~e place out o~ ~he Coameil ~etLuq o~ out o~ an
· xeeut~ve 6eea~on and he did not take ~a~ tn et~e~
~d volunteered to do a pa~ticula~ tack i~ it ~ ~VVzoved bM the
Council to do that. The Council did ~hat cyaniC, tn effect,
t~t ~as line. At that po~nt, she ~ae not ~e t~t the Coune~l
the Denton 80's docu~nt and give the Co~cil ~nfoz~t~on ~ch they
CQUnO~. ~i the co~ttee vas to be a~ pzeaented nov, she felt the
Council needed to take action.
Council MeRbez ~tephenl stated t~c he ~lteved C~t ~l ~y it vie
oa cae age~a nov - so that action ~LA be ~l~ea. [~ vis
~i~h vas dileusee~ eatliez a~ t~8 wt~ ha ~ toc~1 follow-up
aetiom. IC vas still to be a sMll 8CudM g[ouv in ozdez to be
:ep[etemtative. the cou~tCee had gzo~ to ~ tully =ep~egentat~ve.
Xt vis 8till ~uit a~ ad hoc eo~ictoe to ~a~e ~ imioz~l look
~hau ii mo~e Jotul action ~s reded, this ~uld ~oue tm the
(utuze. Th~8 nov va8 the knto~l 1~.
Cou~tl ~embe~ ~o~ame stated t~t she ~ae act obJeettnq but zathe=
tz~aq to explain ~ that was )uat an ~agoz~l ~. ~ t~t it ~aa
~nvolvtnq ~e people, she bel~ev~ Council a~pzoval ~uld be
app~op~iate.
Choy lotion, Stephens second to appcove t~
cE tho C~be~ of ~o~ezce a~ they we~e reef ~ch e~ncezned about
ti. Fi~s~ly, them said that this ~d been dose undez the
GE the C~mbe~ cE Cornice tn 1~70, 1~80 a~ ~hoy plaid to do
again tn 1990. They ~e~e very concerned about this
without the~z Xnowlodge. 5eco~ly, t~ Cha~beE did ~ agzee ~hat a
237
C~ty"o~ Denton City counctt J(inutes
#eetin~ o~ ~epte~be~ 3. lg85
Page T~e lye
couutttea s~u~d ~ ~O~Md beoause ~he~e ~s an on-go~ng ~on~ee a~
add a ~tk load burden as tt dtd in ~980. in 19CO the sta~ had to
do a ~o& OE ~tk ~hich ~as supposed to be done by volunteers.
thought ~d been q~ to ~t the cost ~ould be to the city and
~hat ~&a~8 ti~e ~utd ~ [nvo~ve~. In add~tion, there ~as a ne~
~ctt~g CitF ~get a~ ,~yot Bte~att te~t this addit~ona~ project
be nloeeea~ ~caule the tm~o~om vas awardable ~om ~he Chambez
be~o~e any action was
counet~ bube¢ Ri6dtes~EgeE asked ~¢ ~he action could be a~nded to
~t~lu~ ~ld be ~o ge~ t~e t~go~tton t~t the Council ~utd
to ~ ~ed~g ~he ~o~e~e togaed the goal~ ~hich ~e~e laid do~
in 1980. ~unctt ~1~ Etddle~pecgec ~u~the~ .tared that be ~d
been oha~Vez~o~ ol one o~ t~e ~91o con, trees and had not loo~ed
too elo~el~ to see ~t the statue was. Ii appzoved, he ~u~d like
to ~e ~t ~zy cleaz t~t thts ~uld be done in coopezattom ~ith
Council ~e~ C~ etat~ ~hat t~ he had heazd coz~eetly, Chuck
the exe~tive cC the C~be~. Tbe~eEo~e, the Chaabec va~ tncluded
the at~lus b~ ~ving th~a s~ll g~ou~ ~evte~ the p~og~ese on the
~uld be tnvolved cz ~t~neea involved tzom the city. The idea vas
to looW at the goal. a~. ~hen the idea ~ae d~ecuesed, alt o[ the
counett ~heaght tt ~ae a ve~ good idea at t~t
C~une~l ~e~ez ~ov~ma ~ed when, He stated t~t he nevez attended
a ~ettng ~eze this issue ~ae ~nt[oned. 5o~eome had ~nt[oned one
19SO'~ and the Council ~d ~atd that m~ht should be ~ev~e~ed at
eo~e t~. ~ he u~ez~tood the situation, the Cha~bez ~d
co,acted a ~t~y appzozt~tety 2 yeazs a~o. They had in place a
co~i~tee to do this ve~ task,It aeeaed a pipe dzea~ and a lot
· ta~, ttle a~ Vooz econe~ic situation io~ the ~ty ~o be qotug ~nto
iometkt~g ~tch would cost thtl much. He also agreed t~t it vas
not a goo~ ~t~e to place ~b~e p~o~ect on the ney ~ettn~ City ~na~e~.
Coume~ ~be~ ~a~s itated t~at ~t seemed t~t the~e had been a
~[,ee~nication. ~h~te she ~ecalled the co~ve~aat~on, she agzeed
t~t~ ~ did not a~ei~ted ~he p~oJect to be thil extenltve. 5he
[e~t in vte~ of this, the bettez ~tedom ~ould be not to ~ke a
~as planned. ~z tav~e~on had been t~t 3 to 4 people wece to qet
~h the C~bez ol Co--zee and pull ~o~e~he~ ~ntoz~tion amd
detatl~ teo~ t~ e~ ~d u~ezstood ~zoB the
Ve~ha~s a vz~tten p~QVO~at should be pzepazed vhtch would outline
what vas to be done amd the costa a~ SteEl t~ae which wou~d be
council ~ez ~X~ozd l~ated ~at ~e zecalled that the Council had
tal~ed abou~ a eMIl c~i~ee. ~nton vas ~ow~n~ and movXn~
~aet, ~be Council did ~ot th[n~ it ~ould not be out o~ ozde~ to do
tht~ ~oJlet. ~e ag~e~ t~t the Chalbe~ did ~ave Inch a eo~ttee
but ~ also lt~ed the idea ol havim~ a newco~ez ~o the
238
City o~ Denton City Council Minutel
Meeting o~ SeptembeE 3, 19B5
Page Thirteen
such as ~E. Cert. who could look at things ~oEe objectively,
[~a~ticipate in the £eview. Council J~ombeE &l~d sta~ed that he
not vent to see ME. Cote conEused ova~ what e~otly were
teem should be tabled at t~i8 tt~. b ~elt deCtnite ~idelt~e8
should be established
Councit Meubet 5tephenl stated t~t ~t ~d bain all~ed t~t Shots
had not been Chaubez approval. That ~uld depend on ~o ~d been
mpc&em to at t~e C~et. b had 8po~em to C~uo~ Ca[pemte~ and
Cat,neet ~d felt &t vas a super idea a~ vel racy pleased to be
involved. ~. catpentet had been on the Denton 60*i DtoqEiu as ~d
FEed Pattetlon. ~. N. C. Ore vie &he dtteccot eC t~o 70~ study.
T~e idea ~8 not by any means to b~a8i the C~t. but to ~nvolve
g~ou~ ~hic~ assessed goals: not to ~e sew ones, but ~ ~p people
tn~o~ued abou~ ~ ach~eve~n~. That was the ~eaion ~o~
~eaue. ~t ~aa not to ~upplam~ any Cha~bez o~ ~mM o~hec eo~un~ty
c~cy p~og~am. I~ va8 ~o ~oo~ aC C~e ~on 80~s ~ubl~ca~ion
~ ot~e~ g~oupl ~te a~p~op~iate could ~eoide ~t t~ do next.
~ ca the goals established in the ~om 80'8
e~lliug to do anythtng ~h~ch ~he Counotl ~u~od h~ ~o do.
t~ie cou~tee Via being uauEp~. A~ao, ~he Coune~l ~d a
Cou~ci~ ~ube~ ~ddlespe~ge~ melted that ~e ~ished t~ Cou~l could
u~nt~us~ tf it ~es go~ng to be done co~eat~y. Ho~ve~, 8inca
~he ~ounctl scold ~o be d~vidod, he ae~od ~f t~ would be
Rtddlespe~ge~ ~tton, Mc~dams 8eo~ to table t~ i~ until
6eptem~ ~7 until the Council could ~each a consensus.
a d~a[t tn wz~t~ng ~egardtng w~t the council ezpeot~ M~. Cott to
to. 8~e Igolog~zl~ to M~. Cott ~oc .the $~,~oau~it~o~ a~ itite~
t~t the Council appceoiated his olle~ to get this iniozuatton to
th~.
~tion to table ca~zted 5 to 2 w~th Council ~ Stephens a~
caa~tn~ the "nay, votes.
A. The Council considecod adoption ce an oEd~uce
aaaopttng co~etttive bids a~ ptov~dLng Eot t~ ~atd o~ contEaeta
~Eov~d~ng Ko~ t~e expenditure cc ~u~s t~EeCora; ~ pE0Viding
an eCfect~ve date.
The ~ollov~ng o~d~nce wee p~eeentod:
NO,
~ O~IN~E A~CEPTIN~ ~TIT~ B%~ ~ ~DI~ A
~CT FOR T~ P~C~SE ~ ~I~6, ~l~, 8UPPL%R6
OR 8ERVI~8: PROVIDING ~R ~ ~P~IT~ OF
T~REFORK; ~ PR~IDI~ FOR ~ EFF~I~ ~.
239
Ctt~ oC Denton City Counet~ M~nutes
14ee~ug o~ SepteubeE 3. 1985
Page tPou~teen
vote., ~us mayo," ~pktn8 .aye." Stephen8 "aye," Almond "aye."
atddtesge=go¢ "aye." C~ "aye." and ~yo¢ steeaCt ,,aye." Motion
~una~ ~hl~e~oce~ a~ p~tdi~ ~o~ an e~ec~tve date.
T~e ~ollowing ozdt~nee Usu pzesen~ed:
~ ~DI~ ~PT~ C~ET~TI~ BiDS ~ PROVZDING FOR
~ ~ ~ ~~ FOR P~hlC ~K~ OR I~R~NTS:
PI~IDINQ F~ ~ E~I~ DA~.
vote. ~I "aFl," ~pkt~s .aye," Stephens "aye, ~ ~tEoEd "aye,"
R~ddles~E~t "aye, m C~ "aye," a~ ~yo= Stewart "aye." Motion
ca~cted u~n~u8 ly.
c. ~ Couuoll oonsideced adoption oC an ocdtnance
pcovtdLM ~e~ ~ ex~t~u~e o~ fu~e fo~ eme=gen~y pu~e~aee o~
~. 85-176
~ O~lN~ ~V~D[~ FOR T~ KXPg~T~ OF F~ FOR
S~I~9 IN ~D~CE W~ T~ PR~ISI~5 OF STA~
BI~: ~ P~IDI~ ~ ~ EFFECTI~ ~TE.
~ ~On, H~ddleepeEgoE second to adopt ~he o=d~nce, on
"aye," R~dd~elpeEgeE "aye." Chew "aye," a~ ~yo~ 5~ewav~ "aye
D. The Cou~tt wag ~o oong~de~ adoption o~ an o=d~nance
Thta ~teu ~ag zeuoved ~zou the age~a by
R. The Council coms~dezed adoption o~ an ozdtmauce amd
304.94 icC~ Ioca~ ~g~ a~ South o~ ~ 426, eaa~ and west o~
Tctnt~y ~, a~ aou~h ef Hig~ay 300 Ras~ (A-23).
The ~ott~L~ oEd~uce vas 9cesen~ed:
W ~~ ~Xl~ A ~T OF L~ CONTI~UOUS ~D
~ ~ 2 CI~ OF DENTON. ~: BE~ ALL ~T
~T O~ P~L OF ~ C~GISTING OF ~PROXI~LY ~04.94
~BG OF ~ LY~ ~ 8KIN~ GlOATeD IN ~ ~ OF
~, 8T&~ OF TE~G ~ BEI~ P~T OF ~ ~.
S~. ~S~ ~RR 330 ~ M. FO~EGT G~Y. ABBTR~
~. 4L7, ~ CO~Y, TE~8; C~8SI~ING ~ 8~ 45
~X~L~ "A" DXGTRZ~ PKOPER~ ~ ~C~XN~
240
City o! Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of Septembe£ 3, lg85
&lfo£d motion, McAdaae second to adopt the o£dtnance. On ¢o[l call
Riddlesperge£ "aye," Chew "aye," end Mayo£ Stewa£t "aye." Motion
cac£ied unanimously.
F. The Council coneide£ed adoption of an ordinance
approving the petition of Randall 61itl £equesting a change
zoning fcom the agricultural (A) classification to the planned
development (PD) classification en 200.51 acres located west of
Te&eley Lane and nocth of Hobeon Lane. Z-1746
Cecile Carson, Ucb&n Planner, repo~ted that this ordinance had been
prepaced in compliance with the ~equest of the Council. This zoning
case had been appcoved by the Council at the July 10, 19S~ meeting.
The following ocdinance was presented:
NO. 8S-~77
~ ORDINM~CE ~ND~N(~ ~ Z(~I~ ~ OF ~ CITY OF
TEXAS. AS SP~R WAS ADOPTED AS AN APP~ND~K TO TH~ CODE Of
OHD~NANCES OF T~E CITY OF D~F~ON. TEXAS BY OHD~NAN~ NO.
69-1. AS AMENDED. AND A8 SAID MAP APPLI~ TO ~95.349 ACRES
OF LARD ~OCATED WEST OF TEASLE¥ LAI~ AND NOHTH OF HOBSOM
LANE, AND IS MORE PARTICULaRlY D~SCHIBKD HEH~IN, TO PROVIDE
FOE A ~ IN ZONIN~ Ch~IFIC~TION FROM 'A~ICU~TUHAL
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AMD USE D~SI~B~TIOM TO P~NNED
DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTEICT CLASSIFICATION lEND USE
DE%I~NATIO~; PROVIDING FOR A I~IMUM PBNI~LTY OF $l,000.00
FOR VIOLATIONS TH~ItEOF: PROVIDI)~ FOR A SEVEHAB I~ITY
CLAUSE: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DAT~.
M~Pu~ale motion, chew second to adopt the ordinance. On £o~1 call
vote, MeAd&as ~aye." Hopkins "aye°# Stephens "ney," Alfo=d "aye,
Riddleepecgec "eye," Chew "eye," end Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
car=ted 6 to 1 with Council ~mber stephens casting the "nay" vote.
· , The Council coneidered edoptton o~ an ordinance
&utho£iztn~ the City ~anage£ to ~cute &n egree~ent between the
City of Denton and the City el Dallas and North Texas State
University ~o£ limnological studies on Le~e ~ly Roberts: and
epprovtn~ the expe~litu~e of funds 2he~e~oce; and pcoviding fcc an
e~fective date.
Bob Nelson, Directo£ of Utilities, reported that th~s contract had
been p£evtously app£0ved by the City Council. The City Of Dallas
had changed the method of payment ol ~unds to North Texas State
University. staff was bringing the contract bac~ I0£ Council
approval of the changes.
The following ocdinance was pceeented:
NO. 85-178
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE C~TY MAN~RR TO EXECUTE
~REEMENT BETMREN THE CITY OF DBMTON ]~MD Tt~ C~T¥ OF DALLAS
~ ~K)RTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOR LI~LOGICAL
ON LAKE ~A¥ ROBERTS: ~ ~PPROVIN~ ~ EXPL'I~DITU~t~ OF FUMD8
THEREFORE: AND PROVIDIN~ FOR AN EFFECTIV~ D~TE,
Stephens motion. Riddlaepergec second to adopt the ozdinance. On
cell call vote, McAdale "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "eye," Al~ord
"aye," Riddleepecge£ "aye," Chew "eye," and MayOE Stewe£t "aye."
I~otion carried un&n~ouely.
7. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of · cesolution
appcoving the airpoct lease agreement between the City o~ Denton and
Mc. Craig Time and Mr. Jim Coucsey.
241
C~ty of D~nCon CLty Council l(~nu~es
~et~g o~ ~eptelabe,. 3.
Page ~xtee~
the miE~Oet. ~e te~ml ~ the tease ve~e ~o~ 25 yea~l v~tb the city
~vi~ it~lt ~g~t to ~etusil. T~e leeseel p~an~ed to coaet~uct a
%200 8q~te ~eet ~anglc as ~ al a a i~11 museum. ~n area would
be pZ~d~ ~ot t~. e~ozage e~ airplane parts and the WaShing ot
plan~.
Cou~tl ~z Step,me al~ed ~eze this ~uld be located on the
Lynch ~es~ ~t ~1~ ~ uoetb et Me. St~ickXet and ~c. Roget~.
The ~11~ EeSotut~ ~ pEeeented:
~, ME. ~'&ig T~ a~ ~z, J~m tom,geM decize to lease
~ ~,, the ~ty o~ Denton
~, ~ airport ~v~so~y Boa~d has ~evteved and
ceco~ed approval o~ the attac~ed p~opoled
and [~co~voEatid heze~a ~ zele~ence,
T~ ~yoz t8 hereby authorized to execute the attached
lease igzee~nt on be~lf o~ the C~ty.
T~t th~e Resolution shall become effective imdiately
upon ~C8 paslage a~ apgcoval,
P~SED ~ APP~D th~s the 3cd day o~ September, 1985.
II~fA~D O. 8TEMART, i4~YOB
CITY OF Dt~fON, T~X,A.B
&TTRGT:
CITY O~ D~TC~. TBIAB
/~PPRC~ID AG TO I~(3]~L FC~M:
DERRA ILDJLMI DBAYOVIT~H, CXTY &TTOB~RY
CITY C~P DI~ITC3M, T~ZJU3
242
City of l~enton City Council Minutes
#eating o~ Septalbet 3. 1985
Page 8eventeea
Chev morton, Stephens second that the resolution be a~pzoved. On
£011 call vote, McAdals '*aye," Hopkins "aye.. Stephens "aye," Al~o£d
nays,# Riddleepezgez "aye," Chew "aye," and I~ayo£ Bteva~t 'aye."
Morton caz£ied u~niuously.
8. Thece wac no o~otal ac~om om Executive 6~e~om i~eue o~
legal ~tez8, zeal estate, pezsonmel, oz boazd appointments.
9. The [ollowin~ [teue o~ Sew Rust,es ~e au~es~ed ~oz
Eutuge agendas:
1. Council ~u~z Chew zeque~Ce~ ~ a leSSeE ~ dzat~ed ~o
Mz. Je~zy Cott (~o~ approval on the 8ep~eubez 1V agenda)
expressing t2e Cou~ll.e zeo~e~ ~oz the ~sit~on ~n ~[eh
he ~d been placed.
10. The Council ~econvened ~nto ~e Rxecu~ive Sees[on to
~ise~18 legal ~ezs. zeal os~a~e, pe~eo~l, a~ holed
~8ocia~es as the seazch ~zu ~o be u8~ tu ~e selection p~oces8
~oz ~he City hna~e~. Herren ca~zted unan~uoue~y.
Mith ~o ~uzthez ~teut o~ business, ~he et ag a8 ad~ouzned.
1278a
243
City Council Minutee
September lO, t985
The council convened t~to the Mock 5camion at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
De~enae Room,
&lfo£d, C~ew, Me~lame, Riddlesperger and S~ephens
· ct~ng C~ty ~geff and City ~ttocney
~be Coune~ bml~ a d~cu~ton o~ ~he pcopo~e~ 1985-86
~egal ~tte~e, ~ea~ tl~a~t, personnel, a~ boa~d appointments. No
.o~fte~al action wam taken.
The Co~ctl then convened into the Special Called ~ettn~ ac
p.m. in t~ c~netl C~eze.
~l~ogd. Ch~. ~ame. R~ddleeperge~ amd
~ott~ City ~ugec. City Attorney. and City Secretary
~5ENT: Mens
~yor St~t ahnouuc~ ~. ToB E. ~t8'8 appo~n~me~ to the
6mp~em~c 10.
M~&ml ~o=, i~4dlllpt=glz 8l~O~ ~o approve ~e M~nute8
preaen~od. ~on oit~
2. ~bl~c
~. The Council ~el~ a public heac~ng om Revenue
Jo~n ~a~. Dtzec~oc O~ fl~ncm. ~epocted t~t ~ederal re,tab[one
peter ~o ~ ~88age o~ t~tr budget. Tbs back-up ~Certa~ tn the
personal. There ~d b~n no o~tctal com~trutton on the actual
al~oea~to~ ~ve~, ~e~t l~ca~on~ ~ce that ~he amount might
Council ~ubez Riddles~e~g as~ed t~ any thought ~d been given co
Mc~zane as%~ ~f Council bube~ atddlespergez meant wha~
cu~zen~ly tn ~ p~o~sed ~dget cE amy additional
Council ~mbec itddlespezger zesponded he vas re~erctng to the
cucffmn~ p~opo6~
Flo~. S~ro elsa tn t~e budget egpe~uges ~utd ~ve co be
reduced. The p~o~ b~d~ am pcemented wac a balanced budget.
244
~eeting o~ September ~00 ~985
Page
Council ~eube£ atddlespergsr stated t~at in other ~ords, no
consideration Wal girls at any time to the hospital.
Hc~rane responded consideration ~or Flow bad not been given tot the
use of revenue sharing funds.
Council ~embe£ Rtddlespetger stated consideration had not been given
for any other ~unds either.
Me,rams £eplied that discussions regarding Flow had been held during
the budget review sessions by the executive
Council Member Riddlespezgez etatad t~t t~enue sharing
~yot Pro Ten Hopkins e~ated that he agreed w~th Council aembet
i~ddlespezge~. He then ae~ed Il 850,000 ~d not been budgeted last
year for a ~pp~ng system.
Acting City ~nage~ Ric~ 6veh~a ~epo~ted that t~e lSO,O00 from the
Oe~zal Fund and 0~0,000 ~zom the Utility ~ had bean budgeted
las~ Mea~ to ~upplM the aezial p~oto~aphe to beq~n ~e
procedure. The money tn the proposed budget ~a8 for the
topographical ~ps. This would be an on-going program. T~
pze~iougly budgeted ~unde ~d baas used ~o~ suEveyl~ woE~,
establish the grid syete~ and to do the aet~al ~ligh~ to ~ake
oEt~op~oJectton photoq~aphe. The proposed ~u~g ~u~d ~ uled to
produce the topographical map8 ~ou the
Cou~il ~uber Rc~au8 added that an additio~l a~oun~ In the last
yea~,8 budget ~o~ mapping had been deleted.
~yo~ Pro Tom Hopkins stated t~t he ~ ~y co~et~d t~t
wag as urgent a project as ot~ete ~teh needed to ~ funded.
asked sial[ to discuss ~hY ~hi8 V~oJeet needed to ~ ~ no~
lOSe o~ the special projects ~ieh wou~d be ~aced during the
~dget yea~.
$vehla reported t~t ~ta~ was p~esent~ng the Mpp~ng eysto~ due
eove~ the cuzcent city l~al~s. Theze ~as no~ no baee data to be
used for any purpose, such as to ~etecmtue ~.hip. land use
planning. TRe ~ps no~ bein~ used ~e Izo~ 19~4. Tht~ u~
system ~ould tie the existing in~ot~ti~ into ~eloptn~ areas
Lmgoe~Cton on dEaf,ge off would ~he FM ~ps
Svehla ~empo~ed t~t the F~ ~pm did no~ pcovide All o~
pertinent ~n~or~tion. FM ~ps ptovtded tmgor~tto~ on
plains only but did not look at 8~ci~icg tu te~ue o~ areas
i~tvidual eubdivisione.
catch the C~ty up.
Svohla repotted that ~he ~ps ~uld ~el~ a SEelS deal. This vas the
~lic type infot~tion which sta~i needed.
Co,seLl Meu~= ~Adau8 stated that theze ~d be~ occasions w~en
citizens ~d =equested inlozut~on Ceou ~he Plannin~ iud Conunity
~velo~aent De~a~t~nt a~ could not get the angwzg to their
questions because the a~ea was not ~pped. Couuctt needed ~o be
cognizant of the czechs whic~ could be ~de wi~hou~ an up-to-date
245
Meeting o~ Bepte~be~ ~0. rtl5
~age
coumcil 14e~bez &lcozd stated that the comce£ms ove£ imadequate
napping [n~oz~t~on last yeac which 8ob Nelsom ba~ ~ela~e~ ~o ~e
vate~ a~ .~z ~taes.
~yoz P~o ~em ~Lm8 e~a~ ~ ~e vas con,arme~ ~a~ ~e Council
vas go~ ~o ~ too~mg ~o= ~uey ~oc ~lov as ~tl ~8 o~ez
be~oze ~ b~ge~ zevi~ pzocef8 vas couple~e~., h ~u~ pze~ez
see eEe4e8 ea~ee ~ax ~ntes be used Coz ~e ~pptng sys~eu.
upping eoutd e~ ~zom ~e. ~tl~y Fu~. ~e Council vas go~ to
~ve t~ ~ind 1500,~0 ~oE Flow thtl yeaE due to the tzanettton
peE~od ~ ~ ~spi~al. Hie question vas ti ~oney ~zou Flow
Boeptta~ could ~ ~a~ea tc~ the cevemue s~cing
HaMoc St~ct auXed ~ ~ cevenue ehactng ~u~e included amy
Co,unity ~to~en~ Btoea Ocamt Cund8.
~G=ame Eeplted t~t the ~e wan based ou eta~', estt~e
~ t~ ei~y ~uld ~eeet~. ~o o[[ielal no,tee had bean
~ndicaC~ ~ t~ va~ lt~lM t~ e~ties Would ~ecetve lO0~ o~ the
allocatkea ~g t~ ~t ~e~g calM. T~ta ~d mot been ~e~olved.
No one
~equt~ t ~bl~c ~m~ing ~ bald to give c~zmn8 an oppoc~un~ty to
budget.
~. at~tt R, ~z~z, Zt~8 8touegate. spoke.tn oppogtttou ~tatt~g
t~t t~e ~e a ~ &Case o~ conce=ne ~htch be voU~_tt? _~o
eaphaG~le, lu d~llats t~ ~ne~at Fu~. bugger was. Up ~q~ ~.~_~ne
~teh ~id Got toe~ to ~ a Elaltsttc increase. The ~a~ges~
up 8~,09Q,447, ~tch ~ au ~zea~e o~ ~O~, T~eze vas also a
~sto~ SeEvice. He al~ questioned the [nc[eases s~nce even the
Section tG ~blte ~cal ~$ up $~e.82o Which va8 a 5~
to iac~e~e $~,4~S,~4~ ~te~ vas an increase oz.z~,
246
City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ 8eptembe£ lO. 1985
Page
also caused him to question the ~& new pOSitions in the Utility
Departuent. especially when he reed that electricity ~atee woul~
need to be tnc£eased 12t and wa~er races another $%. The electric
rates were already too high and non-competitive. His biggest
concern wac tLxat the city did not seem to know how to handle
prosperity. By p~ospertty he meant the tremendous tnocease in the
tax base o~ 8296.000.000 over 19e4 amd a ~avorable economy.
act necessary to spend all o~ the revenues generated by the
increased tax base using the current tax rate. This vas exactly
w~at the p~opoeed bud~e~ ~ould do. Denton Cl~M ~axea were no~
coapetittve ~tth o~he¢ Dallaa a¢ea =ubuCban cities. ~n a¢~iole had
appea¢ed in the Dalla= ~o¢ntng ae~ om ~u~et $, ~icb coapaCed
subuzban cities based on pzoposed budgets and tax EaSes ~oc the next
~iscal yea~. The tax bills ~o~ a 8~00,000 house coupa~ed as
Denton 8587.00
Faz~ezs REanch
R~chazdson 6320.00
~tngton 8349.00
Catto~lton 8352.00
Buret and P~ano
GLand Pcattte 8405.00
Le~ievil~e 145t.oo
~Ktnney 8622.00
The only subucban city with a h~g~t tax bill t~n Denton vas
~X~nneM. M~. Tuzne~ stated t~t he ~d ~oved to ~ntom in 197~
because o[ its convenience to Dallas a~ Fo~t ~ozth and because it
was a more economical place to Live. Mith the utility tales
taxe~, the city ~as tepidly losing the i~ge el ~nton being
economical place to tLve. He believed t~t taxpayers wets entitled
to a reduction tn the current tax cate o~ 59~ pec ~100 evaluation
get the e::ecttve tale wttht~ the 3t increase level.
at. ateg Taylor, Denton et~e:ig~tet, s~o~e tn ~nee to
~tnec. The city vas setting at the top o~ the ~t'e~lexand
not ~ve the benefit o~ the direct i~ustzill s~tn-O~ which the
other suburban areas had. Denton ~as beqt~t~ a tepid
bounds. The City did not have t~e ~uatztal base coney coning
a~ additional tax teve~es ~ete needed. ~ a~v:eetated the
p~oposed pay increases which the Council Was eo~tdoting. He
t~n~ed Kathtyn Ustey amd Betty MeKean ~oc the ~tk ~teh they
done on the Fa[: Label Staudatda ~ct iot t~ Ftte ~Vattment. He
challenged the Council to loo~ ahead a~ keep ta touch ~ith the
an additional Ftte[tg~tet had been ~equeJted tn t~e budget. T~e
T~e add~ttonal land white had been annexed bu~ ao~e de~ on
help gzeatly but at the sase tt~e, calls ~ete tncteaateg. The
~n Denton ~ete Just the sase aa Dallas o~ eott ~octh. Dallas ~d
recently done a ~nntng study ~htch eho~d they tell they needed
Fttegtghtet8 ~et engine co~any nLmt~u at all times. ~ntom did
not have this utntmuu Mnmtng and he ~elt it was needed.
The hyoz closed the public ~eattng.
Council Member Step~ens sexed Hc~tane what the 3t increase
~e~ had uenttomed would be.
3. Otdt~ncee
R. The Council considered approval o~ an o~dtnanoe
authorizing au agteeuent bet~en the City o: ~uton and Paul A.
Acting City ~get Rick Svebla repotted t~t t~ts ~as t~ co~ttact
~ioh Council had asked staff to
247
City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ Septembe£ 10, 1985
Page Five
The [olloving ocdimance was p£eeented:
NO. 85-179
Hopkin~ mo~ion, Chew .eoon~ to aaopt ~he o~di~nce.
Council ~mbmc ~cep~e~a as~e~ ~g a lid could be planed on
~hia could be aseuzed, ~ ~ul~ cu~ ~o~ a ~o~em~l cos~
Council ~be~ ~a~ asked i~ ~he C~M woul~ have ~o ~oze~o some
Council ~m~c Stephens stated chat Reaume had emt~ted the
ezpensea at ~,000 and ~eit the Council should hold them to
~u~e. 1~ t~e a~ua~ ~hould aced to be ad~us~e~, them coul~
back be~oze COUnCil.
the e~pense~ ~e oyez ~,000, ~eau~e ~ould co~e back beloze Council.
Hop~[nl motion, Chew lec~ to aM~ the motion to ~nclude a ~4.000
cap and add~tt~l expm~le, would be dtlcusled with the Coun~Z.
Council ~mbe~ ~amm asked t~ it was avp~ov~iata to do
~yoz 6C~azc mCa~ea C~t Heaume did nec ~ve Co accept.
Council ~c ~a~ ~1~ ~g t~e cap was app=oved an~ the Council
Wanted to mpm~ ~Ee. ~d a new oontcact have ~o be d~a~.
Debza D=ayovitoh, Ci~y A~to=~ey, ~epo=ted that she e~vteioned tha~
expense~ ~u~=ed exceed ~.000, p=loc appcova~ ~o~ pay~nt mu~t be
obtained ffcom the C~ty Cou~tl.
On ffoll call vote, ~ "aMc," Hopkins "aMc." Stephema "aye,*
~liOZd "aye." Riddtes~z~Z "aye," Chew "aye," and ~yoc 5tewazt
4. Z~e Council coae~eced ~a~ing a vote o~ ~he tax ~ate
1985-86,
Jo~n ~Qtame, Viteatot o~ Fi~moe, reported that a public heating
~ bee~ held on 6epte~beE 3 o~ the p~oposal to inccease the aotual
tax cate ove~ t~ e~fe~ive tax cato. It was a18o a
that a vote be taken at a pub1~ meet~nq. Theme peccemt ovec
e~Cec~ve tee cate ~uld bm 57.44p pe~ Il00 evaluation.
Btephe~m ~tion, Chew eeco~ to let the tax cate at 57.44M.
tax
248
City Council Minute8
I~ettng of Septembe£ 10. 19~$
MoG£ane cepo£ted that the pcopoeed £ate ~0£ the co~ing budget
was 59~ pet $100 evaluation, It he undecstood cocteotly, the motion
was to reduce this to 57.44#.
Council Membe£ Eiddlespetga~ stated that in aSPect, this would be
1/2~ less. ~hich Would be appcoxt~ately $180.000 to $200°000.
~Gtane repotted it would be toughly $210o000.
Council ~embat Riddleepetget stated t~At he ~ad no ~oble~
that. ~ith the understanding t~t the~e ~e~e s~ll ,,budgetary
Counc~ Heubec Me.ams 8~ated ~hat she objected b~sed on ~he
the tight budget p~oposed a~ t~y~ng to ~tnd 0500,000 [o~ tho
hospital, cutt[n~ $200,000 by zoductn~ the tax ~ate was a
si~ntlteant change. ~t would ~e linding the uo~y ~o~ Flow
~deE. They ~:e not ~alk[ng about Ea~stng the ~ax mate beyond
~t tt ~d p~evtously been.
~yo~ Stewart elated that taxes would be
Tax ~pp~a~eal D[et~ct, so~e people would pay aces and sobs would
as be~o~e. 0Ivan that the Council Would ~ve to ~t~ Honey ~oc the
Counci~ Meube~ 5~ephens asked ~at ~he e~Eect~ve tax cate would have
~0 be to generate the same alount o~ dollars tn ~he ~x~ ~tsca~
McG~ane zesponded ~ 3t would be opec t~e e[~ecti~e ~ax ~ate
Waa calculated to be 55.77.
55.77~ th~8 yea~ to ~a~se the same amount o~ money.
Council ~ubec 5~ephen8 stated t~t S7.44 wu~d allow ~oE
tax ~ate pcto~ to coaple~ng ~he ~evl~ o~ the budqe~.
~yo~ Stewart stated ~hat this action was cequi~ by 8~a~e law at
~yo~ P~o Tam Hopkins 8~ated C~ ~E t~e cate could ~ l~ed a~ a
~u~uce da~e but not ~nc~eaeed, ~t scold to be appEo~ta~e to leave
~t at 50~ until ~he budget yea completed and then ceduee 2he ~ato.
Coumeil ~mbec R~dd~eepetgec elated that he CO,emcEed a~ d~d not
Mint to jump to concZustons. The 57.~t ~ould cmdmoe the inco~
be~oEe t~e COUnCil k~ev ~t ~uld actuall~ be needed. He
p~8o~lly vou~d l~ke 2o eec the tax ~ate co~ do~ ~o ~7.44
lees; h~eve~, the Council did [ace things ~ich ~o not currently
in the budget, l[~e ~o~, ~ch ~outd have to be oon~tdeced.
Council ~bec ~ame ~tated t~t ~i the Council vot~ to ~ake
~eductton, they vould be locked Into the doltac a~ount available
the budget ~ev~e~ ~ould be dec~dtng ~heze to place the ~ney.
the Council voted to leave the ~ate at 59~. they eouL~ vote
~eduee tt at a late~ data ~smuutn~ places to coduee ~be budget
~ound.
~Eane ~epo~ted ~t theme weze two things ~he Council night
conside~. State la~ did zequize t~t, a~te~ the public ~eazimg,
249
City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ Beptembe£ 10, 1~85
Page Seven
Council could not vote on the tax ~ate p£to£ to 3 days aEte~ the
public heazing noz ~Oze them 14 days a~tez the public hea£ing.
this t~ deadline was not set, publication p£oceduzes Would have to
be ~eplated, anothe£ public hma£ing would have to be held. and
anothez tax vnte taken. The~e was also anothe~ eons~de~at~on that
the Apg~aleal Dist~ict based th~l£ cha~ge on each entity on the
a~ount si tax collected. They V~e in the p~ocees sE putting this
togethe~ a~ Gered to ~nQV as quickly aa possible what the City
be app=oved b~ ~epte~e~ 20. and ~as scheduled io~ ~i~t ps,sage on
Council ~z 8tev~ns a~ktd ho~ ~ch not,ce ~d to be g~ven to the
public a~ou~eelents.
Deb:a D~ayov~tch, C~ty ~tto~ney. ~tated t~t if the Council did ~ot
vote by ~epte~ ~7. a~ lo~ the tax :ate between ~7.44 and 59.
57.44~ ~a~ the po~nt at ~htch ~t exceeded the allo~able ~ate and
~ould have to be zeadvezt~,ed.
~yoz VEo Tom Hov~iam ag~ed i~ the ~ate weze ~educed to
would have to be ~eadveztised.
~ane ~epoEtod t~t ~g the Council w~ehed to go ove~ t~e 57.44.
to be taken.
Council ~lbe~ ~a~l asked ti the Council voted at this meeting to
leave ~e tax ~ate at 5~, p~to~ to Sep~embe~ 1 ~ the ~ate ~e~e
zeduoed, ~uLd add~tioM1 V~bl~cations, public hea~[ngs and votes
~ve to be taken.
~G~ane ~e~onde~ no.
On ~o1~ call vote, ~i~ "nay," Hopkins "nay." 5tephen~ "aye."
"aye." ~tto~ ~a~ted A to 3 ~th Council ~embe~e ~ams, Hop~tn~.
~ltozd a~ R~dd~espezgez casting the "naM" votes.
~vk~nl ~tiou, ~a~ ~econd to leave the tax zeta at 59~ pez ~100
evaluation u~t~l alte~ ao~letion el the budget at ~hich time the
tax zate ~uld be altezed as low as
~o~ 5t~azt ~tated that he telt that ~i the tax ~ate ~as 1sit at
budget, anot~ ~uld be suggested to taXe ~ts place.
zeaaon he ~a~
Council ~m~z Ch~ stated t~t he agzeed.
Council ~mbez ~c~a~ s~te~ t~t a~e tell the Council could loo~
at the e~t~l ~dget with ~metgh~ a~ knowledge and ~km the best
decision ~ssible. Fez thee zeaeom she ~ould vote ~o~ 59~ to allow
the Couue~t 8o~ ~teztbtttt~.
Xliozd =aye,~ Biddle~vezge~ "aye," Che~ "uay," a~ ~yoz
and ~yoE St~zt casting the "~y" votes.
The Coumc[1 then ceconvened into the discussion o~ the
250
Meeting o~ 8eptembe£ lO. 1985
Page ~ight
5. The Council convened into the ~xeeuttve Session to d~ecuaa
legal mattezs, zeal estate, pezeomnel, and bo&Ed a~q~oimtnents. No
O~[Otal action was taken.
{sE ~u[u~e agendas.
With no fu~the~ items o~ business. Cbc meeting was adJouEned. ,,
City Council Minutes
~eptembe£ l?. t9~5
The Council convened into the Work ~esston at 5:30 p,m. in the
De~ense Room.
·cttng City ~an&ge=, City l~to~ne~ mn~ Ct~y
l. ~he Council held a ~iecueeton of ~he pzopoeed 1985-86
budge~.
~e to ~ numbe~ el cl~izeug tn a~endance, the vo~ session was
mo~ed to ~e ~ounei~ C~Bbe~8. ~Fo~ 5tewa~t s~ated t~t the
Council woul~ ~ae 1 ~e~oeeuta~tve Ezou each ~zoup ~i8h~ng to
~ega~dt~ the pEoposod bu~ge~.
Acting C~ty ~ge~ Rick ~vehla ~epo~ted t~ stall had p~ovtded the
not ~eoo~ing any el ~ cuts i~om the existing budget ~htch ~e~e
on the ~te2. ~atl had looked io~ t~ems ~hich, ti oaitted, would
not change ~he ope~a~ton cE ~he o~ty. Ways ~d been sought to iund
Resources C~tt~ee ~e~e reduced, t~e tax le~ would be balo~ last
~tseal Fear. ~lso ~noluded was a lis~ o~ new programs which would
be cut to reduce t~e bud~e~ by t~ 0500,000 ~equested by Council.
N:..Nat Bcvtn, ~e~zeaentin~ ~he N~CP, stated that he was speaking
on behalf ct the citizens ct ~nton who wished to see ~=ttn Luthe~
King's bt=t~ay declazed a holiday. He stated that he could
dates, ets. A~e: hea~ing D~. King, he had been determined
at~e~ am all ~tte uccel a~ had so done. There had been
8iqnttica~Z c~es whtc~ would no~ ~ve ~9pened Without the
celebration o~ ~zttm ~u~ez Xtn~'s b~zt~ay did not have to do
much w~h colo~ a~ With 9=~mo~ptea. M~. E=vin u~ged to Council to
approve t~ holiday as a lig~l oi support lot these principles to
those ~o would co~.
Ns. ~ ~mdezsou ~illta~, Chairperson oi the Flow ~ao~ial
~s~itat Board o~ Directors, s~a~d t~t she was not appeaztn~ to
~ke a doral p~esenta~ion but rather was p~eeemt to answer any
questi0~ ~tc~ ~he Council at~ht have ze~ardtn~ ~he zeques~ ~or
~u~s REQB F~ov.
council ~abez atddteapee~ez s~aCed t~t tt should be bzouoht out
t~t ~ hoept~at ~as tn n~ed ol lu~s no~. T~ts could not be
delayed Io~ a yea~ cz ~e. It should be ~de ~leaz ~o ~e people
ol Denton ~ ~heze ~outd not be a hospital unless soae a~entton
the hosg~tat duEtng t~ last yea~ t~yin~ to ~eep ~ going du~tng the
ve~tod ct c~nqe tn the delivery ct health care. ~ tot el ~ozK had
been done by the TaS~ Fo=es and the Bo~zd before the Tas~ ~ozce
czeatat tn trying to see~ tbs ans~e~ to the direction Flow should
tabs. T~ts ~z~ was comttnuing with the 21us Ribbon Co~tttee.
the Rlue R~bbon Co~lttee a~ the Tash Force. &Il el this ~o~
~ould ~ der ~ught tl t~ hospital was not ~unded. & ~ospttat did
not exist ~ithou~ iunds and Flo~ ~emoztal ~d been undeziu~ed ~o~
so ~nM years. 6he vas proud el ~t had been dome ~tth t~e
which the[ ~d zece~ed ta the past. 6he u~ged the Council to put
Flow tn the city budget ioz the a~ount ~htch was =equested.
Council ~z Chew asked ~t he vas correct tu assuming t~t the
hospital vas requesting lt,000,o00 Izom the city and $1,000,000 ~zom
the County.
City ct Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting ct Septembe£ 17. 1985
Page Two
Ms, #illiams =esponded that was
city did not have $1.000.000. The Council was looking at the
the newly annexed areas. There was a problem with the budget. She
had a difficulty looking at the $1.000,000 request without being
able to understand how the city might provide soma assistance at a
a~allar amount,
~, #tlttama responded that it Flow did not get the $1.000.000,
things which needed to be done would not be done, For so long. Flow
had not had the funds which were needed. The budget as presented to
done. It the funds were not received, all of these projects would
not be done du£ing the next tiecal Feat.
Council Member 1at,dams stated that the Council- was too~ing at the
city budget on an item by item b/Iii trying to deterline where funds
could be reduced to covet any shortfall. There w~re no
contingencies in the budget t=om the hospital.
Council ~aembe= Hiddleaperge~ asked it the budget as presented b~
Flow had the ~egueeted item
~s. #tlliama stated that it was not exactly prioritized. There
ao~e things which the hospital had to done and others which we£e
needed to be dome but were not as critical.
Council Kember Riddlesperger stated that the Board would then
prioritize according to the amount ct tunds received.
14a~or Stewa£t asked it some ct the large items, such aa the CAT Scan
and the main compute=, could be handled th£ough lease/purchase and
palment sp£ead over several yeats.
~. Williams stated that those items would be done on a lease/
Kayo= Stewa£t asked it 8%00,000 tot the computer tn the budget was
the total cost o= would the cost bi i$OO,000 tot several yeats.
Ma. #illiams responded that was the total cost but it would be
ap£ead out.
Mayor ~tewa=t then stated that the ,total $$O0,000 would not
las. ~illiams stated that the entire $500,000 did not have to be
budgeted this yea£o but Flow did have to have the
Ka¥or Stewart asked over how many years could the cost gl the
computer be spread.
~. #illiame responded 5.
14a¥or Stewart as~ed about the lease/purchase ct the CaT Scan.
~a. #illiams £eplied that this purchase would also he spread over
several yea=e,
Kayo= Stewart stated that the dttte£amce bet~en the total purchase
price and the yearly cost ct a lease/purchase ~as appro=iwately
$S00,OOO. He lull¥ supported Flow ~emortal Hospital but tell that
there might be acme wishful thin~lng rather than actuality tn the
budget aa p=eeemted.
Page Three
~hs, #il,llama reported that there was a list om page 2 o~ the items
which Wee eligible ~or lease/purchase over a 60 month period.
These iteu wee la,em out and them added back in to lustily the
total egpemdtture.
lA.500.000 coUl~ no~ be bozzowe~ af~e~ ~he 501.3(c) cozpo~oa was
~. Millia~ sta~ed ~t hope~ily, ~e ~oepi~al wOUld be able ~o
borrow uomey bu~ ~ey ~ouXa ~ve to borrow ~oz other thtm~e too.
~yor PEo Tau ~pk~me asked t~ ~he Council could get tn[or,tics
the up-to-date ~i~ncial co,ilion o~ the hospital pzio~ to the
adoptioa o~ t~ city budget.
the budqe~.
Council ~bec S~e~eus asked v~t wa~ t~e projection Eo~ the
occupancy rate ~o~ ~ next year.
Mm. Wtlti~m clp~ed 66t; ~hat wam the cuccent occupancy rate.
~Moc Poe Te~ ~p~Lnm m~a%ed that ire Council vented ~o do
to loo~ at the ~otal bu6get p~otuce ~oc the city.
~. Marcy B~o~. Director o~ t~e Fze~ Moo~e C~lld Care Center,
eta~ed t~ ~ ~d bee~ t~e director o[ ~ Mea~a and the cemte~
bean f~ eEie~enee ~o~ ~ ~ea~a. T~ie was the ~ourth ~ear the center
ex~etieneed ~camtic cuts at the ~edetal and state level. At t~e
cite o$ ~he outs, they ~d been ~old to go to ~he local qovecnnent
Coz ~u~i~g. ~ct~ Cht~ yea~'o contcact ~ec~od, the cen~ec had
been o~t ~o~ $~5,000 to $7~,000. The ce~tec had asked the c~y and
~he Un~e~ ~ to oupple~nt thole ~u~s. ~ot~ec agency which vas
Fa~tly. F~ed ~ooze Day Ca~e Cente~ and the F~temds el the
intercalated due ~o ~e ovecall l~pact o~ ~amily pcoblens. ~ny
the ~t~ecl ~o tucued co ~cie~e o~ the Paaily umed the child care
cen~ec, Thais ~ecvioem ~illed a vital need tn the co,unify. The
child ease ceate~ wac ~e~ueatin~ $2~,000 which would help to re,lace
the Eu~a ~ic~ ha~ been cut durtnq this ~ud~et Mea~. TWa people
W~o u~ed ~he se~vice~ o~ the child ca~e cente~ deserved to be ~elped
Co~ittee. stated t~t ~e group vas a comsezvat~ve co~[ttee. They
~d ~iete~d to all [equeete a~ obtained ~n[oz~t~on om each. They
did no~ ~Xe ~mco~e~ions ~oc ~undin~ unless they wece auce
~he ee~vice Wa~ v~al to the co~munity. The question asked was
o~ service. The cooittee ~d already aczeene~ t~e~e requests pr[cz
to [eco~en~atiom to t~e Council amd did not know why t~e ~it list"
Eo~ ~n la,vital ~tch Wa~ ac large. T~e co~ittee was p~epa~ed
to Justify theic ceeo~a~iome ~oc [u~img ~o~ these agencies.
Couno~ ~lbec Chew expceleed ~ appcec~at~on ~o~ t~e co~tttee's
~8. Roberts Donsbaoh, cepre~enCing SP~, stated that 8he had been
with 8P~ ~oc ~e entice ~1 yeats it ~d been iB existence. The
~equeet ~de ~o~ 127.500 ~ep~e~ented a "ba~e bones" request. This
ae~vice~ to ova~ 1,O00 d~e~emt citizens. Also provided were aeal~
to t~e ~n~o~ St~io~ Ce~lc, Recitage Oakm a~ the southeast Denton
Elder Cemte~. ~lso pzov~ed wac mea~a on ~heels to the hoaebou~
City of Den~on City Council ~inutee
Page ~ou£
citizens ~n Heritage Oaks and the Phoenix apa=tmente, ~P~ had gone
to a less personalized ~outing system ~n orde£ to stay within
budget. However, the elderly population tn Denton was
The number o~ pe£1onl using the se=vice had t~ipled in 11
8Pi~i had also frozen salary increases [o£ their etaf~, had dispensed
with the seo=eta~y position and the Janitorial lervioe in o=de= to
cut back. The $2?°500 £equeet was the ~ini~t~l amount to enable
to continue to ~umction. The agency had received word ~ro~ the
County Coulelionerts Cou~t that they ~ould have to move [~om
p~elent location at the end o~ ~he yea~. Th~s ~alooa~on would
~pact the~ budget bM app~ox~te~y 13,000.
~. Xazen Connozs, membe~ o[ the Hu~n Resouzoes ~vtsozy Co~tee,
s~ated ~ she wanted to b~mg ~he Council up to ~ate on the
to get ~ood stamps. T~e p~oJected cost ~al 126,250 ~o~ ~h~s budget
yea~. The city did not pay a~yth~ng unless a t~t~ ~ae taken. The
oztqi~l budget fez this yea~ was ~19,800 but ~hiS was amended by
~7,500 due to a ehozt~all. The 19e6 ~equest was $34,707 which
an ~nc~eaee o~ $7,400 and would ~t~noe an add~tto~l 1,400
This eeti~te was based on the inczeaaed usage du~ing last yea~.
The p~oJected budget cut be~o~e the Council would not only
any g~o~th but ~ould in e~ect out $7,000 ~ozth o~ tztps ~o~
clients.
~yo~ Stewart asked [~ the clLents who used the service ve~e
Iczeened,
~. Commo~s ~esponded yes~ howevez, ~i~nc~al screening was not
do~e. ~ny o~ t~e clients ~equ~ed a vehicle ~ith a ~heelc~t~
o~ othez special services ~h~ch the d~ve~a ~e~e ~ained
p~ovide. The clients ~e~e ~c~eened ~oc ~d~cal ceasonm a~ each one
clients pa~ ll.o0 peE t~i~. ~ survey had been done o~ ot~e~ cities
~tth the ~o~lo~tn~ ~esults:
~bt~ene SO,SO on city bus (one ~a~)
Dallas (D~T) l~,O0 on van (one
19.00 on ta=~
FO~ Mo~h (D~T) I~,00 on Via (o~e way)
19.00 on taxa (CeCal)
Mace 10.25 (cound tctp) t~ 60 o~
cadet
Iffvtng (D~T) I1.00 on van (one way)
l~.O0 on caxt (~xtmum)
B~yau 10.35 (one way)
~atadena ~oe bug 8~v~co ~o~
~usttn ~0.60 bus o~ ~ax~ (o~e
~[d~and ~0.75 bus (one
Counct~ ~mbe~ Chew asked those ~o were ~n the a~d~ence ~ega~dtng
~tn Lu~he~ K~ng*s birthday to p~oase sta~.
C~ty o~ Demtom City Council
Page
The Co~&=tl then held ~G~the£ discussions on the ~£oposed 1985-86
budget ¥ith t~
The conitnsus o~ the Council was to hold a Special Called meeting on
Thu£sdaF, 6e~teBbe£ ~9 at 1:00 p.m. ~o~ the pucpose o~ [u£the£
diseulsion am~ passage el the p£oposed 1985-8& budget.
This item ¥&s £euoved ~ol the agenda at sta~ ~equest.
3, Tbs Council did not convsms into the Executive Session due
to lack o~ tt~e.
· he Council them convened into the Regula£ Meeting at 7:00 p.m. ~n
~ttng City ~ge~, City Attorney amd C~ty
Tbi coun~ ~o~stdezed a~ovaX et t~e Consent Xgen4a.
Ho~a~ .~t~om, Ch~ me~oud to appzove the Comment ~e~a am
pzeseu~e~. ~t~on eazzied u~n~uely.
Consent ~ge~a
x. ~ ~ 9432 - ~e~ia~ ~zuc~ be~
2. UtS 0 g5~X - Loa~b~ea~ e~bow
3. B~d ~ 9514 - So~t
4. B~d ~ gels Move~ a~ o~oad vehicle
5. Bid ~ ~5~6 Radio console
~u~t o~ It,950.00
g. ~cc~le Ozdec W 69823 to Teasley Road
~eocta~ton ia ~he a~unt oC 820,938.50
~0. ~C~le O~dez ~ 6983~ to Chico C~ue~ed Stone
~e a~u~ o~ 85,160.00
Pzuett ~d~t~on. ~ot 1, Block 1. (The Planning
an~ Zo~Lng Co~sston ~eco~e~8 approval.)
2. Approval o~ pzelLR~zy plat oC the
~to~, Lo~ 1, 8~oc~ ~. (The PlammLmg and
City o~ Denton City Council #inures
Neeting o~ September 17.
Page Six
2, Public Hearings
&. The Council vas to hold a public hma£ing on the
petition o~ Burke ~ngineering requesting a change in zoning ~com the
agricultural (A) classiEtcation to the planned development (eD)
district on a 27.29 acre tract at the southeast cognet cE F~
and Hobson Lane. I~ approved° t~e planned developunt would pegmit
the ~ollowing land uses:
General Retail - 2.25
~ulti-Famly-1 120 units on 5.& acges with a density
DtlplSX = 60 units on 6.6 acres With a density o~
9 unite per acre
Tri-plex - lS units on 2.6 acres vith, a density
o~ 6,3 units pet acre
Townhouse - 2S units on 2.76 acres with a density
o~ 10.1 units peg acre
9ardenhomes - 15 units on 3.7 acres with a density
o~ 4 units per acre
Recreation, Open Space and Drainage ~teae - ~.~5
ac~es Z-1756
Je~ ~eye~, Dizec~o~ o~ Plamn~ng and Co~um~M Development,
~ha~ on ~his case, e~a~ wam~ed ~o o~ez am o~iom ~o ~old~mg
~=e not always uP to date. On t~a Pa=~icula= case, quite a ~ew
people may not ~ve =eceived nottE~cation o~ the public
5~a~ d~d eve=ything legally a~ Council could hea~ ~he 9e=~t[on a~
~hts aeet~ng; bowers=, soae pezaons dad no~ =eceive ~he accel
not cue=ent. An alte~tive, sta~ vas =eco~ending that this tale
be =e~e=~ed bask to the Planning a~ Zoning
~b~a D~ayovitch, City A~to~ney. ~epo~ed t~t ~he situa~ion
appea=ed =o be =~t a numbs= (in excess of 6) Pzope=ty o~e=s we=e
not notiEied. The law states that ~ t~ people Wets 9tememt at the
~ega~ cea~om why the Counct~ canno~ ta~e lotion. In ~hts pacttoula~
~nstances, however, these was an add~tional p~oble~ ~th the no,ice
~hich was held be~o~e the Plannin~ and Zoning Co~ieelon. The
Ita~utot~ not~tcatton ~tme had not been g~ven 9r~ot to the P~anm~ng
a~ Zoning Co~[salon vote on August 14. In ltgb~ o~ this, IhS
eoncu==ed to =e~nd this case back to the Pla~i~ and Zom~ng
Co~ismion.
Coumc~l ~embe~ 5te~hene asked w~t ~aa the mta~uto~
t~ hearing besots the Couac[1 and the Plamning and
Co~iem[on was t~at evety ptopettM o~et located within 200 test o~
the 9topettM sought to be tezoned be notitted ~n wtittnq ~0 dame
price to the hearing. There was an additto~l publ~cation '.
~oqui~euen~ o~ 15 days pzio~ ~o ~he ~a~iag.
Planning and Zoning Co~iGeton ~d been resolved t~ that start had
teadvettieed. There vets add~tio~l inpu~ vbic~ t~e Council should
th~s Besting, Beeo~ly, start d~d not ~nov how they ve~e going to
get the people p~ovetty o~e~ l~st, These teeozdl d~d ~t ex~lt ac
eta~ ~ight have to go doo~ to docs. The p~oblem could possibly be
due to a ~evioue anne~tton o~ that the people ~ho were not
nottfied had not been placed on the tax =olle. la new aunexa=ions
there was a year's delay before the D~o~e~ty o~etl ~te placed on
the tax
Dtayov~tch futthet repotted t~t the statute dad provide
property ~htch ~d been annexed an4 the o~ets ~4 not yet ~d an
o~9ottumity to ten, et their taxes, the ~ubltcatio~ of the notice
completed io~ mo~e than one yea=.
City of Denton City Council M~nutes
Page
Meyer reported t~at this area was proposed ~or zoning tn the past
and the LssUe o~ who ~ere the co£rect p£ope£ty owne£s had not cone
up.
Meyer Pro T~ ~p~in~ a~od how sta~ had boon ~ade aware o~ the
p=oble~.
~yet ~O~ted t~t people ~ called a~tet ~ee~ng the 8~gne 8ta~
had pos~e~ t~ ~he pEo~fed zoning cha~e axes. However, staff had
Coun~il~l~E ~aus as~ed ~ ~hase people were not paying ~axes.
paying taxel, ~hay veto listed bY theft iasc ~ue, T~ete vas no way
~o1~8. , T~ ~9~atsal Distlist was keepiuQ record8 by ~thods ot~et
than property deaot~pttong and property desct~ption8 did not c~nge.
Chow notion, ~l~ocd leeo~ to te~et the petition back to the
Planning an~ Zoning Co~88ion at city expense.
October 9 Plaant~ a~ Zoning Co~ss~on age~a,
pcopec~y ~ec ~a t~ area i~
pett~i0me~ ~uld like to go ~otwatd co avoid delays. Mt, Bel~ ~ad
P~aun~ a~ Zoning Co~estou and bac~ to Council, there Wou~d be
the area a~ this ~tobl~ with no~t~ca~ion could occuz with any
zoning e~nge petition.
Mt. ~atd ~t~, tear.outing the property o~e~8 v~o ~d not
received ~Ct~tcat~ou, reported t~t the V~aantnV and Zoning
pe~ti0u ~d been aM~ la a uther way and was appzoved ~ a vote
o~ 5 to 0 on Auger ~4, Mo one appeared in op9o8~tion at the
~et~ng as ~gu8~ 20.
Council ~z ~aus as~ed
they pcoce~ v~th ~ ~att~ and the pet~tione~ then ~d legal
cau~iea~io~ tn the ~utuze.
D~ayovi~h cespo~od no. T~ce ~ece a muube~
appeaEed ~t the belt thtn~ ~ot all concerned ~a8 to begin again.
Council bu~c ~tddte~pet~c called the question.
~t~on to ce~ec bao~ ~o Planning and Zoning Co~ie~ion at city
expense oazcted u~ni~ugly.
The ~yot thou zend a Pcocla~tton Ccc Comet~tuttom Mee~.
Benjamin ~ C~p~OE O~ ~e ~ughteza cE ~e ~ezicam Revolution.
B. The Cou~tl ~eld
Benny ,a~ Baobabs ~ssell ~ueg~ng a c~n~e ~n zoning ~o~ the
~nglet~ly (~P-7) el~aat~teatton to t~e planned development (PD)
dtstttot 'on a t.2 aoce ~aet located on the east side e~ Ca~oll
Boulevard aVV~exl~el~ ~ ieet south cE Eagle Dt~ve. I~ approved,
the p~iA~d develo~nt vt~l petutt the construction o~ of[ice
City o~ ~enton City Council Minutes
Page Eight
The Mayo£ opened the public hea~ing.
M~. Benny Russell, the petittone£o spoke in favo~ of the p£opoaed
chan~e fo~ an office building. The pactel was p~esently a vacant
lot and the p~oposal had been emda to ~epceeent not only this lot,
but also the p~opecty adjoining to the east the houmee on ~£tle
St£eet. The ~equeet was to oha~e fzou single family to office
building. The lot tO the south wa8 pcemently designed amd ac~epte~
~o~ o~ce buildings. The lot to t~e nozth Wis pEemently s~ngle
~aUily and they had ~ied to aceo~oda~e tho ~aot ~ ~e was
p~eeen~l~ 1 curb cu~ on Carroll. The~ were no~ ~eque~t~ng an
addi~o~l curb cut but ~athaz the U.e o~ t~ ex,sting cut.
~yoz P~o Tom Hopkins elated ~hat he [elt ~he plan ~oz u~ltzimg the
existing ou~b cut ~as very good.
Council aembe~ Riddlelpezge~ eta~ed that he Eel~ this p~oposal was
the best ~o~ the use o~ this p~opezty.
No one spoke in opposition.
The ~Moz closed the public hea~[ng.
Denise 5pivey. U~ban Plannez. ~epoz~ed ~ 12 zeply ~ozme had been
~iled w~th 0 ~e~u~ned. The planned developmen~ zoning
t~icated C~e p~oing fo~ this pac~icula~ development. P~ase I to
~_~ _~uld be .cops.tructe~ ip the nea~ ~u~uze. ~ important
Zoning Couisatom had tabled this tteu to alloy the petttlonec8 to
cuzb cut. It had been placed azoag ~he nozth pEo~zty ltae to allow
~oc ~utuze Join~ access w~th pzo~zcy to t~ no~h. &oasis along
CacEQll Boulevacd in an ~npo~tan~ iegue a~ t~e ~n~on ~velopuont
~u~de apoke to ~en~z~ctin~ amd eon~zotltn~ accean on ~o1~ an ~eh
as possible. The site ~aa located in a m~eza~e [ntemeit~ a~ea
which wa8 currently ove~ the steward by app~ox~el~ 35~ baaed on
eE~ntin~ zoning. This vas an exauple o~ a s~te ~ioh ~n positive
~com a s[~e gpect~ic s~andpoin~ In the location o~ ~ curb cut a~
the }~oposed land use but was not satieiacto~M Izom an ovezall
coap~ehensive tm~ensity s~amdpotnt. AmOral{ ~ao~o~ was t~t ~eee
~ce 3 eztecin~ houses on ~he easCezn ~uture developuea~ phase o~
cha ~cae~. city policies tn t~e Outdo addce8~ ~e iague o~
pceaecv~ng ex~st~ng housing. These houses could be ce~b[l~Cated
and ve~e in the ~acget aces Ccc Couuntty ~velop~n~ Block ~can~
~u~l. The Planning and Zoning Co~ls~lon van iveco o{ the
vto~a~ion cC the ~n~ensi~y s~andacd but ~el~ o~ ~ae~ocs, such as
su~oundinq zom~m~ and land uae, ~zi~ed e~na~deza~ion. The
pe~ition was appzoved b~ a vote o~ ~ to 0 with e~udi~ione.
~pkina motion. ~lgogd second to approve Z-176A and co,ended the
developec ~oc hie plannin~ and ~ck vi~ the neighbo~8.
~yoc 5levant 8Ca~ed ~c he ~d conete~ently oppog~ ouch cuts on
Cac~oll 8oulevacd. Zn th~e Aces, this migh~ be the beat develop~nt
fcc the aces.
~tion caccied u~ni~ously.
Council Meube~ Chew le[t the meeting.
C. The Council held a public heaEt~ on tho p~tttion ct
agzieulku~al (A) to the oo~erctal (C) claeet~ieation on a 20.297
ae~e tzaot. The pzo~e~ty is located at ~he northeast co~ne~ o~ Loop
Absttaat No. 927. Tf approved, the pcopec~y ~y be u~i~ized ~oc auy
use pecutt~ed in the co~etctal (~) olaeei~teation by the ~nton
Zontng Ocdt~nee. Z-~765
City o~ Denton City Council #inures
i~eting o! ~lptelbe~ ~?.
Page Nine
The MmMet opened the public heating.
#t. Dave Ruckman. representing Mt. Fostez and Mt. Riley. spoke
gavoz of the pet~tion. The property was bound on the west by the
potential loop, ou the ~offth and east by The Point development amd
on the mouth by ~pencet Road. The tract was presently zoned
agt~oultuzal. The ~equeet was to be cezoned got commercial uses and
the petttiouez ~elt this WOUld be the highllt and belt use el the
tt&ct. Thl Planning amd Zoning Comaizs~on had voted 5 to 0 ~n lavo£
o~ the zaquest on &ugust 1,. Tbs £equest ~ot ~o~ the purpose
planning and promoting a oo~e~olal pazk development. The
The extension would act~lly begin on thte react and would
incorporated ~nto the deveto~ent si the tract. The City
had been consulted ~eqaz~inq the vzobablM location o~ the extension
ae ~ell as t~ ~[gh~-ot-~ay. ~o plans fox specific develo~nt had
been ~e at th~s
No one spoke ~n oppo~it~on.
The ~yoz closed the ~ublie
Cecile Ca~ao~, U~ban P1an~, ~epo~ted t~t t zeply io~s ~d been
mailed with 2 returned ~n ~avot amd 0 in opposition. The
a~ Zoninq Co~lm~tom had =ecomme~ed appcoval by a vote o[ 5 to O.
The tzact wal located ~n a h~gh ~ntens~ty area which emphaatzed
commercial a~ ~nduett~al ~evelop~ent. The la~ uae wou~d be
co~pattble ~tth muttou~ uses. The Loop 2eS cott[dot ~uld tun ttom
East ~X~nne~ to Integstate ~5 amd was ptedoa~nately zoned
com~eteial ct ltght ~ue~ial. ThLs was one o~ the ~ew
Council ~mbl~ %tephens ~f a~y not[~cations had been returned
u~eli~zable.
Cazeon zeepo~ed mo.
~o~ 8~a~t stated ~ ~he petttione~ ~d elated t~t he was
willing to ~t~ wtth the e~ty on the ptopolet Loop area. ~ then
asked i~ the spectitc location ct the Loop had been laid out,
Cataon :eVlie~ ~t the actual location si the spur to connect
appcox~telM ~encet ~& to ~yhtll and the State ~ohoo1 bt~dge
~d no& been dete:~t~ed at this time. D~meuemtona ~ad been held
conneotton ~ioh would bganoh at Spencer Road. In that ~nstance,
thate ~uld be no oweE~e~ but tathet an i~edtate extension.
Anothe= 9oe~tbtlttM would be a b~ge located cyst 5pencet Road to
~ove tta~o. ~o de~[n~te plan~ had been ~de.
~o~ 5teWatt elated t~ &h~ could be avetM latge ~ntetmection.
Carson ~eepo~ed it could be, Thete would not be aeput oyez 6oo9
288 to tRe ~mt mtde ~t wou~d oul~ connect and go mouth to
~yh~ll. T~ b~id~e would be located oyez 8pencet Road ct wou~d
actually qo tuts the ~ntet~eotton ct 5pencet Road and ~oo9
Cateon ~utt~t tepotted that the [nd~viduala ~d been ~n contact
with t~e C~ty ~nq~nee~ a~ ha~ a~&ed that the~ be conatde~ed in any
negottatton~ ~o~ the pto~tt~. No ptopett~ ~d been purebred
ded~oate~ to t~e oit~ a& thte tt~e ~o~ the location.
Council ~be~ Chew Jotned t~ meet[hq.
~cttn~ City ~get Rfc& ~wehla tepotted that the exact location
the loop would depe~ on t~ a~unt o~ patttoi~atton which t~e state
would have. I~ t~ete ~e tequ~te~nts Eot ovetpaaeem, the
would de~in~telM want t~e o~ets involved. In that instance,
mt~ht a~eet t~im pto~e=ty: ho~vet, at thta ~o~nt, the elate
loo&inq at tebutld~nq a~ wiaentng Loop 2~ at ira 9tememt
location. The city was continuin~ to tequeet the mtate to loo~ at a
city of Denton city council #inures
Page Ten
southern branch. At this point, the petition wam only fo£ zoning.
The platting procedure would take place in the Cutute. If an
overpass was needed, a larger portion cC this tract ~ould be £equtre
Cot tight-of-way.
Cation repotted that the£e Yam an additional 4 Kte tract which vas
not included in this petition which had C£ontage on Spencer and Loop
2lB.
Hayer Pro Tam Hopkins asked whe£e the water line exteniions ~nld
be. There had been people before the Council who lived to the tight
cC the property who wets on & well systew Cot water.
Acting City Kanaget Bvehla repotted that Itel was on the other lids
of Loop
Mayor Pro Tea Hopkins asked if this would extend those lines toward
~yhill and give ~hoee citizens acCeil ~o vl~i~ lines.
Ca,acm ~epozted t~t theze vas a vate~ line tn t~ l~g~t
distticC which would be ex~e~ed to this t~a~t. T~e le~ line vas
allo located on the east side ct Loop 288.
~. The Council comltdezed adoption ct an ozdtnamce
ap~oviug a c~hge in zontmg on 20.297 accel located at
noztheaet co~ne[ o~ hoo~ 28e and Spencec ~oid.
The following o~di~nce vas pzelented:
~S. ~G ~ NAS ~P~ AS ~ ~P~IX TO ~ CO~ OF
69-1. ~ ~ BA~D ~P ~P~ZEG ~ ~P~OXI~Y Z0.~97
OF ~ SI~ATED ZN ~ M.E.P & P.H.H. ~
~G~ NO. 927. D~ ~. ~8 ~ ~A~D AT
~R~ST ~MH OF ~P 208 ~ 8~CER ~; ~ PR~
FOR A ~PE IN Z~I~ C~86~PlCATl~ ~ USR ~8~GNATION
C~RC~AL "C" C~6~F~CATI~ ~ USE PeR SA~D
PKOV~DING FO~ A ~I~ P~ OF $1,OOO POR V~O~TI~G
T~HEOF: P~OV~DING FOH A ~L~ C~SE~ ~ DEC~I~
~ motion. ~ocd .eco~ to adopt C~e ordinance. On ~o~1 call
ye&e. McAdans "aye." ~pkinl ,,aye.. Stephens "aye.. Al~otd "aye..
~i~lelpecge~ "aye." Chew "aye." a~ ~yoc Gtewact "aye.. ~tion
D. ~e Council he~d i public ~lzi~ ooncezn~mg ~he
pe~C~om o~ the City o~ Denton ~o= annexation cC appcozi~tely
notch o~ ~ 117~. ~ou=h o~ Bad,hold ~. ~ o~ ~-35N. and eas~
~l~h Branch Road a~ t~ ~&GF Ra~lcoa~ A-24
The ~yo= opened t~e 9ubl~
Cecile Ca=eon. U=~n Planne=. epo~e in ~avo= s=a~ing ~ ~hia was
been he~d on 8ep~e~bez 3 a~ =he Council ~d
continuance. On Gepte~be~ 1l, the Planning and Zoning Col~ieelon
~d concussed the tier be oouti~d. Theze ~Ee 12 ceply
~ed with 0 returned tn ~4voc a~ 5 returned in opposition.
aces. This annexation was be~n t~ a~ e~ott to control developlent
in t~e azea.
Nc. Ed Bacthold 8poke tn opposition etit~n~ t~t he would no~ lee
~y the c~ty wou~d want to a~ex this ~topetty. . H~s property
City o[ Denton City Council M~nutes
Meeting o[ 8sptelbet 17.
Page Eleven
3/¢ to 1 m~le ~est o~ Inte£state 35 and he ~atmed the land. His
teat was that his taxes Would inc~ease. ~ome o~ the baths ca the
property wets obsolete but would be assessed at a high value
within the city
Council ~embet McAdams asked M£. Batthold how much o~ the property
in the annexation t~act yam his.
Mt. Ratthold responded that it was h~s guess that it was
app£o%~BAtely 80 to 90 acted.
Couno~l Member Riddlespe£ge£ stated that the Tax Appt&isal
not the city. would appraise the property evaluation. The Council
could reduce the size of an annexation petition.
~pptoxi~tely 27 a~tee a~)acemt to ~. 8atthoSd. H~s house was
apptox~&ely ~ m~le Meet o~ Intetstate 35 a~ the teat
~astute. He d~d mot ~v ~y the city would wa~t to amne~
ptopetty. H~e store ~d beem amassed 16 yeats previously amd the
only t~ng ~e ~ad ever gotten [tom the c~ty was dumpstet p~ck-up.
T~ie ~d ~o& beem e~otem& a~ he had to get h~s o~, He d~d have
police ptote=t~om but ha~ been burglarized 14 t~s. He ~d
develop~nt8 u~etway ~n th~s area ~ich ~d not neet city
speci~catio~ in any way and that annexation ~as a method to
comttol t~a ~eve~op~mt.
Mt. ~oetet zemDo~ed yes a~ am&eO what t~e c~tM could do to ptevemt
it. T~e bum~meeeee altea~ t~ete ~oulO mot be affected.
~yot Pro Tem ~pXins asked exactly where Mt. Foatet'~ property
fence.
Mt. Ja~s Cotbin s~oke ~n opposition stating t~t h~s property was
He saw no 9o~nt ~n t~e c~ty anmexing thie parcel.
8~11 port,on o~ the annexation parcel but did ~ve plans ~o= ~t
which ~id not include bein~ tn the Cit~ of Denton. The land was
currently ~ need fei etota~e and he wanted to build
m~ni-~a~ehouges on the
Mt. ~eeley Clark spo&o ~n oppom~t~on stattn~ that he o~ed ~3 acres
looate~ at t~ old ~o1~ ~t~v~ng tinge. He had o~ed a bue~neee
Denton a~ ~d te~nts t~to mo~ w~ wets thteaten~ng to move out
because they could not get the city to open up a bat d~toW to keep
the b~lding ~tos glood~ng. ~ d~d not see anything that the c~ty
could do Eot theB. ~ relocated h~e bus[ness to ~et away Eton t~eee
Mt. W~lla~d 6~upson, o~et et M&M ~uto 8ales, spoke ~m opposition
elating t~t be had bought 382 cats out et the city ~u~t8
yeat. l~ he ~d not ~oMvo~ the~, them would grill be ~n the c~ty.
No one w~o ~d appeate~ betels the Council this evening ~anted to
ee~l their land so no o~ot bueLnegsee Would be moving ~n.
a~pea~ed ~at ~ o~etShLp ~ad the p~ope~ty conttolled. He
to keep his ptopetty clean a~ planned to put a natal Eence atou~
city of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of Septembe£ 17. 1985
Pegs ~elve
#£. ca~pente£. ~ep£eaenttng Po£t-A-Stall. spoke in opposition
stating that thet£ p£ope~t¥ bordered Mt. Foate£'s, Pa£t of thei£
lot was in the city and appzoxtmetely 2 aczes was not. The ownezs
did not c&£e to be annexed.
The Itayoz closed the public hea~ing.
Cecile Ca£son. Urban Planne£. ~epo~ted that the pictuze p£eaented
the the Council bad been taken during the auue£. Since that time
the£e had been const£uotion of at least 1 additional building on the
p£ope~ty. It was this type of development ~ich conce£nsd the
Council and the Planning, Engtnee~ing and Utilities Dep&ztments weze
concezned about. Futuze development bad been discussed with a
pzopezty o%me£ in the ~ea ~ho was concerned about c~n~n~ d~a~nage
channels as well as add~ng a~it~o~l warehouses and ~ndust~ial type
uses ~n the aces. T~ls was one o~ the pc~y ~eaaon8
con~inutng annexation p~oceed[nga. The addttto~l p=opezty o~ed
ME. Bad,hold. M=. Foste= and ME. Ca~pan~e= we=e added to the a~ea
~XO a uniform city liuits line which would zun ~=ou ~he =ailEoad
~Cack a~ong Bacthold Road to I~Ce~state 35. IE ~he annexation
p~oceedtngs ve~e continued, [mltitution o~ a~nexa~to~ would occuz
Octobe~ 1 w~ ~i~1 action on Nove~be~ 19.
~yoz Pzo Tam ~pXtne stated that ~( continued, be ~ould l~ke a copy
o( a ~p showing each o( the pzope~ty o~e~a as ~1 as the
co~etzuot~on which ~d oocu~ed du~tng the lae~ yea~ a~ a
cE the type o( conmtzuotton.
~yoz Stewart stated that it wee obvious to h~m that some o( the
land should be taken out o( this annexation.
~Mo~ P~o Tam Hopkins sta~ed t~t some people ~n the a~ea had
contacted him zega~din~ concerns about the
Council ~embez ~c~d~ms stated t~t she would li~e to see a map cE
the annexation pazcel with the (a~m la~ taken out.
~yo~ Pzo Tam Hopkins stated t~t it m~ght help t( sta(~ could
an on-site zeview o~ ~heze d~atna~e Wou~d
~yo~ Stewart stated that the c~ty could do nothing about the
d~a~nage ~( tbs land weze not annexed.
Ri~dleepe~gez motion, Chew second to continue the
~t~om caz~ted un~nkmoumly.
Borons ~zom the audience was ~ecogmized by the Co~ncil. He stated
t~t the C~tM Engtnee~ had woz~ed with the t~uck atop and a
consulting en~nee~ to d~aw plans (oz dzatnage ~o~ this a~ea,
Ma~o~ P~o Tam Hopkins stated that he w~nted to kno~ where the ~atez
~ould go when [t le(t that t~act o~
E. Tbs Council he~d a public bea~k~ concerning the
annexation petition o( ~ik~n Develop~nt Cozpozatton a~ the City
o( ~nton ~o~ a tzact o~ la~ app~oxt~tely ~17.5 ac~es En size
lying In and be~n~ pa~t cE the B. ~zohant 8u~, ~bstzact ~800,
the C. Chacon Buzvey, ~bstzact ~29~, a~ the ~. Ventez 6uzvey,
~bstzact ~15, and begknn[ng at the southwest coznez o( FM 2181
Hickory C~ee~ Road
The ~yoz opened tbs public heaz[ng.
Patz~cia Ryes, Planning Intern, spoke tm (avo~ zepo~t~ng that this
~am the second public heaz~ng. The (t~st bea~i~g had been held on
8eptembe~ 3 and Council had ~eco~ended p~oceedtng with the
petition. On 8eptembe~ ~1 the ~lanning and Zoning Co~teeion
~eco~nded Council p~oceed. Th~m ~as a Joint petition bet~en
· ik~n Development Co~pozat~on zequeettn~ the voluntazM annex~tion
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
located adjacent amd south o~ Hickory C£tek Road, adjacent amd welt
o~ l~t 2L81 and no£th o~ O~d ~on Estates. The City el Den~on
to t~e lilt. The Counsel ~d been interlined in the development
in ~av0~ l~a~ng t~t they were pzopezty o~e~e to 2he no,th
~at o~ t~ ~o~aed an~t~on. They had a zequea~ on the agenda
~o~ a ~olum~a~y a~nexa~on a~ ~e~e in Eavoz o~ boundazy
muppo~tmd t~ zoning p~ot~tton ~n the acme ~o m~n~mize additional
mobile ho~ ~evelopment.
~ teptelentattve ~to~ ~he c~ty had spoken to about ~0 et the
neighbors about ~at anne~tton could Bean to this area. They
tn ~avot el ~he a~tto~ but ~uld l~ke to appeal to the Council
was t~ the azaa would ~ highly condensed ~ the p=ovolld 7,000
he too ~d been dub~oul, b ~d the elbe ieace aB othec tn the a~ea
to go t~ough the ~opo~ed develop~nt did not continue al
should. It e~te~ed on the east e~de into a cul-de-sac and the othe~
~avoc o~ tacgec ~ot I~zel ia~ ~ce contcol.
Mc. Gazy ~agil, ~e~tde~t et the ~nvoluntaEy ~o~t~on el the
annexation, s~ke ~n o~poeiCton nearing ~hat he ~d l~ved thece ~oc
15 yeats. 6omc n~ o~ecl ~d bought the p~ope~t~ and pet~t~on
be ia alee. Hie la~ ~a~ ~itl~ u~eveloped and he did not vane to
be [n t~ eXaM. He Slit t~tl pzopoeed development vas inconqzuoua
They ~ce tc~i~ to week with the developec8 and the city but he did
not th~u~ the~e ~uld be any cont~ol, Mz. ~nd~aqi1 asked il the
vlann~ a~ Zoutn~ con,eaton could zequi~e lazqe~ lots.
Council ~mbec Rtddlelpe~go~ Stated ~t unleas anne~d, the
~d no con~=el. Plaanl~ a~ Zoning Commission could zeco~nd
the Co~ne~l the 91at a~ t~ Council had the powe~ to ha~le the
6~ze el the pzopoled doveto~uent.
Council ~mbez Stephens celpo~ed t~at the Council could tucn do~
the ~equeet [cz s~llez lots a~ encourage 1a~gez lots.
~o~ Vzo Tem Hopkins state~ that the Council was also concezmed
about ~he 1~t size. ~ dzai~ge, the t:anspoztation and the
utilitiee in this acea.
CouBcil ~b~E ~l~o~d legt the ~tinq.
the plat ~d been apVcov~ by the city, the lot sizes could not be
increase.
Council ~bez ~l~oz~ Jol~d the ~eeting.
Debra D~aMoviteh, ~ity Attorney, stated the Council miqht want to
considee di~eetl~ etai~ te be~ln zonin~ p:oceduzee so the propezty
could be annexed with pez~nent zoning. I~ a develop~nt
City of Denton City Council Ninutel
Meeting of 6eptembez 17o 1985
Page Foucteen
approved by ~inal plot and not in the city liatts, they could begin
development at the o~iginal lot sise. The platting ztatute did
govecn cc add£ess lot size.
Mc. Mand~ogil asked if once annexed, ¥ould the public tn the a~ea
hive input to the lot size.
D~ayovitch ~esponded that the £eeidents would have input due to
notification end publtcotion p£io£ to Council action.
M~. I~nd£agil stated that he would then be in fovo~ of anne~ation.
and t~e~e ~as no contact ove~ lot I~za because ~u the ETJ the~e
va~
Council ~be~ ~l[o~d ~a~t t~e nesting.
Je~ ~yet, Dt~ecto~ o~ Plannin~ and Country ~velop~nt, stated
t~t the Counc~ had a~p~oved a ~e~t~y plat ~o~
plat ~Ee a legal one, ~t could not be 2uEnod do~. The cl~y eou~d
not zone unt~ surtaxed but the p~a~ ~ould be approved a~ t~ Council
~d approved the p=e~tmina~
T~e ~yo~ asked ti the Counc~t could approve d~l~ent zoning
D~ayov~tch ~elpo~e6 that t~ dlvelop~lRt began bl~o~e the
Council Ne~be~ Rtddle~pe~ge~ stated t~t ~e ea~ u~ t~e
t~t a~nexat~on wa~ ~n~ated to con~ol ~hese
~c~tng C~ty Ma~ge~ Svehla ~epo~ted ~t 8~aE~ beeaue awa~e o~
developuen~ ac~v~y In the extze ~e~t~o~ial JuEttdictiou W~n
dovelopeza ca~ to the c~ty ~o~ plat a~pzoval. The p~ooeduze
an~xat~on could begin then; bewarE, ~ pzoce~u~e fez amnexa~ion
too~ longez than t~e pla~tinq pEoeedu~es.
bMez ~epo~ed that the city ~uld hove control ove~ health
s~a~aEda, code em~o~ce~nt, gt~oett,
Council Membe~ ~aR8 sexed ~ ~he develope~ SteEred pE~OE t0
zoning, could the developuent be sto~ed.
T~e ~Moz closed t~e public heaztng.
concerns *xpcessed were lot size ~o~ the voluntary an~tton and
~he potential ~oc a mobile ho~ pa~. The~e had been S ~eply ~o~ml
v~th an expl~ed foEwacdtng add~esa.
~tion ca~ied
City o~ Denton C~ty Council Minutes
Meettmg o~ 6aptembe£ 17, 1985
Page
P. The Council held a public heating to conetde£ adoptton
o~ an oEdiuance auond~mg ~penAtx B-Zoning of the Code of O~dtnances
of the City of Denton. Te~ls whtch w~ll p~oh~bit f~ont ya£d pa~K~ng,
one-~im~ly, ~-~a~l~, o~ ~l~-~a~ly dwelling excep= upon a
boats, et~. on a~y~h~ng ot~eE ~han pavemen~ o~ asphalt.
being ul~ ~h~oh ~ze no~ 9aveuen~.
Council bube~ 6~ephems le[~ ~e uee~ng.
Debts D~ayovt~. City A~o=mey. ~aspon~ed ~hat exe~p~omo ~ze ~ade
~o= ~hoee Wo~g ~=b were bu~l~ when the=e was no =equi=emen~
a8p~l~ cz oom~e=e pazk~ag space.
Council ~be~ ~a~g l~a~ed ~ha~ she unde=s~ood ~he
~o~ve=. ~ WaS he= ~eelLag ~ ~h~8 was an ovec-co~zec~on. The=e
we=e a nu~bez o~ ~Eeag ~n ~e city weze on-s~=ee~ pa~k~ng was
9zo~bi~e~ a~ ~e=e ~Ee vozy s~ll lo~8. Mhen ~heze was mo=e
~ oa= a~ ~ location, ~he=e was no place ~o put ~he second ca~.
~oul~ mo% a~o=d =o do o~8zw~se. ~ ~he=e was on-e~cee~ 9a=king on
eve=y 8~Eeet, i= woul~ be a ~e=em~ 8toEy. She coul~ no~ 8uppo=~
coun~ ~ube~ 8tmp~ans Jo~ne6 ~e meeting.
Boulevard w~ete t~ tee~d/ntu had to 9ac~ theft cate on t~e Ctont
~awn8 ~oh ~te not 9&vod bec/use thete wis no whets else to put
o~ by ~e ~zovts~ons tn =he o=d~nce. ~a~ ~he Council ~d ~o
cirl o~ ~hot= ~o~. T~ts t/s~=oye~ no~ only ~t to~, but
tots o~ ~e s~=ee~, b agEeod ~ha~ what ~e Coun~tl was ai~e~ was
I~O~lgl OS lUto~btllS ~tOh were bastcalty not ope=a~to~l.
wanted ~n~on to be a ptaoe ~o be pEoud o[ and no~ w~e~e ct~tzens
coutd pa~k uul~tgte ca~l ou ~ho ~ont t~a.
law, ~ytt~ an o=dtnance was ~=aed tightly enough to ta~e ca~e ol
those ~o ~u~d t~y by subte=luge to get amound ts. the Council
wout~ be mig~tltcantly t~tmin~tn~ on the i=ee~o~ ol othe=
who pa=~ed ac=oas t~e stdewal~. His wife Jogged tn [~e a=ea and
to be ~nJuEed.
campers paEked tn the street only ve~tcle8 pa~Ked tn t~e ~ont
yazd.
city o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Nesting o~ 8eptombe£ 17, 1985
MI~. Rar~dall Boyd spoke tn opposition stating that this ordinance was
styled a~tet the City o~ Dallas o£dinanca ~hich vas P~spated in
reaction to the Republican National Convention. New state statutes
had been passed which he ~elt would take cate o~ all the legitimate
conce£ns. The new law provided t~at i~ a vehicle ~ inoperable ~o~
uo~e than 45 days o~ wag not ~ogiete~ed cE wa~ not ~napected it was
consideEed a ~unked ve~icle a~ could be to~d away. The
o~d~nanct dealt ~h pa~ked vehicles a~ ~d not specify i t~
l~mit. Packie~ on an unpave~ nut,ace vas Pu~m~ble by a 0200
~[ne. ~h~s was an aesthetic decision a~ ~uld ze9u[ze that
citizens pave the[z ~on~ yaz~s. ?be~e were specific instances.
such as having an invalid ~n ~he Eome, ~e~e pa~king close to the
~zomt dooz was a convenience in getting ~hat pezeoa ~m an~ out
the house. I~ t~e invalid zecovezed cz pez~e d~ed. the ~av~eat
om the lawn would ze~in. ~leo eo~ ~am~lies ~d aeve~al tee~ge
childcen who o~ed cazs a~ these had to be pazked aomewheze.
zeeen~ Supreme Couz~ zuling conceza~ ~al~-way ~euse zoning
Clebuzme pointed out ~at am ozd~nce whtch d~d not have a
legislate zoning inte~ea~ a~ wac unconst~tut[o~l. ~eze was no
police, health o~ zoning ~ntezemt ~m this ~to~oued otdi~nce. T~e
zecent s~a~e statute concezming ~unked vehicles addzeaeed all the
valid issues.
Council ~mbez R~ddlespezgez stated t~t some o~ aha questions
· oyd had b~ought up could be anm~zed bM chamgee ia the
o~d~nce. The p~oblem wan to say t~t a pecncn had the zig~t to
pack 4 cz ~ cazn on his la~ and leave them the~e as the g~amu gzew
up a~oumd them. Hie neighbors then ca~e to the Council zequeeting
that something be done.
abatement act which he ielt ~ould eovez all et the lagiti~te city
~yo~ Stewart asked if this state statute appl~ to p~ivate
~o~eo~e,~
~. Boyd ~esVonde~ that the equip~t, ~i ~equi~ed to be licensed,
~uld be oonaide~ed an aba~oa ve~icle, and ~uld be ~eg~iEed to be
put in a pzope= place.
~yo~ P~o Tam Hopkins stated t~at pe~8 t~im ~uld be an
app~opz~ate wo~k ~esston ~tem.
~bza Dzayovitch, City A~ozney, ~epo~ted that a P~ogosed ozdinance
wal o~ the agenda at this meeting.
Mz. Boyd zesvoaded t~t he ~elt the new state 1~ iate~ed ~o
the ~un~ed caz ze~va1 uuch eao~ez ioz ~e city to auto,ce. Ii th~
concern wag p~vate junkya~ds in ~zont o~ ho~a, the statute would
ta~e caze el lt.
Council ~ube~ Rlddleupe~ge~ stated that him concern wis a ~eeidemt
~o sto~ed h~e own ca~8 on h~8 la~ to the ez~eet t~ ~t
on the ~ight. o~ ~ts netghbo~s.
~t. ~oyd stated that a peasen coul& remedy that 8ttuatto~ by simply
Council Nembe~ Rtddleevezge~ stated that othez c~tiea ~d o~di~nces
of t~s same ~atuze a~ did enlo~ce the~.
~. Jane Fulton spo~e in ovpos~tiou stating that ~he o~d~mamoe did
not add,ess the ~esue el those pezsoas who did mot ~ve a paved
dziveway. 8he dele this ozdt~nce was unnecessary and that the
state law would take caze o~ etozage el ~unked cazs. The p~oblea
Was one of en~o:cement,
city el Denton city council Minutes
Mmeting aC September tTo
K~. ~x #eteen spoke tn oppos~c~on 8~a~ing ~ he ha~ paEKed
· he ~yo~ otos~ the pubtto hailing.
Jell MIyOE, Di~e~to~ el Ptl~ning and Couunt~y Develop~nt, ~epo~te~
Planning and Zoning Co~tsston publio heating. TEe Planning and
City Cave, t1. sta~ ~d ~o
Council b~c ~am. Jilted t~ ihe understood ~he p~obtem but
zevtsed ozdi~nee ~out/ bt pzepazed. Motion cazzted
~. The Council held a. pubtte heaztm~ to conside~ adoption
ippeudtz l-Zo~tng et the Co6e of Ocdt~nce8 aC the Ct~y ag ~nton
~eta~iag to the approval by the City Council el pla~m
subdivisions wit~tn an area whets annexation proceedings ate
pe~tngl a~ p~ovtdtng au ellec~tve dane.
The ~yot opeue~ the pubtt~ heatimg.
No one epo~e tn
Jets ~yet, Dt~ectoc aC Planning a~ Co~untty ~vetopment, cavorted
beanie. This vesta ~epeal the existing ocdtma~e which stated Chat
devetopecm could not mta~ ptatttmg w~tte anmexatiom p:oceedtngs
were u~e~way. TRim was vezy helpCul to craig bu~ was tn violation
ag m~ate law.
H. Tbs Council held a public ~eacing to const6ec adoption
of an o~diunce ~ndtng ~pe~tx I - Denton Development Code of the
Code of O~dt~mces el the City of Denton. Texas to pzovide tax ~he
imposition oC tees ~ot subsisting petitions eec voluntary
annexattomsl pcovtdt~ a eevecabtttty clause; amd pzovtdta~ Coz an
eClecttve
The ~yoc opened the public hea=tn~.
~o one spoke tn Sapac.
No one Ipoke ia opposttto~,
Jell ~ye=. Dtzeoto~ el Pla~img and Co~nttM ~velopaent, zepo~ed
satiated the east to the city co process voluntary annexation
petitions ~o be $1,000. F~the~ :esea~c~ had sho~ the cost to be
app~oxi~tely ~2,000. ~ pzoVosed o~dt~mce ~ould allow a
Meye[ /llpo~td this ll~ type fee vas being collected in othec
cities ,~ it had not 8ee~ ~o hutS.
City of Denton City Council Ninutes
Meeting of 8eptembe£ l?. 1985
negative impact on volunta£y annexation tegueStSo the Council could
repeal the o£dinance. At a time When the Council was looking at the
budget and t£ying to find funds and sou£ces of funds, the fact was
that a tract, mote than $250 value Was going to accrue to the
ptope£ty by vl£tue of being in the city limits. Foss fo~ othe~
secvioes were being inoceased and this would help to 4efzay the coat
to the city to advectise the annexation and staff time involved.
council Membec R~dd~especgec stated that it might be a pooh,em to
ask a pecson to pay to be allowed to pay taxes. He did not went to
diaoou~age voluntary annexations.
He did no~ believe that most people would ask ~oc voluntacy
annexation unless they hoped to gain something by
the $250 ~uld not stand in the way and would also help the city to
cecovec theic costs.
caEEted 5 to ~ With Council MeabeE Chew easttn~ t~o n~y~ vote,
I. The ~ounc~ held a public ~ea~ng to cons~deE adoption
Re~la~oms (~ppam~i~ ~) o~ ~he Code of Oz~nauaes ~o ~ov~de ~oz
cequ~ced local lt~t stations o~ ~o~ce ~in8 to me~ve d~velopuente:
~heceoE; g~ov~d~ng Eo~ p~o~ata cheeses loc pecson8 conneat~mg to o~
using such ~acilitie~; ~e~eal~ng t~e p~ov~e~ons of Chapte~ 25 o~ t~e
Code o~ Ozd~nances on extensions o~ va~az and eeweE ~ims~ p~ov~d~ng
~oz a penalty ~oz viota~tons thezeo~ tn a ~xiuuu a~unt o~ S200.O0.
The hyoz opened t~e public hea~ing.
~ob Nelson, D~ec~o~ o~ Ut~ltties, spo~e in ~avoz ~epo~ting
this pcopoeed o~d[nance yea a p~o~ata foe eeoc li~ stations.
T~ece ~d not been a pco~ata o~ this t~ which eove~ed
stations
Council ~embe~ ~41espezgez sexed how it could
Nelson ~eplied that costumes a develope~ ~ould build a liE~ star,on
~ich was t~[ce aa la,ge as he ~eally needed. ~nyone.elae ty~ng on
~o the l~t station ~ou~d pay t~ei~ pe~ gallon ~a~e ~o ~he deve~ope~.
Bo one spoke tn opposition.
The ~yo~ closed the public hea~[ng.
Hopkins motion, Stephens second to approve the ~equost. Motio~
cacried u~ntmousty.
3. Ocdt~nces
~. The Counai~ co,side,ed adoption
accepting competitive bids and p~ov~din9 Eo~ the a~a~d
p~ovtdtn~ ~o~ the expenditure oE Eu~s the~e~oce.
The ~oLlov~ng ocdtnance vas pcegented:
NO,
~CT FOR T~ P~R OF ~RIALS, ~l~, G~PLI~
OR ~ERVICRSI PR~IDI~ FOR ~ RKP[~X~R OF
T~R~OREI ~ PROVIDING F~ ~ ~FPRCTI~
City o~ D~nton City Council
I~eeting o~ September 17o
Page Nineteen
Etddleepezgez uotion. Ch~ second to adopt the o~dinance. On ~oll
call vo~e. ~dame "aye." HopKins "aye." Stephens "aye."
Riddleapezge£ ,*aye." C~e~ "aye," and ~a¥o£ Stewart "aye." #orion
B. ~e Counc~ const~eze~ a~op~ion o[ an o~d~namce
pzov~din~ ~oz t~e e~pe~tu~e o~ ~und8 ~o~ e~zgency pu~c~ee
~te=~als~ equipment, supplies cz services tm accozdance w~th the
o~ compet~tive
The ~ollo~ng o~d~nance wa~ p~eeented:
~O. 85-1B2
~ ORDIN~ P~DIN~ FOR T~ EXP~IT~E OF ~5 FOR
Council ~lbe~ ~l~o~d Jo~ne~ the ~eet~ng.
Chew ~otton. ~ame second to adopt the ocd~nce. On ~o11
vote, Mo~I~ "aye," HopKins "aye,~ Stephens "aye,"
abstained, Riddlelge~gez "aMI," Chew "aye," and ~yo~
"aMa." ~tton cast,ed 6 to O w~th Counc~ ~bet ~l[o=d abstaining.
C. T~e Council cone~de=ed adoption o[ an
a~dtn~ Section l-~ o~ chapte= 1 cE the code og Ozdimancee o~ the
City o~ ~nt~n, Texas bM =a~atng the maximu~ tine to $~,000 ~oz a
violation o~ those code 9=ov[eio~s ~ich govezn [ize ea[et~,
and public health a~ sam~tatton.
~ctin~ C~tM ~e= Kic~ $vehla =epo=ted that this o~d~nance would
9~ovide the legal vehicle ~o~ a hi,he= ~ine to be levied.
Debts Dtayovite~, ~itM ~tto=ue~, =epotted that this would b=[n~ the
eit~ ot~amce taro line with a new state statute,
The ~oll~ing ordinance wag pte~ented:
~ OBD[~CE ~l~ GE~I~ 1-50~ C~P~R 1 OF T~ CODE
O~ ~I~CB5 ~ ~ C[~ OF D~N, T[~5 BY ~lSI~ THE
~ F[~ ~ I1,000 FOR · VIO~TIO~ OF ~ CODE
P~I~I~ ~I~ ~ FIRE 5~ETY, Z~[~ ~ PUBLIC
~ ~ ~[T~TI~; PROVIDING · 5~[tlTY C~U6~,
~cMaBB mot[on, Chev Second to adopt the ozd[~nce. On zoll call
vote, ~e~a~ 'aye," He,Kine ,aye," StephemG "aye," Xl~o~d "aye,
R~ddle~pe~ge: nays," ~h~ "aye,~ a~ ~yor Gtevazt "aye."
ca~[ed
D. The ~ounctl cone~dezed adoption o~ an o~d[nance
O~eee o~ ~he City of Den~on, Texas by the add~tion o~ Section
10-5 ~a~eing the ~x[~ f~ne to $~,000 ~oz viola~ions o~ these
sections o~ the ~tze pzevemtton chaptez.
Debts O~ayov[~ch, City ~o~ney, ~epo~ted ~h[~ o~dtnanoe vas the
same ~ype as Ihs pzevtoua one= ho~evec, this o~dinance would amend a
specific e~pte~ cE ~he ~[~e code,
The [clicking ozdtnance ~e pzesented:
City o~ ~enton city Council Minutes
Meeting o~ Septeubec 17, 1985
Page T~enty
NO, 85-~84
~ OBD~CE ~ING ~I~LE ~ OF ~ 10
~RE~NTION) O~ ~ ~D~ OF ORDINal6 OF ~
D~N, ~5 BY THE ~ITION OF 8E~I~ 10-5
T~ FI~ P~I~ C~ F~VID~ A 8E~BILITY C~USE
~ DECL~ ~ EFFE~I~
~Ada~e ~ot[on. Stephens second ~o a~op~ =he o=dtnance. On
eal~ vo~e, Mcface "aye." Hopkins "aye.' Stephens "aye," ~l~o=d
"aye, ~ H[dd~especgec "aye, ~ Chew 'aye," a~d ~yoc ~t~act "a~e,"
E. The Counc[~ considered adoption cE an
a~tng subsections (A), (B), (F)(2), and (9) o~ 8eo~ton 15-3.1
Solve B~[nk~m, D~cec~oc o~ Packs a~ Recce~t~on, cepocted
~ees ~o~ va~tou~ c~ty ~ae[l[ttee had not been ~evise~ ~n 2 yeac8,
Th~ oEdt~nce vould a~ow a ~eadJustueut in those
The following o~dt~nee was p~esented:
NO, 85-~85
~ O~D~N~CK ~NG S~SRCT~8 (A), (B), (F)(2) ~ (9)
OF SK~ON 15-3,~ OF C~R ~5 OF T~ ~ OF
OF T~ CI~ OF O~, ~6: INC~ASI~ US~ FR~8 FOR
5E~LI~ C~USR~ ~,PROVIDIN~ FOR ~ ~CT~ DATE.
Rt~dle8pe~geE mo~on, A1Eo~d second to adopt the oE~nce. On ~o~
"aye," R~dd~eepe~ge~ "a~e," Chew "~y, ~ and ~yoc 5taylor "aye.
~on ea~ed 6 to ~ with Coune~l ~ube~ Chew casttng
F. The Counct ~ considered adoption o~ an
~ng Chapter ~Z o~ the Code o~ O~d~ances o~ the C~y of
to p~ovide ~oc the aatabl[mhmen~ o~ cites ~o~ the uso o~ the city's
eanitacy la~[[ll site and =esidential and oo~e=cial lanitation
colleetion services.
tha~ ~h[s o~d[nance vas a c~e o~ p~oceduEe only. I~ approved,
~u~uee lee changes vou~d not have ~o be codified ~n~o ~he Code
OEdtnanae8.
The Eol~ov~ng o~d[nance vas p~esented:
NO.
~ O~IN~CE ~ING C~R 12 OF ~ ~DR OF
OF T~ CI~ OF D~T~ TO PK~DE FOK T~ ESTABLIS~ OF
~5 FO~ ~ USE OF ~ C~TY~ %~IT~Y L~F~LL ~I~
P~ID~NG FOR A ~I~I~ C~U6E ~ PHOVIDING
KFFECTI~ DATE.
MO~a~S ~on. Al[o=d seco~ to adopt Che o=dinance. On
VOte, KCAda~8 "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Algotd "aye,"
RLddlelpe~ge~ "aye," C~ev "aye," a~ ~yo~ 8~aE~ "&y~." MQ2~O~
ea~ied unanimous IF.
G. The Counc~ cone~deEed adoption o~ an ocd~nce
eetabl~gh~ng ~ates ~oc the use o~ the city.~ 8an~ta~y landfill site
a~ ces[dent~a~ and co~ecc[al sanitation collection so,vices
autho~ized by Chap~e~ ~2 o~ the Code cE OEd~nces o~ t~e City
Denton.
City o~ Dentou City Counct'l~
)(eating et 8mptembec 17. 1965
Paqe Twenty-One
Bill P~gelo, lkeststant to the Dicectoc et Public #coke,
that these ~coposed ca&es had been discussed ducing budget
heatings. 8taCt was tecounending a 50# inccease in the
£ates teem $8.00 to $8.50 aec a 30 day billing peciod. This would
cep£esent a 5,25% lnozeaee. Sa the coumecetal a£ea, start was
£ecomuendimg a 5% tnecease ia the basic aide-loading commercial
£ates ~f~tch Would being tbs eity even to its coupettto£ tm this a~ea
and also allow the cecovecy et the tull coat et secvtce. ~n the
would cecovec ~11 coat and still leave the city appcoziu~tely 30%
below its oompe~ito~. In the a£ea o~ the landttllo stat~ was
cecoaneudtng ~e es~ablis~uent et tlat disposal cares on the city's
cont£a~ts et $1.¢5 pec cubic yacd fez aoz~al household gacbage and
tcash~ $1.50 pec ~ubic yacd cate fcc cubb~sh which would include
stephens ~otton, Chew second to amend the ozdtnance in Section X~ to
keep the cuccent £estdea~tal £ate of 08.00 and acce~t the othec
Council )~e~be£ R~ddlespec~ec asked ~ow much the e~tca 50# would
£eally bcimg ~n.
~n0elo ces~ondea t~t ~he additional 50# would being in
appcoxLiately $75,000. Tb~ only new pcogcaa in the budget toz the
ne~t ~ieoal yeac ~ee a $20.000 cont£act fcc a littec clean up
a£ea to clean up acme o~ the blighted acmes tn town. 8tat~ had
$40.000. The et~¥ bad been wocking with the Denton Mental
Centece to uae ~hatc clients to£ this pcogcam at an houcl¥ cate of
la.?5 pec bout. A decca&se tn cares would mean the lose et this
pcog£al. ~ 4ecceale migh~ CaUlS a levees pcoblem in dependability.
One o~ the cares vas to continue the vehicle ceplacesdnt p£ogram
whiah WOUld have to be delayed anothec yeac.
Riddlespe~ge~ mo~lon. Altocd second to amen~ the ma~n motion to
allow ~oc the $8.50 cestde&tial o~ac~e.
Council J~eube£ J(eAdane aeXe~ iC the poe]acted cevenue was
~n the pcoposed budge~ Coumcil vas ceviewtn~.
&ngelo cesponded yes.
Council Membec M~Adams as~e~ it the 50# ~nccease vas not appcoved,
would the $75,000 ~ave to be deleted teem t~e budget,
~ngelo cespo~ed yea, t£om the cevenue aide.
Council Memhec 8tep~ene asked how start acctved at aha 075.000
Amgelo ces~on~ed start multiplied the nuubec of ~estdential
custome£s t~nte8 50# tines 12 months. This tnocease would not allow
the l&n~ill. Both the ceeidential and co~Beccial £ates wece
designed to pay the.~l.l~l disposal ~ee.
Council btbec Gtephanl stated that tees tn the ot~et aces8 wece
being ~ncceased also. ~ would pteCec mot to caloe tha cases sa the
those ~o co~ ~cou outsi~e the o&ty who ace uaLmg t~e
Angelo tempered t~t v~t~ t~e ~mcceaaes in the la~l~ usage
cares, state ~i~ expoot the number o~ cueto~c8 would decrease. The
cate ocdtnanee ~ad been pcepaced ag a package. I~ t~ece wag
d~acueaion cegatdtng lo~c~ng one o~ the ~ees, sta~ would like an
oppoctuu~y Co teassess the entice lee stcuctute.
C~ty of Denton City Council Minutes
~eting of Septembe£ 17. 19S5
Page T~enty-T~o
Council Melber McAdams t~ the ~o11-o~ ~ate~ would be inc~ea~ed to
· ngelo stated t~t m~ght be possible. The~e we~e only 2a toll-of~
S~ephen~ ~otion, Chew second to table un~il the September
aeetinq. ~otfon carried unaniaously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an o~dtnance
a~nding Chaptec ~4 cE the Code cE O~dinancee cE the City o[ Denton,
Texas to p~ovide Eec an a~en~ed de~n~on o~ Junked
Junked vehicles to p~ovide fo~ a penalty in an a~u~t not to exceed
I~,000.00.
T~e ~ol~owing o~dt~nce ~as p~esented:
NO.
~ ORDIN~CE ~ING ~TER 14 OF T~ ~E OF OHDI~6
OF ~ CI~ OF DEAN. ~8 TO PH~DE FO~ ~
DEFINITI~ OF J~KKD ~H~CLES; ~N~ ~ ~ OP
P~IDE FO~ A PENA~ ~N ~ ~T NOT ~ E%~ ~1.000.00=
Hopkins motion, Chew ~eoo~ to adopt the ot~nce, On =oll call
Rtddlespe~geE "aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yo~ 5tewaEt "aye." ~t~on
ea==~ed u~n[uous ~.
~. The Council cons~doEed adoption cE an o~dt~nce
a~ndtng the 6ubd~vta~on and ha~ Developuent Re~ta~on8
A) o~ the Code o~ O=d~nancem to 9~ov~de ~o= =equt=md local
e~a~ionG o~ Eo~ce ~ainm to ~e~ve develo~en~; p~ov~din~ fo~ p~o~ata
=e~mbuzsement to develope=e Eo= ~he costs the~eoSj p=oviding
ptotata cha~ges ~o~ pe~son~ connecting ~o ct using such
=epealtng the p~ovtgton8 o~ ChapteE 25 o~ the Code o[ O=dtnaneeg on
ex~enuion~ o~ ware= and sewec mathS; p=ov~d~ng ~o~ a pe~lty ~or
violations the=acE in a uax~uuu a~unt o~ 8200.00.
The ~ollowtng o=d[nance was
~ OHDIN~CE OF ~ CI~ OF DE~N, ~5 ~ING
5~DIVISION ~ h~ DE~O~ RKGU~TI~5 (APPE~IX A)
OF ~ CODE OF O~IN~8 TO PROVI~ FOR REQUIRED
L ~FT STAT ION8 OH FORCE ~IN5 ~ 8~R~ D~LO~5
PROV[DI~ FOH PHO~TA REI~8~ ~ D~OPE~S FO~
~8TS T~REOF; P~OVID%NG FOR P~O~T~ C~5 FOR
~ECTING ~ OR USING ~U~ FACILITIES; REP~N~
P~ISlON8 OF C~H 25 OF ~ CODE OF O~IN~CK5
EX~SIONS OF WASH ~ 5~ ~INS; P~OVIDING FOR
PEN~TY FOR VIOLATI~S T~RE~ IN k ~I~ ~T OF
~200.00; PHOVIDING FOR A 8E~L~ C~USE; ~
FCa ~ EFFKCTI~ D~TE.
HOpkEns motion. Chew second =o adopt the o~dE~ce. ~ =oll call
H~ddle~pecge~ "aye. '" Chew "aye, . ann ~yo~ 5tew~et "aye."
carried u~n~uously.
J. The Council considered adoption o~ an o~dt~nce
yea~ 1985.
Page Twenty-Thzee
John ~e~aae. DiteCtOC O~ Finance, £o~o£ted that sta~ was
eval~tt~n be adopted. ~t~t~ law ~equi~ed ce=tarn not,flea,ion
~hioh ~a~ a p~oce~ the city ~d been going through ove~ the past
eeve~aL ~ettngm. This ~ay ~am the last dam the Council could take
aetion, on ~9~ ~it~t being subject to additional not,ce
~yo~ ~att a~e~ il ~ Counoil could lo~ the tax ~ate w~thout
additional ~tl~ieatton.
~za~e ges~ed ~ Co~il could do t~t at this meeting. IE the
tax zate ~ze to be l~z~ aft~ this date, it ~ould be subject to
~yot Vzo ?es ~VWtnm am~ t~ tbs Council set the ~ate love~ than
~tane zeep~ed yes. 8~uld the Council not adopt the tax tats at
this ~eting a~ wield ~o c~nge the ~ate, unles~ the tats was
be~ow 3~ oyez the eflec~i~ tax zeta, nott~icatto~ would have to be
done.
~yoz Pzo Te~ ~pk~ns a~ed tl the Council did not adopt a tax ~ate
at this ~eetiag. ~uld the cuczent tax zate zeuain tn
~zane ~o~nded t~t t~ Council had al~eadM voted on a 59~ tax
cate. They ~ze now adopting the zeta.
Council ~ ~tdd~e~pe~gez stated that he did not see any ~ay the
city could get by on ~egs t~n the 50~ Eats. Theze weze obligations
~ich ~d not been ~t.
Debts Dzayovi~eh, City A~ozneF, ~epozted t~t the confusion seemed
to gt~'l~ 't~e fact t~t, ~n the vast, when the tax zate had been
l~ezed, tt ,~d been do~ within ~4 days el t~ no~ee. The
zequized t~t ~i am ~neEeaged Eats ~ae not adopted by the lath day,
an addttLo~l 3 day notice uuet be given betoEe any ~ate t~ excess
o~ tho. e~eet~ tax zate ~al adopted. 6he belie~d this to be a
=~lpttnt tn the la~. 8he ~uld lam t~t the Council could go
3t o~ the e~eetive tats; ~ez, the law elated nott~toation ~ou[d
evaluation,
Council ~a~z ~a~ elated t~ bet ~eeltnq was the Council could
reduce t~ ZA~I to 57.44~ t~ they adopted 59~ no~. Bhe did not
thin~ ~t t~ ~unet~ could gee at this point ho~ the tats could be
reduced. T~e Council ~d honed t~ou vat,cue hu~n service
at this Reeling tequosti~ that their iunds not be out. The Coune~l
had tel&ed about cutting eton the budget a~ the only reasonable
tnczeatee a~ ehe ~m mot tn ~avot o~ th~. Even so, the Council
showed tthat tho ,Eato ~ld only amount to a lev penn~os. 5he did
not want ~o be put ~n t~ pooittou o~ voting ice a tax ~ate vh~ch
was not sufficient to o~et the 8a~e level o~ city service8 to the
citizen.
Cou~f~ ~ Riddlo8V8z~z 8tared that he believod the Council
would be ir~o8pongtble to Set a ~ate now which ~uld not allow the
budget to tu~ va~iou8 ~aeded agencte~ and progzaug, such a8
Hospit&l. I~ ~ot iu~, tho city was go~nq to lose the hospftal.
He ~el~ t~ ~uue~l sh~16 leave the rate aa it was until decisions
could ~ ~do ~ ~t ~uld ~ cut ~o~ the budget.
Council bubo~ ~a~g stated that Council ~aber Stephens had
~attod t~e possibility o~ not raising additio~I [unda through the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of September 17. 1985
Page Twenty-Four
sanitary system ag well as the possibility o~ bring.inS the proposed
new police o~ice£s on soone£. Those t~ngs cost uQre, not lo88,
money. It done, ~t would result in a deeper cut in the existing
services to accomplish that reduction.
Council Hember Stephens stated that Coumctl Member #cAdmus was not
taking into account the readjustment ct items w~ich wets presently
being Summed in the buS,et. She wa8 ta&iug ~o~ ~taate~ that aSS the
~teas ~ the ptoposed budget wets neceematy. T~ete ~ld been a te-
evaluation o~ ptopetty a~ some o~ t~e same oit~te~s who Di~d
commidetable a~u~t last Meat wo~Ld be ~y~ ~te neet Meat.
the co~uait~ stew. t~ete wouSO be a lazes number o~ people
vou~ ~ea~ ~et~euent age and be om ~zea ~noo~ I~d others w~ose
wag something t~e Counc~ ~ad to keep ~n m~md am ~ to ~oc ~et
government be a burden on t~ose w~o ~d little abilitF to
~yot Pro Tee HopKins etate~ that aa he understood ~t, the Coumc~l
could leave ~e =ate a~ 59~ a~ ~hi8 meeting ~ ~hen ~hey mould
a~ver~iee &md have 3 ~ze days ~o se~ ~he ~i~l =a~e.
D=ayovi~ch respomded thi= the Council could =aka no action a=
meeting and woul~ s~tll have 3 addi~io~l d&ys ~o se~ ~he ~i~1 =~e.
~yo= Pzo Tam Hopkins e~a~e~ ~ha~ ~he Council ~uld be going
~he budge~ ~eB by i~em on September ~9. X~ ~ee~d ~o be good
judgeuem~ to wa~t until then to set the ~ate.
Dtayovitoh replied that the budget must be approved by September 20~
however, the tax tats could be approved ~utimg t~ ~Et ~ek.
~de. The 59~ tats would, tn e~ect, ~atse taxes 4~.
Council ~eabet R~ddleepetqet stated t~t he ~uld te~i~ the Council
t~t thete would ~ve to be ~ney a~Vtopttated ~o~ Flow Hospital
which was not in the ptopoaed budget.
COUnCil ~embet ~a~s stated that all she wanted to ~ve wee
ilexibil~ty ~hen the budget was ~ev[~Q. T~ ~tl would be
locked tmto a dollar aaount and w~uld then be Iaoed ~ith having to
tevt~ the budget iteul not on the[z ~tit, but this dollar tigute.
Council Meabet C~ew stated that t~ete Wets thin~e ~n the budget
~hich ~ete untealtet[c and could be cut. Council could loo~ at
ealatM ~ncteaaea and cat allo~amcee to ~e cute.
Coumc~l ~eabet ~to~d ~tated that the Council should be ~lextble
could bt[n~ a l~mt cE their concern in the proposed b~et eo theme
ite~e could be ~eviewed at the next
Council ~abet Stephens called the question.
~e~tane tepotted t~at state la~ ~equt~ed ~he ~tion on the tare
otd~nance ~nclude the amounts ~o~ ~tm&enanee/o~etattona an~ debt
service. The mot[on lot ~7.AA~ ~uld aean l~.2A tot debt sezv~ce
amd ~8.20 ~ot ~[ntenance and
Al~oEd "~y," Riddlespetgez "nay," Chew "aye," amd ~yo~ Stewart
"aye." Motion ~ailed 4 to 3 vit~ Counetl Meu~zs 8~ephens and Chew
and ~yot Btewatt casting the "~Y" votes,
~et~n~ ~itM ~a~e~ R~ck 5vehla ~epo~ed that ~e Council ~uld
decide on ~he bud~e~ on 5epte~be~ l~. T~t ~outd ~n e~ect, act
tax ~ate. ~t t~t tt~e twa Dteec~o~ o~ ~nanee ~uld adveztiae ~e
~a~e i~ ~he newspaper. Once tn the paper, Council ~ould ~ve
~a~2 ~ dams to approve an ozdinance.
275
C~ty o~ ~enton city council Mlnutee
~eeting cE Ge~tembe~ 17,
Pa~e T~euty-Yive
D£a¥oviteh teepon~ed that any tax highez than the e~ective tax
£ate, ~htch ~l 55# had to be adve£tieed. The notice ~ad to Irate
Ins~uctioms ~e given to-~he City ~tto~ney ~o ~eadve~tee the ~ate
EequiEeMm~a e~ez ire b~g8~ wee appzoved om 5eptembe~
Council ~ubec Step~ne al~ed t~ the Chacte~ specified a ~iue by
D~a~ov~ch ~e~po~e~ ~he ~agte~ ~pectEied that the budQe~ ~u~t be
app~ove~ ~O ~aMa pztc~ ~0 ~e end cE ~he ~t~cal Meaz. Ho~vez,
~ega~d~ ~o ~ax ~a~e. t~e Cha~e~ onl~ atate~ the Council mtgh~
a~ co~lect ~axea tn aoco¢aance ~tb the
~. The Council conetde¢ed adoption o[ an oCdtnance
adoptt~ the bud~e~ [cz ~e Ct~ cE ~nton, Texae, [o~ the ~scal
~ea~ b~i~nt~ o~ ~tobo~ l, 1~85, a~ e~ng on ~ep~eabe~ 30, ~g86.
~. ~e Council eoms~dezed adoption o~ an ozd~namce
a~ud~nq vaztous 8eettone og ~tcle ~I o~ Chaplet Z o~ t~e Code o~
Ozdi~ce~ pEovtdin~ ~oz pu~c~sing pzoceduzee, authoz~z[mg ~he
axpe~ze e~ ~um~s ~o~ alt budge~e~ ~te~ not exceeding
~o~n ~aue, Dl~ee~o~ o~ Ft~nce, ~e~o~ted t~ ~he ~ate la~ had
btdd~n~ ~Oce~. T~e lt~ ~d been ~at~ed to a~lo~ cit~e~ to ~o up
to $~0,000 a~ e~aE~ ~a~ ~eco~e~inq that t~ Cou~c[~ a~p~ove
c~nge,
~yoz Pzo T~ ~pktme s~gested the Council leave ~he li~t
McGzane zepoz~ed t~t ~ ~oz~l b~ddin~ pzocees d~d zequtze the
ct~y ~o neatly.
al~o alloy atari ~o atzeaattne ~npovez zequtze~nte and voul~ save
Council ~e¢ ~aaa e~a~ea the Council could c~n~e the tim~t to
alt puzc~mem oveE IS,OO0.
advect~le~m~ ~utd no~ be Eequtcea. ~e acura etttt ~ngocu ~e
Counci~ o~ ex~e~ttuze8 o~z $5,O00.
~a~aed ~o $10,OOO ae tong a~ ~Re Council ~aa
$~,O0~ to 810,OOO Eange. This ~ant the ~chaeLn~ ~ent would
Council ~m~ 8tephen8 state~ that h~8 concern vas t~t t~e IlO,COO
tt=~t ~ant t~t expen~uzee up to t~t point would not ~equi~e
pcto~ app~al ~ t~ ~t~ Council.
276
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of Septelbo£ 17, 1985
Page Twenty-Oil
6vohla £osponded that now. any ozpenditu£o of $3,000 had to bo
app£oved by Council. If Council £atled tho ~iait to $10,000,
anything the city bid which was over $10,000 Would eo~e before
Council. Anything loss then $10.000 would be bid infor~allF and
staff would be allowed to award the bid without Council
Sta~! could ~eport these expenditures to tho Council p£ior to award
o~ the bid. There was now a 1¢ day notification requi~enent: this
would speed up the bid awned process.
Council ~abe£ Meadows stated that tho Council could require the
staf~ to noti[y the Council o~ the expenditu~e p£io~ to award o~ the
bid but this o£dinanco would allow sta(~ not to hove to adveCtisa.
Tho (ollowing ordinance was presented:
NO.
AN OrDiNANCE AMENDIN~ VARIOU8 SECTIONS OF
CHAPTE~ Z OF T~E CODE OF THE CITY OF D~fI~N P~OVIDIN~ FOE
PURCEASING P~OCEDURES; AUTHOriZING TH~ R~P~D~TU~.~ OF FUND8
FOR A~L BUDgeTED ITEMS NOT EXCEEDING TEN THOUSARD DOLI.%RS
($10,000.00) BY THE CIT~ I~k~A~F~t ~ PROVIDII~ FOH
CONTRACT,S CALLING PeR THE EXPHNDITURE OF T~N THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($10,000.00) OH ~O~E TO B8 APPROVED BY Tt-~ CITY
COUNCIL~ EEPF~L ING ALL OHDINANCES IN COMFLICT~ AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DAT~.
McAda~8 motion, Hiddteopo=ger second to adopt the ocdinanco. On
coil call vote, MoAdans "aye," HopKins "aye," StopheGS "~ay," Al~ord
"aye," Riddlespecgoc "aye,' Chew "nay," a~d )ta¥o~ Stewa£t .aye.~
Motion ca££ied 5 to 2 with Council Membecs Stephen8 and Chew casting
tho "nay" votes.
4. Resolutions
A. The Council consido~ed app£oval cE & cesolution
establishing a $60.000 6 month loan ~Eou tho utility systou fund to
the Denton
Bob Nelson. Director of Uti~ities. reported tb~t tho airport needed
$60,000 for streets and water lines. The Public Utilities Board had
approved tho request ~or 6 uonths at
Tho following resolution was
· E SOLUT ~ON
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, T~XA8. THAT:
MI~HEA8, the Denton )tunicipal Ai=9o=t io in tho process
iRpEoving st£oet and water ~actlitios at said oirpo£t: and
MI4~REA8, tn order to meat the oblig&~tOn8 of said
iup£oveuonts it is necessary to receive &ddi=to~al ~uuding~ HOW,
THIlREFORE,
BE IT RE50~VED BY ~ COUNCIL OF ~ C~TY OF DF~TO~,
SECTION ~.
SECTION
That the City Manager is authocizad to t:ano~o£ the sum
Sixty Thoueand Dollars ($6O°000) E~Om ~h~ Electric Depactuent caoh
assets of tho Utility System Fund to tho Denton Airport tund as
loan to be £epaid to tho Utility Depa£t~ont by March 15, 1986. with
interest at the rate of eight (8) pe£cont pe£ annum.
277
City of Pinto- City Council N~nutes
PA66gD ~ ~R~D th~e Cbs 17th day oC 8eptembec, 1985,
B.~.C~AHD O. S'r~dART, MAYOR
CITY OF D~NTON. TEXAS
ATTEST:
CH~RLO~q~ &LL~N. CITY
CITY OF t)L~C~,
APPROVED A6 TO L~GAL
D~B~ ~l D~YOV~T~, CX~Y
"aye," R~adlesgecgiz "aye," Chew "aye." and ~yor S~ewazc "aye."
selecting a~ deiignlt~ng a degoe~Co~y Coc city ~unde.
Acting C~ty ~gec R~c~ 6vebla aeKe~ that the Counc~l dege~
~tem um&tl September 24.
5. The Council oo~dec~ approval o~ the C~ty o~ ~nton tax
to~ls as =eeeive~ ~to~ th% ~nton coumty ~ppta~sa~ D~stt~ct.
Riddleipecget motion, Chew second to appcove the tax to~l. ~t~on
ca~c~e~ u~ui~ualy.
The Council be~d a digcuei~om of petition of 8u~e
Engtneecing, zepcemeuttn~ Ricked Coupton, Cot voluntary annexation
of apptox~tely Sl.6S~ acres ot Sand beg[nnfng north of H~c&o~y
Ctee~ Road a~ptoxi~tely 2,500 feet west ot ~ 2lB1 ~ot the
o~ dete~a~n~ ~etbet to beg~n the annexation ptocees.
David ~llison. Senior ~Sa~et, zepotte~ t~t th~s location was Just
to the north ot the ~mton ~noz Estates voluntary annexation amd
the CSty ot ~nton invoSuntaty anme~tion which was current
teoo~ed annexation. 8ta~ ~utthet teco~ended a lathe
~omptehemsive ammexat~on ~o~ the ptopattM a~on~ FM 2~8~ a~d H~ckoty
Cteek Road at a ~utute date.
Btephens ~ot[on, ~a~s seco~ to be~in the annexation process.
81amca ~c~es. a proposed elevem lo~ es~a~e subd~v~sion planned ~oz
30.VSA acres begimn~ng ad~aoem~ amd no~h o~ Nazshum Road. wes~ o~
G~een Valley Road. eou~h o~ Shepazd Road, a~ eaa~ o~ Gzibb~e
Sp~mge ~oad. ~oz ~he ~u~poee o~ de~eza~n~n~ whe~he~ ~o be~a
~nnaxat~ou pcooees.
David glligon, Sentot P~amnec. tepo~ted that this site was located
did not ~eel, g~ven tho ecaXe and type oC development, that
annexation vas ~eastb~e.
Hopkins Bottom, XlCQ~d se~o~ mo~ ~o be~a a~aexa~on p~oceduzes.
~t~ou c/coted u~n~ualy.
278
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting el SepCembec iT, 1985
Page ~enty-~tght
The Council held a dtacuaeton of the p~sltlinac¥ plat of
#ests£n Vintage Estates, an eight lot estate subdivision ~£o~oeed on
vhet~e£ to begin the annexation p~oeesn,
David Elltson, Senio~ Planne~, ~epo£ted t~ ~he Council t~d o~osen
not to annex a subdivision app£oxtma~el¥ 1/4 lile ~s~ oC C~is
et~e. S~aCl ~loo~endea ~ ~he Council no~ lnn~x C~ll pcopec~y.
~pktns mo~ton, ~ams seaond no~ ~o begin anne~acion pcocedures.
Motion catered unanimously.
9. Thece was no eSPecial action on Rxeeutt~ Session t~eas et
legal ~Cecs, ~eal esCaPe, peceonnel oc bo~d ~ppoin~n~s.
tot tubule agendas.
· he Council ~econvened tn~o th~ lxeeuCive Session ~o discuss leg~l
~eEs, ~eal esCaPe, ~ecsonnel a~ boa~d a~otn~m~s. No ollict~l
ae~ion was ~a~en.
Wi~h no lucthe~ i~eue oC bustness, the meeting vas a~Jou~ne6.
D ~. 8~ ~YOR
~7~g
279
City Council Minutes
September 19, 1985
The Council convened into the Special Called Meeting at 1:00
the CiVil De~ense Room.
CheW, J~A~iIe. and Riddlesperga£
~ctiug C~ty Manige£ and C~ty At~ocney
~8~: COUnCil ~m~c A~OE~ vas detained 4ua to busineas
Coumc~l ~Bbe~ 8~ep~eas wis ~e~aine~ due ~o ~m~
buage~,
The Council beaz~ a ~eaea~a~ton by ¢epze=en~a~ve= ~o~
Den~on,
Counctt ~abez ~l~o¢a Jo~m~ the ~e~ng a~ ~:30
T~e C~nc~t ~n began a Cevtew o~ sugge=~ zeduc~one tn
budge~,
Council ~mbe¢ kl[O¢d le¢~ the ~e~tng at 2:30
Counct~ ~ S~ep~ene Jolae~ ~e aee~tng a~ 2:55
Counot~ ~abe¢.~l~o¢a ~o~a~ ~ ~a~tng a~ 3:00
~ ooneaasue o~ ~he Cou~tt ~as ¢eache~ on va¢ious pzoJec~s and
'by uta~. Notion fa~led' 4 to 3 vtth Council Meubezs Step~ene and
vo~es.
1~. ~tion dted ~o~ tao~ o~ a second,
to 6~ a~ approve the Eeuin~ng ~nc~eaaeg ~n the pay p~an
The Counctt ~hen eont~nued discussions on the pcopoeed budge~.
Hc~e~ ~t~ou, a~ddles~zgez second to add ~o ~e $~68,~93
budget ~edue~tou, addl~toual ~Ue~S ~e ~e iuount o~ $~6,007
Jo~n M~Ea~, Dtzecto~ o~ eL~nce, ~epo~ted t~t the 856.007 would
at the e~ of the 1~5-~ limcll year. Further, i~ the revenue
2. The Council eo~ide~ed adoption oE an ordinance adopting
t~e budget ~o~ the Cit~ o~ ~nton, Texas. Eo~ t~e [t~cal year
beginning cn ~tobe~ 1, 1~15. a~ ending on September 30,
28O
city o[ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ Septembe£ 19. 1985
Page Two
The ~ollowing ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-[90
AN OHDINANCE ADOPTING TH~ BUDGET FOE THE CITY
TSXAS, FOR TH~ FISCAL Y~ BBGI~[~ ~ ~0~ 1, lg~5,
On ~oll oall vote, ~eAda~s "aye," Ho~in~ "aye," Stephens
Almond "aye." Riddleepe~ge~ "aye." Chew o~y., a~ ~yo~ stewart
"aye." ~otion ea~ried 5 to 2 with Council ~mbe~n S[ephen~ an4 Chew
casting the "nay" votes.
T~e Coumc~S come~ete~ ~opt~om ot am ot~maace
eetabS~shiag t~tea ~o~ the use o~ the C~t~'e mam~taty lam~till e~te
a~ ~e~idential and co~e~cial sanitation collection ~e~vicee
authorized by Chapter 12 of the Code o~ Ozdimauoea o~ the Cl~y
~ton.
The ~ollowing o~imaace was pzeaente~:
~ OHDIN~CE OF T~ CI~ OF DE~N ~STABLI~H[~ ~S FOE
~ USE OF THE Cl~S B~IT~Y ~ILL
RESID~IAL ~ ~RCZ~B 8~[TAT[~ ~h~
A8 A~EIZED BY ~P~H 12 OF T~ ~ OF O~DIN~8 OF
~ CI~ OF D~Ni ~ Pa~IDING FOE ~ ~F~I~ DATE.
~a~, motion. ~[fotd ;scoria to a~opt ~he otdfnance. On
vo~e, McA~ams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Almond "aye," Biddlelpe~ge~ '
"aye,. Chew "aye," a~ ~yo~ Stew/=[ "aye.. ~[[on ca=tied 6 ~o 0
with Council Me~be~ Stephen~ abgtai~ing as he wac not p~esent
4. Executive Session
The Council did not convene into t~e Executive Session.
With no ~u~ther items o~ business the nesting was adJoucned.
09978
City Council Minutes
~ptembe£ 24, 1985
The Cou~eil os=vemed trite t~e Special Called Needing at ?:00 p.m. in
the Council
Al~Otd, C~, Ne~dau, Riddlespetge~ and
~6~NT: None
~yo~ Stewart sowed age~a ~te~ ~2 ~o~wa~d tn the agenda
2. The Counc~ ceeaived the appl~ca~ion~ ~oc banking
Eo~ ~e Ct~y o~ ~nton.
Jo~n KdG~a~, D~Eec~o~ o~ ~nce. ~epo~ted t~at applications ~o
Tho Co~i~ Z~n ce~uz~ ~ ~be agenda older.
1. T~ Co~I coMlde~ed app~Qval o~ the ~nates el the
Special Called ~ett~ O~ Gep~eube~ ~0, ~985.
HopKins Ro~to~, ~al8 leeo~ ~o approve the Minute8 as p~esented.
3, : Otdt~uoe~
A. T~e Council considered adoption o[ an o~d~nance
John N~taue, D~teetot o~ PLanes, tape,ted ~t iti~e law requited
Debts Dtayovttob, City &ttoe~y, repotted that 0.3924 o~ the tax
The [o~1~ o~t~nce ~e pEefen~ed:
~. 8s-~92
~ ~l~ L~I~ T~ ~ VALOREM T~ OF ~ Cl~ Of
llOO.O0 ASSESSED ~UATION ON Att T~L~ PRO~RRW MXTHIN
~~ CX~ OF~ ~1 P~OVIDING FOR ~IMXTRD
~lda~u ~tt~, lllotd t~ ~o adopt the o~dtnance. On toll call
Rtddle~tge~ 'aye,~ ~..U~y.n a~ ~yo~ Stewart aaye."
cad,ted ~ ~o 2 v~h Cou~tt ~lbe~s Stephens a~ Chew ~as~tng the
~e~a ~t~u 3.B Vel ~e8~ ia t~ agenda older to a~lov t~ ft~n~e
282
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Page "t~o
4. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval el & resolution
o~ the Municipal Court tn the absence o4 the City Judge.
Mayor Stewart stated that City Judge Miller had recol~tenaed
Mr. Keith O£sburn be appointed as Assistant City Judge.
The iollowing resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Section 6.03 o[ the Charter o[ the City of Denton
authorizes the City Council to appoint Aesieta~t City Judges to
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to appoint an
Assistant City Judge to handle the Judicial functions of the
Municipal Court in the absence o~ the City Judge; MOM, THIIRRFORE,
BE [T RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF
SECTION [.
That D. Keith Orsburn ia hereby appointed Asliatant City
Judge of the Municipal Court of the City o~ Denton. To:as pursuant
to Section 6.03 of the Charter of the City of Denton, TellS.
SECTION
This Resolution shall become effective free and after its
date of passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 24th day
RICHAHD O. ST~NAHT, MAYOR
CIT~ O~ DBNTO%I. T~KA8
ATTICS T:
Ct~HLOTTE ALLEN° CiTY SECRETARY
CiTY OF DENTON. TEXAS
~PPEOVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
D~B~A AD,Mi DEA¥OV[TCH. C[~
Judge's reeo~endations based on M~. Orsbucn'e c~edent[als.
~bza D~ayovttch, City Atto=ney, =eevonded t~t she ~d Received the
=esuue at %:10 p.u. and had mot ~d 8ut~ielent t~ue to zevie~ the
Council Membe~ 6tephemm stated that ~udqe Mille~ wa8 very thocough
amd Eel[ ihs Council could act on ~e= ~eoo~n~ation.
Stephens action. Chew second =o accep~ the ~eoo~enda[[on o~ the
C[ty Judge. On =oll call vote. Me,aaa "aye." Hopkins "aye."
8tep~ene "aye." Almond "aye." Hid~leepe=ge~ "aye." Chew
~Yo= Stewart "aye," ~tion ear,ted unanimously.
283
City cC Denton City Council Minutes
~eeting cC 5eptelabe£ 24. 1985
Page Th£ea
The ~olloving item cC Gev Business vas suggested Cox a
Cutu£e agenda:
~oc ad valorem tales,
The Couactl then coneteecnd agenda item
B. The Council conside£ed adoption cC an ozdtnance
beginning October 1, 198S and enAtng SepteBbec 30, 1987.
John ~eGtane, Di£eotot ct ~nance, cavorted that ~m light cC the
~ac~ t~t only one b~ ~d been ~eoe~ved. stai[ zeco~emded
state ~alK be avazd~ t~e b~d as deposito~y io: C~ty ol ~mton
The biddez ~d ogge~ u~eff ,,Inte~est ~tes to be paid on
bus,ness da~. ~dec ReVerence ~zeemente. the ~zet State Ban~ bad
agzeed to pay the C~ty tatm~eet on eac~ zepuzc~ee agzee~em~
cate o~ mot les~ t~n 100 baste potn~ belov the 30-day
atll Vie1& aa ce~zted b~ t~e Ma~l Stceet Journal ~ot the p~evtous
business day. Loans ~uld be ~de to the City at :be tats o: TOt
o~ 5 ~/4~ tateteet ~uZd be pate on de~nd accounts, such
6upet-~ et ~ney-~t~et Reeou~tl. Xn the event o~ an aggcegate
deCLct~ i~ the ~e~ accounts (a de, icrC in one ct mote accounts
The ~oll~ing otdt~ee ~m p~eme~ted:
~ ~~ ~ ~ CI~ ~CIL O~ ~ CITY OF D~TON
B~X~ ~ 1, 1985 ~ E~X~ BEP~ER 30, 1987;
vote, ~Mau ,aye," Hop~nl "aye." Stephens "aye," Al:ced "aye,"
tattled u~nt~usly.
5. ~ Council convened ~nto the ~zecuttve Session to discuss
:egal ~ttete, zeal mutate, ~etnonnel, and board appoLntments. No
o~tc~al action vat taken.
Mtth nO ~utt~et tt~e o: ~8~neam, the ~ettng va~ adjourned.
city cou:ctl iuutes
October 1. 19e5
The Council convened into the Nork Session at 6:00 p.m. in the'Civil
Defense Room.
COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Stewa£t; Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins: Council Me~be£s
&lfotd, Chew, Mo&dams and Stephens
&cling City Manager, Assistant City Attorney and City
Secretary
CO~INCIL
ABSENT: Council Member Riddlespe£ge£ was on vacation
PRESRNT: Roland Laney, N~noy Boyd, Kenneth Frady and Rd Coomms
PUB
ABSENT: John Thompson
1, The Council held a discussion on the ~£oposed Public
Utilities Board self-evaluation study of the utility system.
Bob Nelson. Director el Utilitiel, repo~ted tb~it the PUblic
Utilities Board has been looking at a sel2-svaluati~ study of the
Utility Depa£tment. Nelson then turned the discussion over to Mx.
Roland Laney o~ the Public Utilities Roard.
#r. Roland Laney, Ct~airperson re~orted that approximately one year
ago, the Board had discussed the management study which ~as requited
by the ctty,e Charter. The next study ws dtte to be mmda in 19SS.
As the board considered the requited ubauaqe~ont s~p. more and mote
issues had been discussed. Four ~iru~ had 8u~ltt~ ~oposals to
coquet tbs study and two had been ~ntetvi~d by the b~td. Rash
~it~ crested a "package deal" con~ie~tng of c~lpuCe~ Iot~wate and
notebook o~ Prepared que8~ions. The board ~d ~d Eur~her
discussions and had decided to redirect t~ ail ~o~td learning
abou~ the u~ttity sys~ea. The boa~d had though~ this could be
o~ the C~ttet requirement but had ~iscoveted t~t l~lly, ~t ~uld
not. I~ requited to do a study tn t~o years, it ~ld behoove
tbs utility department to study l~lelf. T~e ~blic Utilities B~td
had tmtetviewed Dr. Btttleiteld a~ recovered t~t he be
te=atned. The board wanted a colpreh~ltve study cE the
relationships between the U~tli~y Departmen~ an~ o~her ot~y
depattRents. The Utility ~att~nt ~1 unique ~se ~t pa~d
o~n ~ay a~ ~de money. The Boa~d ~anted ~o ~evt~ ~he ~i~ncea
the depa~aent to see tl it would be good to ee~bltsh
~u~ing ~o o~set bo~ ~ney. ~, ~auey ~thot 8~ated t~t he
peteo~tly ~elt the money ~or this study ~uld ~ ~11
~. Nancy Boyd, ~blic Uttlitiem Board ~r, mtit~ that she
agreed wholeheartedly. There ~s a tot ~o be said C~ sell-study.
A gEeat dea~ ~ould be leamced about ~he aMa~em and ~t ~t ~s do~ng
~. Kenneth Fcady, Public Utilities Board Me~e~. s~t~ C~ he wag
u~ ~o the boacd but did ~eel the sol~-e~udy ~uld be good.
~Y~ 5texaco asked w~t the study ~uld cost.
M~, Ba~M cespo~ed appcoxi~tely $34,000.
Coumctl ~mbet Chew asked what ~te DE, Lit~le~teld'o areas
Dr. bi~tle~ield ~esponded t~ he had ~augh~ et ~oz~ Texas
University ~o~ more t~n 3o yeats a~ had pez~og~ consulting
se=vises. His WOr~ ~d been tn the areas el goneEal
oEgantzattonal studies and opeEating ~nage~nt. In gene=al, he
tried to be a ~nagement genetali8~ rather than a special,st tn his
approach. That smemed to be mpptopctate Eo~ the cot~ect prospective
in ~ht8 study. He ~ould 8ucvey the general offgan~zation and the
285
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
t(eeting o{ October 1.
working relationship be~een the Utility Departnent amd other
departltents rooking {or a~oas with potential ~or improvement.
though~ wes to have involvement {rOB the Utility Dspartment
employees with an eye to the good uss o{ tiaa. He hoped to be able
to colunication with all levels o~ ~anagement tn the study.
Council J~embsE Chew asked DE. tittlefisld is he had worksd with any
publio utility before in his consulting.
D£, tittle~ield responded no; only p£ivate bus[messes.
Council ~elaber McAdams slated that she had some conce£ns though she
did appreciate the Public Utilities Board's el{ertl. 6he £ealized
that the Cha£[eE sport[lsd a aanagement study but did mot see how
this study Would plug in to the required one.
Boyd re~poudad ttMt she felt there ~as a need to review what the
goals e{ t.~o Utility Depa=tuent ~ere and where they were. The study
required by the Charte~ Wes expensive.
Council I~r J~dam~ stated that the Charter did require the
· anageunt study So it was an obligation. The p=oposed
self-evaluation study would coat approximately $38,000 and there
could be additional expanses.
Laney =espouAad that ~rom what the Public Utilities Board had seen,
a uAuageBent study dome at this time would be worthless. It seeaed
the beard should do its homework {i~lt and then- approach a
~ayor pro Te~ Hopkins a~tt~d Mr. Laney what he envisioned to be the
di~{eEence in the two studies.
hansy ~espon~le~ thet the uamegeunt study would tell how ~ny people
currently on the utility system and project the numbe~ [n the
[uturs~ thane WOUld bo lots o{ graphs. The sel~-evaluatton study
would be vegy similar ~o the procedure used during the Charter
reviei0n process. The goal o{ the study was to {the tune the
Council Koaber MeAdama asked t{ the board could specl[y to the
ianage~Bent ~iru e~ctly ~t type o~ issues t~y wanted addresses
the ael~-eva[~tton study.
council ~u~t Al~ot~ st&to~ t~t he would like to know w~t the
boa~d ~nt~ to lea=ri. ~te~ lee study was coap~e=ed, what would
the bo~4 ~ Vtt~ the tn~oE~tien.
~yor PEo T~ ~p~aS stat~ that he ~ad a conceza vtth the t~u~ng.
years to ~evi~ =itel, a Eegio~[ wate~ 8yoteu, etc. t~e city could
be way ~b[~.
hauey ~eo~ t~[ ~eEe ~s a need ~o look at all aspects o~ the
system, ee~elally the g~h issue.
reeponeibtli~y ~o~ ~utu=e ~teE needs.
Council ~ube~ ~aue elated that t~ eoneultant~ ~e used to
review 8pectate areaS, tM suit o~ t~e study ~utd increase. It did
not ~ cease [o epe~ ~0,000 to ~et t~e questions co ask
study ~uld loo~ at s[af[t~g levels, controls, etc.
286
City of Denton CiC¥ Council Minutes
Meeting o~ Octobe~ 1. 1985
Page Three
Council Membe£ Chew stated Chat some of Chose tllUel ~£e
in , study done by A£thu= Ande~son due[ag the audit.
Council ~embe£ Stephens stated t~at ~e could see my the boa~d was
£eco~ending this approach.
LaneF sta~ed that ~he boa~d ~as o~ the opinion ~hat th~ approach
~uld ~n fact save ~ney.
Cou~c~ ~e~be~ Step~en~ asked D~. ~ttle~[eld [~ he ~uld be
D~. L~lef[lld ~ei~onded no; he v~ld be ~he coo~d[~o~.
Gtephenu motion, &~o~d 8eeo~ to approve the p~oposed
~el~-eva~uat[on study.
Council Meube~ Mc~ams 8tared 2~t s~e ~d a p~obleu vi~h conducting
2 I~udie~ ~h[eh could contain political [asue~. She 9e~nonall~ had
zeeecvattons about co~ucC[ng the studies la this ~nnet.
~ Public Uttt~t~ee Boa~d. I~ the study ~ae ~ou~ not ~o be
accomplishing the goat~, tt could be
~tton ~o a~9~ove cad,led
2, T~e Council convened into the ~ze~ttve 8esB~on ~o discuss
o~[ota[ action vas taken.
The Council convened trite the Re~la~ ~ettng at 7:00 p.m. la the
Council
P~: ~yo~ Steva~t~ ~yo~ P~o Tea ~pk[n8; Council ~ube~8
Al[o~d; Char, Me,ams a~d fltephens
~cting City ~get, Assistant City ~ttotney a~ City
Secretary
~S~T: Council ~eabe~ E[ddlespe~e~ was on
l, Consent ~gemda
~oz Stewart a~aounee~ t~t itea 1.~.a (aid ~ ~SO~) had been
~e~ved ~oa the Consent ~enda bM sta~. Itea [.a.~
plat ~o~ the Su~itt ~dition) ~d been ~eaoved ~oa the Consent
~e~a at the zequeat o~ t~e pet[tio~e~.
Chew action, Eopkina second to appzove t~e Cement ~e~a with the
exceptions cE itea~ 1.~.~ a~ l.a.5. ~ot[on ca~ied
Consent ~qenda:
· . aide a~ ~u~chaee Ozde~e:
station
2. Bid ~ 9493 - U.8. H~ghvay 380
I~o By
ST~F 3, Bid ~ 9509 - ModulaE ~urnt[u~e
4. aid e 9S[0 - Kobson bane - U.S. 37~ wate~
s. Bid ~ 9S[3 - aepa~ o~ ~ 2,000,000 gallon
287
City of Denton C~t¥ Coune~l
14~et~ug o~ Ootobe~ 1.
Page
7. Bt~ # 9&22 - Mice and cable
t, Bid # 9532 - )dubulance
9. PueeJ~ale Ocdec # 70098 to Boyd RxcaYation ~n the
auQuut of $25,000.00
10. Puceh~ge Oc4s£ ~ 70099 to Royal Excavat~o~ tn the
B. ~tats a~
Paul ~tlton ~d~tton, Lot 4B, Bloc~ ~. (The
Pla~ui~ and Zoning Co~sa~on
3,~pp~oval o~ pEet[~t~y ~at o~ the
~4t~ton. (~e Ptann[n~ a~ Zoning
4. A~eoval. o~ gene~a~ develop~n~ plan o~ the
Rtdge~' ~ad~ ~dditton, P~ee I. (The
P~a~ a~ Zoning Co~$181on ~tco~nd~
~dttiO~, ~te ~ an~ 2, Bloe~ ~. (The
~dLtton, Lot ~4, Block &. (The Planning and
~EQva~.)
~vtn~ A~soelat~on tn the a~unt o~ 8611.46
Co~tc~tton tn t~e a~uut o~ 8t4,~63.30 ~oc the
MO~E~'L~o 8~et 11ne, CIP P~oJoet 8%-8-9.
2. Co~do~ appEova~ oC Cinal paint to Red Sive~
1. Conetdec approval o[ sale o~ tcans~ocnec to Ohio
TEa~S~O~UOE Co~po~a~ou, ~ou~av~lle, O~o ~o~ the
288
city of Denton city council Minutes
~eettng o~ October 1, 19s5
Page
2. The Council considered app£ov&l of the ~equost of Kendall
HAll and tbs Signs Nu pledge class to paint eagles on the stceets on
the No~th Texas State Unive~sity campus du~tng Homecoming.
Acting City Manage£ Rick Svehla ~epo~ted that this iteu had been
placed on the agenda at the :eguest of the pledge class. Staff's
aoveuent. Obviously, star! would want the paintings ~auoved soon
a~te~ Houecoming.
council Heube~ 9tephens a.ked exactly these would be located. He
did not eec any p~oblem if they did not tntezfe e with
Stephens action, chew second to peznit the City Itanagez to wozk the
details out with the pledge class: if the City ~anage£ dete£uined
taste, the ~anage~ could disapp~ove the p£oJect.
Mayoz Pzo Te~ Hopkins stated that he would like ~oz ~he c~y ~ge~
also ~o chec~ ~nto ~he city's l~ab[l~ty concerning the
~ile they ~e~e pa~nt~ng.
Motion cad,ted unaniuougly.
3. ~bltc Hea~ing8
A. The Council he~d a pubt~c heaeing on the petition
Janes and ~gue~tte S~auve~ ~eque~ttng a vat,anco of A~tte~ee 4.07
and 4.08 o~ t~e City sE ~n~on Su~ivtsio~ i~ Land Develo~en~
Re.lateens which ~equt~ed tha~ wate~ and ee~ lines be eu~c~ent
The t~act vas 0.427 ac~eg a~ located at tho 8ou~est co~e~
C~eecent and Boliva~ Stzeett. T~e t~act ~s descried ag Lots 1
2, Block 1, o~ the 6tauve~ ~d~tion and sho~ tn ~he BBB G
Coupany SuEvey, Abstract No. ~85. ~e p~ope~ty ~ zoned
~e ~yoz o~ened t~e public hea~ing.
M~. Janes S~auve~, ~he petit[onex, epo~e ~m Javex e~a~lag ~ha~ the
p~oposed conat~uotion on the zea~ lot o~ the p~opeg~y was Eoz 1
s~uctu~e. The c~ty ~d es~ed ~ eo.~ o~ ~natal~a~ion at
~,229 ~htch va8 app~ox~te~y ~0~ o~ the est~tod value o~
complet~ duplex. This, howevez, zep~esen~ed an app~ox~uate
The ~7,229 d~d not ~nc~ude the Ee~oved o~ reset a~ possibly the
~vtng of a gas ~ne to put tn the watez and se~ lines.
a~ Edward8 had e8ti~ted the cogs to be cloge~ to 810,000.
would be impossible ~o~ him to but~d the duplex un~er
c~Eeuu8tance8. He realized t~t ~he city's 8eweE a~ wete~
weze deter~ozating amd ~his wou~d allow ~he city an option to Rut
location, then was no need ~oE a ~tez loop. Kle ~in p~obleu va8
With the e~e~ line. Everyone wag a~eed ~hat ~he o~ly thing
Could pogtibly serve was ~he duplex. % 4" 8eweE line ~uld allow
~ia ~o keep the l~ne8 close~ and Shallowe~, ~ich ~u~d help.
~uld like to ~each a compEoniee. AS ~t ~es nov, he could not
a~oEd to expend $10.000 Ju8~ to ~ the pipes in the gEound.
this Was the ~aae. then eve~yone would lose because i~ he eoul~ not
develop, the~e wou~d not be a loop unless the c~y put ~t ~n.
could not Judge the city's needs ~ega~ding the loop. The~e were no
~ one spoke ~n oppoa~ion.
Cecile Careen, Urban Planne~, ~epo~ted that t~ toque8~ loc a
~egulations. T~e p~ob~eu which M~. Stauvo~ addcessod oonceEning
289
City o~ Deuto~ City Council Htnutee
bering o~ O~tobe£ l, 19GS
etas OE the wate~ and eeMez lines were discuesed du~tng the
p£elim~n~zF siegel v~en the p~eltmina£¥ plat was approved by the
Planning amd Zoning Commission and t~e C~ty Council. The request
6" line ~o ~ run ~o~ water accsec both lots. The line would secve
lot 2 locat~ near Crescent ~tzeet and lot 1 ~hece the mew
conett~ctioa ~ould &~Xe place. The loop statememt oomcetms the t~ct
t~t t~ Utility ~p~tt~nt. ~en pons&bls, do attempt to
loop~mg eMet~s. ~t. ~tauvet ~uld o~ be requited to
the ~tontave o~ h~e 2 lo&m. ~t ao~e point ~m the ~utute, th~e would
be ~on~ot~ o~t to Rm~ Street to create the looping system
him ad~ttom, but ~ould ales ~mptove the ~atet tlo~. The sewer line
~u~d be Z~utted to ~ Ideated across the tttst lot to the second
lot. Xt ~UI~ also t~ptove capacity on the l~nes tutthet do~n om
Bol~va~ ~tteet. The se~t line ~ould only being exte~ed actomm the
gravity line and would be
lot 1 ~cauee it ~uld requite a
~ne~eOtive to exte~ tt aez~ee the te~ndet o~ the ptopetty. ~.
Rumt~eld o~ the ~a&ez/~et~atet Division estimated the coat at
$~,lS~' ~ot ~he extenet~ o~ the l~me. The Planntn~ and Zoning
Co~teelon a~ ~velopmeut ~eview comities ~elt t~t. based on the
8 ~te~ in t~e Subd~vtelon ~les and Re~lattons ~o~ a variance,
th~, addition did not meet those tequ~e~nta. ?o meet the utility
standard policy, the 6" water S&ne would have to be extended across
both lets a~ the 6. s~z l~me actoaa lot 1 to metre the duplex
Sot 2. Four zeply tot~ ~Ee ~ed w~tb sets tetutned.
~yot Pto ~ HOpW~U8 ae~ed ig sta~ envisioned any gro~h ~n the
Caress ~op~ t~ Bol~vat Street was on t~e t~ght and ~nna
vas on tbs
~yot Plo T~ Hopkins ast~ ~t was on the lot which ~as adjacent
to lot 1 on the
Carson tepli~ t~t ~mt o~ the area vas developed wLth single
~au$1y ~es~de~e~. ~te ~8 a~ways t~e po~b~lity of
ze~eveXop~n~. ~e ~o~ ~o ~Re no~h o~ ~ie 8i~e vat
~au~y.
street a~ a 8~E s~ne on crescent ~n p~aoe now.
sever tL~ on ~ stz~t. Presently, the ezist~n~ sttuctute on lot
2, ~ae ~iug o~v~ ~ a 4" valet l~me locate~ on Bolivar attest amd
this area.
carson zepl~ed t~t ~t ~ld connect the 4" l~ne on 80S~vat ~ the
loop ~te ~e ~ ~te~tM past these two ~topett~em. The looping
vas not a oenttal ~mgue ~t tat~et am a~vaatage which vouS~ beaetSt
the c~ty. It a 6' Lt~ ~ze extende4 across the property, ~t would
oommeot V~th a 6' Si~ on ~ Street and Would be looped baok to
the suSSex ~ on Bolivar Street.
developed ~t~en ~n~ St~ee& a~d ~o~ l.
Cacson ce~li~ ~ iC ~8 hex u~ecs~a~inV Cha~ ~hece vas a house
located on t~ ~ a~ Crescent Stceet lot.
Hz. 6tauve~ replied t~at ~ot ~ vas vhete the ~ev coagttuct~om voul~
be. The lot behind lot ~ ~d one house on
290
City of Denton City Council Minutes
~eeting of Octobe£ l, 1985
Page Seven
Ma¥o£ P£o Tem Hopkins asked i~ there were any wate~ lines along
Mc. Btauver responded no, not at t~at point on Crescent.
Mayoc P£o Tem Hopkins asked if Ccescent vas paved all the way
thcough.
Kc. 8tauve~ cesponde4 yes.
~ayoz P£o Tem Hopkins asked Mr. Stauve~ why he con~tdezed putting
the sewer and wats= lens back to the lot al an expenditu=e
go~ng to butld a~actment un~a on ~he lo~ ~a~be~ than ~he one duplex.
tn =he city to shaze ~n paytng ~o~ h~s l~ne.
witl~ng to 9aY pa~tta~ costs. ~ve~. he ~el= ~ho 6" lewe~
was a waste o~ ~y because it would only 8ezve t~e duplex a~ a 4"
l~me ~uld wock just al well.
~oz Pzo Tea ~opkine a~hed w~t ~a the phtloeophM om aeedim~ the
loc9 aMatem.
Bob Melacn, Di~ecto~ o~ Utt~ittea, elated t~t ~he queattcn
~ould happen ~n the [utuze. The~e was a minimum zequtze~mt o~ a ~"
l~me to aezvice customers mow and tho~e in the ~utu~e. This ~ae aa
imveetaemt ~m the a~ea. The .puzpoee o~ loop~n~ a eMatea was to
enauze adequate ~low ~oz ~ze p~otectton, to eltmi~te dead
stagnant watez co~tiome ia the line and also to ~et peah au~e~
~ade.
~aas morton, ~o~X~na aecom~ to denM the zeque~t ~oz va~iamce.
Council MeaMez Mc~aaa elated t~t wtthout zeqazd to ~. Stauvez'a
e~c~lc petition, t~e Council ~d ~ve a eMatea on zulea amd
ze~lattome to ~ovezn the citM. ~utlt into this eMet~ eeze cezta~n
c~itez~a and i~ these c~ttezia were mot met, the zulee ~et be
~ollowed.
~tton to denM ca~z~ed unan~aoualM.
B. The Council held a public heazinq en t~ petitiea o~
· lbeet Hughes zequeat~m~ va~iancaa o~ t~ ~ollow~nq a~ticlee o~ tRe
C~tM o~ Denton 6ubdiv~a~on and tend Development Re~ulatio~:
1) ~zt~cle A.OS - comeezainC ziqht-c~-waM and etzeet
9avin~ atanda~d8~
2) ~ct~cle 4.07 conce~nin~ minimum watecline size
and uEniuum ~e hMdzamt
3) ~ttcle 4.10 oonoetn~ng cttte~ta ~ot pecuittin~
~ndividual septic tanks:
4) Article 4.15 come,ming d~ai~ge stewards and
mequime~ents.
The pmopemty is located east o~ ~tldcat Road, west o~ Rockhtll ~oad,
a~ sOUth o~ ~ 42~. The pmopemt~ i~ ~u~hem described a~ a 78.6
aeme tmact in the C. 8. E~ona SumvaM, Abstract ~03.
The ~o~ opened the public beaming.
~. ~n Powell, attomney mep~eseating ~. ~ghee, spoke
stating that ~our vamtances had been mequeated. ~t a Planning
Zoning Co,lesion meeting, ite~ 4 had ~en ~ked ou~ la a
291
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Heetin~ og October 1. 1965
Page Right
9etittenet wan only aeXin~ ~o£ a vatianoe on the ~ltst 3 items. The
p~ope~t¥ was za~ote ~£om the City o~ Denton. The existing developed
9ottio~ o! the pzope£ty wan 3/4 mile ~om the ezteting city limits
o~ xtugetville and was cut apazt ~tom the City o~ Denton by the
Tttn~t~ ~iva~ hotto~. ~ t~e ptopezty we£e located neat the north
extenelon o~ Loop 2~S, th~ zequeet would be absuzd. The pettt~one~
vas not t~y~ng to get a~oV~ t~ 6ubd~v~a~on Ru~e8 and Regulations;
any u~ili~ies, especially s~ service, beyo~ ~he T~n~y R~ve~
bo~o~, in conjunction ~i~h ~he 2o yeaz pzoJec~one ~oz the
exte~on. T~ petit~z dl~ not antic~ate tn the Eo~eseaable
Eutu~e ~t c~ty se~vieee ~ould be available to t~ts azea. The
wa~eE service available ~o ~ho pEope~ty wou~d be ~he B~ack~ock
Conun~y Wa~e~ System. ~ey ~ld s~en~ 6 ~o 8 yea~s t~y~ng ~o get
to tho ~o~n~ to dEitl a seoo~ well tn oEd8~ to p~ov~de adjusts
24 tot, develo~nt. The tots ~e~e a ~tnt~u el 2 acce8 tn siza
~he taEges~ bet~g e aeEoe. ~he pet~ttone~ did no~ ~eet t~
between a 4~ a~ 6n ~tne wag in the neighborhood o~ 6~0,000.
would be a substantial ~ ~c tot vt~h no beae~t~ to be gained.
Regarding ~ ~avt~ I~aCdl, the pe~ttone~ was ashi~ ~o be
allo~ ~o build ~o count~ ~oad specifications. She believed the~e
etty's Su~tv~iton ~les a~ ~e~lattons with ~egatd to building a
street, pt~ot to the dedication o~ the attest to the city. It vas
hot undotsthndtng t~t ~ one was anttcLpattng that tht8 patt~cu~a~
to ~he County a~ the Cou~ty ~ould have to ~ntatn the street.
unlikely t~t this pcope~ty would be annexed by ~nton duc[~ the
next ~ to ~ years. ~ t~tvt~ual septic tan~s ~e~e ~equlted to
be tnap~t~ and ipptov~ by ~be County Boatth Department.
Hu~hes. ~d dMloped 3 o~t County subdivisions a~ the;e ~d been
site a~ the ~eot t~t it might neve~ be tastde the city limits o~
~nton, it ~8 Eea8o~blo to gzant the vaztancea on thie pzopezty,
I( the ~ul8e ~ze to ~ ~l~tdty enioEced, theEe ~uld be no
~oced~e (o~ ~uegtt~ a vaEia~ce. She believed that esi a
pzopezty zequest (oz a vaziance.
hyo~ 6teea~t isled w~t' Mdc MS, Po~ell betieve that this
would Sot be aunexed tn the iutu~o.
Mt. P~ll ~empo~ed t~t the city vas busy with the develop~nt to
o~ ct~y services. ~ly a liege developet would Justify the cost
be en~gh property tax ~e tO JUttt~y the cost of ezte~tng valet
The p~oDe~ty vas ] et 4 miles ~tou Highway 380 a~ only 3/4 mete
~tou t~ X~uge~vilte. I~ iU~EI~, ~e police could not pat~ot
~eet it could be est~d by tho Ftte ~pattten~ and ~utd sub-
limits.
~yoc P~o Tea ~tns aa~ ~ the BtacWcoo~ Co,unity ~at~
so~ve mthtt ~4 IOt mu~Lvtston ~en they had difficulty tn metvin~
tbet~ extmttug custoae~..
~. powett ~espo~ed tha~ ~uudtng was now available to ~he Utac~oc~
system to d~tll a seco~ ~tt a~ she ~ett that the valse so,vice
would be available tn t~ nez~ ~ew mon~ha.
.j
292
city of Denton City Council Minutet
Meeting of October 1, 1985
Page Nine
The£e wac existing service on Shady Oaks Drive which ~ant that the
wac a water line approximately 130o feet f£om the entganoe to this
tract.
in favo£ stating that while going through the p=elilina=y plat
phase, he had spoke in with M=, Hughes £ega=ding the changes in the
standards between city and county specifications which appeared on
the surface to be liner. Alter receiving all el the requirements,
M£. Hughes had become concerned about the cost. & cost analyeia has
been done which showed a difie=~ee el $100.000 if developed by
County standards and $&oo,o00 if developed by city standards, This
would be a substantial increase to the potential buyers. Ii this
was not annexed into the city in ~he next 20 to 40 yearl, any
ilp£ovements installed at the tams el platting would t~ve ~eached
their economic lite amd would have no service value to the city.
Mayo= Pro Tom Hopkins asked if the st=eel paving had boon calculated
at the City el Denton estate eubdiviatou
Edwards responded yea; the coats had been calculated for
with no cu£bing OF guttering and at a width of 24 fee~. This was
based on a bid which ~r. Hughes had received. &nether tease was the
coat difference between a 4~ water lime built to county standa£de
and a 6" water line which was approximately leu= times as
expensive. The mate£ials were a small po=tmon of the cost. The
pr~a£y £eason ~or the cost dilfezenee wac the ~nepeetion end the
lire hydrant spacing and location. His ItEl was working with
Bolivar Mate= Supply Co£poration and $5,oo pea linear foot was what
they dha=ged mcr the extension el water l~nea. They loot
approximately 1% to 2% pe£ month Which was an extremely low water
lOIS Fate.
Mayor P£o TeB Hopkins asked whe=e the vate£ would go. There was a
drainage channel on the city's po=tmon which i~dicate~ a
elaborate earthen channel which would need to be con~t£ucted to
has, lie the engineering.
Edwards responded that the drainage was the 1 requl=elent which the
city had waived. Theze was a natural channel and this type of
development would have Iodeet inc£eaees in
Mayo= Pro Tea Hopkins asked i~ the =un-o~E would be led into the
T=tnity e£ea or into neighbor's
Edwa£de replied that the run-on= would ~low into a ne[ghbo£'a
p&etu£e,
Mayor Pro Tel Hopkins caked tl the£e via channelieation el any type
in the neighbor's pasture.
Edwards responded nnne other than natural
Mayor Pro Tom Kopkins asked what would be Mr. Hughes'a liability in
draining 24 lots onto a neighbor's area.
Rdwa£ds responded that that issue would have to be reaea£ched i~ the
development we£~ allow to proceed. These wa£e very la=ge leto and
it via anticipated that they would have grace lawn areas. A
area would absorb lore water than a natural grass area due to the
density el the vegetation, Based on the lot a~ze, if a
sized houee and lawn were assumed, calculations could be
accomplished which would show lees run-om! would occur if the
property were developed than iff the p£opegty were undeveloped.
No one spoke in oppoeition.
The Mayo£ closed the public hearing.
293
City o~ l~uton City Couuott Minutes
~age Ten
Denise %pivey, Ucban Planneto cepo£ted that the petitione£ had
daveleped ¢ eepa£ate vazianoes on the city subdivision and laud
development £egulations. Eight £eply [o£us had been ~ailed with
ze£o £etu~ned in ~avo£ and one £etu£ned in opposition. The Ei£et
va£ianoe £equested couee£ned £ight-oE-wa¥ and st£eet paving
standards. The petitione¢ was requesting an oppogtuntty to use
county standards. The }~elimina£y plat was approved with the
condition that zight-oE-way ~o£ a Eutu£e collecto£ et£eet be
ac~oes the northernmost lot tn Che subdivision. The petitione£ was
~eques~tng a vaziance o~ ~antin~ th~s zi~ht-oE-way. The second
flue.. The 8ubdSv$1Lon ~lel a~ Re~latious ~equt~ed a mSn$~m 6"
watez lt~e size and in a Eesidential seca, ~tCe ~ydCants spaced
every 6~ ~eet. The pett~one¢ was ¢equesttng a vaCtance o~ these
ozt~e~ta. T~ sewe~ service ~oE this pa~t~cula~ development Mould
done ~ each lo~. The county ~e~ula~tons ~aze on a pe~ Eootaqe
~athez than pe~ ~o~ bae~. The city ~egulat~ons ~ucthe~ ~equ[zed
that a septic tan~ application be submitted to t~e D~teoto~
Utilities. T~m aDp~toatton must include a dta~in~ and a tepott
~ou a legislated 6antta~tan showin~ the plat o~ tbs septic tank.
The pet~tio~e~ ~el~ ~t ~he county 8ta~a=de were a~equate as
a8 ~he epact~g o~ two peEcolation =es~8 and believed ~t would be to
thl convenience o~ the individual lot o~e~s to have thei~ septic
eya~e~ designed at the ti~e they were installed. T~e las~ variance
~eque8~ wa~ to t~e aEtiole which detailed d~a~na~e s~anda~ds and
=equizeuents. Nhen the pceliuina=M plat was submitted. [t was
t~oug~ ~bat a cone~ete tined channe~ would be ~equ%zed ~m this
come,dazed by the ~velo~ent Review Co~ttee and the Planning and
Zoning Co~tee~on which ~d =eco~ended denial el alt 4 va¢iances,
The vagtance p¢ocedu¢e listed ~ conditions which should be met
beEo¢e a variance ceuld ~ gzantad. These va¢tancee did not neet
al~ o~ the a conditions. ~ta~'s conce¢n was that city ¢egula=~ons
should be ez~ended tn~o ~be ex, Ca te¢¢~to¢~al Jurisdiction. The
subata~acd u~tl~ty 8ys~,, coed syl~oms, oc dca~nage s~g~e~ wece
[nhe~iKed. Nhtle i~ wac unlikely that R=ope~ty [n =his a~ea would
be anmezed tn the nea~ ~u~u=e, steel ~elt the philosophy beh[~
Juci~dictton was 8titl valid.
Council ~u~ ~Adaus elated t~t thece were spec[[ic c~t~e~ia
addzesled tn the ~egula~ona. [E t~ese c~te~a weze net, a
not been ~=. To euqge~= that t~ p=ope~tM ~uld not be annexed
~he next 20 yea=~ wac a~eu~at~on. One =ea~on the ~e~lattona had
been extended imco C~e ex,ca tec~itoc~al ~u~tsdict~on was that
8ubsta~a~d de.top, nCc ~re annexed, all the taxpayecs oE ~nton
had to' pa~ to bring ~he developments up to standards. The Council
bad 8~n ovec a~ oyez a~ain p~oblem8 with p~opetty which had been
develope~ Ea ~e ~ount~. I~ the a~anda~da ~e~e ~educed, Et did
less. ~e oily deve~op~ 8ta~acd8 because it was necessary. She
~ecognt=~ ~hat might ~an t~ the=e ~uld be sous ~tece= o~
p¢opezty ~tch could ao~ be developed [o~ ce~ta~n uses, The
salved ~o 9cotect ~e o~bec pcopecty owners tn Chess acea~.
McAda~ motion, Chew second to deny the pet[lion [o~ variances.
Motion oactied u~ni~usly.
~. The C~uno~l con, ids=ed adoption o~ an o~d[nance
aceept~q competitive bids and .p=ov~d~ng ~o= the award o~ cent=acts
294
City ct Denton City Council
#eating o[ Oetobe£ l. 1985
Page Eleven
fo~ the purchase o~ ma~e~ials, equipuent, supplies
p~a¥iding Eo£ the expenditu~e o~ ~nds the£a~eee; and p~oviding
an e~eotive date.
The ~ollo¥ing o~dtnance was p~eaentad:
NO.
AN OED[NA~CE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE B[~ ~
CO~ FOR ~ P~SE OF ~I~S, ~1~, SUPPLIES
O~ SE~ICRS; PROVIDI~ FOR T~ ~P~I~ OF
C~W Botion, Al[o~d second [o adopt the cEd[hanes. O~ ~o~ call
Ch~ "aye," and ~yo~ Steva~t "aye." ~tion ear,ted
a. T~e Council considered adoption o~ au
~undl the~e~o~el a~ p~ovtdtng io~ an e~lective da~e.
T~e Iollo~[ng o~dtnance uae
~. SS-tg5
~ ORDI~ ~I~ C~ETIT[~ BID5 ~ Pa~IDI~G ~O~
PROVIDING FOE ~ [[p~[~ ~ F~ ~FOR:
P~IDING FOR ~ EPF~CTI~ ~.
Che~ action, Atio~d second [o adopt the o~t~noe ~t[2 ~he
o[ Rid ~ ~509. On ~oll call vote, ~a~ "aye," ~9~tns
~[[on ca~[ed unant~ualy.
o~ competitive bids; and pcov[din~ ~o~ an eggect[ye date.
The ~ollow[ng o~inance was p~ele~ted:
~ OHD[N~CE PROVIDING FOE ~ B~[~ OF
8EHV[~S IN A~OHD~CE W[~ ~ P~I~I~ OF
~TING 8U~ PUE~8 FE~ ~IH~ ~ ~TITI~
BIDS; ~ PHOVIDING FOE ~ ~FE~I~ ~.
C~W motion, MeAdame second to adept t~ o~di~e. ~ ~ol1 call
vole, McAdaaa "aye," ~pk[ne "aye," Stephens "aye," AlgO=d
~ "aye," and ~yo~ Steua~t "aye." ~[[on cagzied u~ni~usly.
D. The Council cona[dezed ~eption O[ aa ozd[~nce a~
8eEvice plan annexing app~oxi~[ely tls ac~ea o~ land being
the ~. West Survey, Abstract 1331, a~ beginning ~gpEeEi~toly 5.000
~eet ~o~th o[ U.S. Highway 380 ~8t and ~et o[ Roe~it[ ~o/d A-22
The ~ol~ow[ng o~d[~uce was ~eeen~od:
~. 85-197
~ ORDIN~CE ~X~ A T~CT OF ~ ~[GUOUS
~NT TO ~ CI~ OF D~. ~ B~I~ A~h ~T
ACHES OF ~ ~Y~N~ ~ B~I~ 8I~D IN ~ ~ OF
295
city o~ D~nton City Council
Meeting o~ October: t. ~985
~age ~lve
~, ~TA~ ~ ~ ~ BEING P~T OF ~ J,
Mcface ~tio~. Ch~ ~eco~ ~o ado9~ ~he o=dtnance. On ~oll
Chew "aye," l~ ~o~ 6~Et "aye." Hotio~ cad,ted
R. ~e Council considered adoption o~ oEd~nance and
service plan tnstttutt~ annexation p~ocee~ngs ~ app~ox~ely
160 aa~e~ be~ pa~t o~ the BBB & ~R Survey, ~be~aet 143, and
~ooato~ ~ oC ~ 1L73, ao~h of Ba=thold Road. ~ o~ 1-35N. and
east of ~sch Bearish Road a~ the ~&SF Ra~l=oad -
Cecile Ca~8on, U~ban Pta~ne~, ~epo~ted ~hat ~hi~ wa8 the
Zoning Co~88ton ~d ~eo~ed apg~ova~ o~ the annexa~ion was to
control la~ uses ~n the aEea ~tch weze expanding amd seemed to be
~yot 8~a=~ aiWed ~C a~ develop~nt was planned on the lots to
Cazmontcempo~e~ no; developuent vas occuc~ing on the tcact8 cloaez
to the ~tgMy. Sta~t ~d seen a need Co~ con, cot on tcac~
whe¢e d¢at~e was to ~ d~veeted. F~nat action was icheduled on
this a~mexattom ~o¢ ~ove~E 19; ho~ve¢, the schedule was [lextble
should t~ Ct~y Council dec,de to ~euove p¢ope¢ty [¢ou the
annexation 9agcel.
The ~ollowing oEdt~nce was 9~esented:
~. 8~-
~ ~ P~L ~ ~ ~SISTXN~ OP ~PHOXI~Y 160
~, 8~ ~ ~6 ~ B~I~ P~T OF ~ BBB & CHH
~AdaR~ ~to~, ~9~tus S~ond to app=ove the oEdtnance with the
deletion oi to~ 2 (ME. ~Ethotd's p~ope~ty.) On ~otl call vote,
Me~a~ ,aye, ~ HopX~na Days.' 8tephen~ "aye." AlEozd 'aye." Chew
"aye," a~ ~yoz St~azt ,aye." ~tton ca==ied u~nimously.
F. The Cou~tl coastdezed adoption el an o=dt~noe
· e~vtce plan tnsctcu~t~ a~e~aCton p~oceedtngs Co~ approximately
~bst~aeC ~. t~e C. ~eon 8ucvey, ~batcact ~298, amd ~ne
Cect~e CiEIO~. U~bi~ Ptaane~. ~epo~ed that ~hte vas the
¢eadtmg el ~e a~ne~tioa o¢dt~nee. The Itmal o¢dtnance would be
p~eseu~ed on ~ove~ 19. SCaC~ DEcimated an oveehead p~oJeotton o~
che 8UZ=Ou~tng a~ea. ~ petition Co= voluntazy annexation ~n
a=ea ~8 ~ 9~epa~ed.
The ~oll0Wt~q o~tn~ee Va8 pEelented:
296
City of D~nton City Council ~inutes
~elting of Octobe£ 1. 1985
AN ORDINANCE ANN~XIN~ A T~ACT OF ~ CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO Tm CITY OF D~NTON, T~EA$~ Bring ALL THAT ~OT,
TRACT OR PArCEL OF [~ND CONSIGTIN~ OF ~P~Xl~Y
DEM~, 5TA~ OF TE~5 ~ BEI~ P~T ~ ~
8~Y, ~BS~CT NO. 800, C. ~ 8~Y, ~
~5; C~881FYING ~ 5~ A~ ~HI~L "A" DIBT~
~ROPER~; ~ DECL~IN~ ~ EFFECTI~
vote. Hc~aus "aye," Hop~im8 "aye," Stephens "aye," &l~ozd "aye,"
Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yo~ Stewart "aye." ~tiom ea~t~ u~i~uely.
~, The council considered adoption o~ an o~di~nce
set~tng a date. tiae amd place ~oz public heazi~a concerning the
pmtition o~ ~e City of ~nton ~or annexation o~
Survey, Abstract 2. N. Ruzleson SuEvey, AbitEact 93.
Survey, Abstract 249, a~ ~he a. Johnson 5UEYIy. Abetcact 666. A
oonttnuation o~ ~he existing ~nton city limit line ~tou a point
be~tnnin~ app~oxi~tely 900 ~eet touth o~ ~anaez Road to a poin~
miles) i8 pEopo~ed A-26
liae no,th to within 1/2 u~le o~ the City o~ 6angec e~ty liBit.
Uhis wouldbe approxf~telF 300 ac=oS with a ~i~t-o~-way
4oo East on both sides of IntecstaCe 35. Stale was zeeoMe~ing the
public hea~tmgf be held on OotobeE 15 a~ Noveube~ 5 with the ~i~l
action oecu==ing on Janua=y 7. 1986.
Tho ~ollowing o~dtnance wa~
NO.
~ ORDIN~CE SETTING A ~, T~ ~ P~ FOR P~LZC
~AHI~S ~ ~ PRO~ ~TI~ OF C~TAIN
DESCRIBED ~REIN BY ~ CI~ OF D~.
AU~HIZING ~ DI~CT~N~ T~ ~YO~ ~ ~LISH ~TIC~
5U~ PUBLIC
~pkins ~otion, Chew eeco~ to adopt the o=dt~nce. On ~o1~ earl
VOte, MC~a~8 "aye," ~pkin8 "aye," 8teghe~8 "aye," Alined "aye,"
Chew "aye," a~d ~yOC Stowa~ "aye." ~tio~ Ol~r~d ~n~louGly.
H. The Counci~ consideced adoption o~ au o~di~nce
~t~t~on o~ s~ul c. naruoh ~oc voluntac~ annexa~Lon
app=oxi~elM 92.60 aczea beg~ing appzoxt~tely ~00 ~eet
H~g~ay 77 an4 apptoxi~tely 1,050 Oeec east of 1-35N
cecile ca,gen. UEban P~anne~, epO ted this a nexat on
e~aoat~icatton on this pcopec~y amd ad]otnt~ 9~oglcty ~ic~
Ba=ueh o~ed aout~ o~ H~hwaM 77. ~a~ ~eco~ed public
be held on Octobe= ~5 and New,be= 5. Th~s a~e~tion ~uld
anticipate any ~utu~e development in this acea due to the extenmion
o~ Loop 288 and the possible ~ocation o~ Texas Ims~u~nta
T~e ~ollow~Gg oc~oe WiS pceaented:
~. 85-199
~ ORDZN~ BE~NQ A ~TE, T[~ ~ P~B F~ P~LIC
~ZNOB ~ ~ PRO~SRD ~TI~ OF ~AZN P~PER~
DEGCRIBED ~IN BY ~ C~ OF D~,
297
city o~ Denton city council Minutes
Page Fourteen
MeA~ama uo~o~, Ch~ second ~o ado~ ~he o~dtnanoe. On ~o~
chew "~ye," a~ ~yo~ S~lVi~ "aye." ~on c,~ted ~n~uous~y.
~. ~he ceunct~ considered idop~on o~ an oEd~nance
=e~tng a di~e. ~tle an~ place ~o~ public hea~tngs eonce~ntng
petition o~ ~l R. Lacquo~n~ [o¢ vo~untacy annexation o~
app~oxi~ely 55 a~ce8 being pe~t o~ the T. Toby Survey,
~288, a~ beginning adjacent a~ vest o~ ~ 2~64 app~oxt~te~y 3,000
Cectle Cation, UCban Planne~, ~e~oCted that thin petition
teconen~ed ~hat the pub~e heat[n~g be held on October ~5 a~
Nove~be; 5.
The ~ollowtng ordnance Was presented:
NO, 85-200
~ O~IN~ 6~INQ A DATE, T~ ~ PL~E FOR P~LIC
~ING8 ~ ~ ~OEED ~TION Of ~TAIN PROPER~
~IZI~ ~ DIR~IM~ ~ ~YOR ~ P~LXSH N~IC~ OF
Hopkins ~iOa, ~aS second to ado~ the o~d[nanee. On ~o1~ call
vote, ~Mall "aye," ~tn8 ,aye," Stephens "aye," Almond "aye,"
Chew "aye,~ and ~yo¢ Stwact "aye." ~t~on cackled
aba~o~tng ~ vacating ce~mfn ~til~y easement,.
Rob Nelaon, Dt~ecto~ o~ U~il~io8, ~opo~ted t~t this was a
abando~nt ~ an eage~ in ~he Noztbwoo~ ~d~on. T~i8
~ntou Blectzie Coope~at~ line which the city had and thta ~as a
The [olloving o¢~inance vel p~emented:
~. 8~-201
~ ORDXN~CE ~~ ~ VACATING CERTAIN ~ILX~
'~8 AS DB~IBRD ~R~IN; ~ ~C~ING ~ EF~CTI~
Chev "aye,' a~ ~yo~ 6C~aE~ "aye." Mo~[on cad,ted uuniuoug~y.
K. T~e Council conltdecid adoption o~ an ocdinance
p~ovidtnq ~o~ the aba~o~nt o~ a d~ai~ge easement with the City
and aut~cizing the ~yoc ~o execute a quitclaim deed convey~n~
~ight, title, a~ lntozest o~ the City in said eaeemen~ to the o~er
a ~eque~t ~o~ the o~er o~ the tract to abaton the easement. When
the su~ivtsion ~as buil~, the developer and city sta~E had agreed
The ~oltoM~ng o~d~nance Mae pcesented:
~. 85-202
~ O~DXN~ P~OVIDING FOR ~ ~R~NT OF ~ D~IN~GE
· ~6~T MI~XN ~ CX~ OF D~NTON ~D ~UTHORIZING
298
city o~ Denton City Council Minu~es
~e®ting o~ Octobec 1. ~985
Page Fifteen
M~YOR TO RXECUT~ A ~UX~IM ~ C~Yl~ ALL
TITLE ~ I~T~REST OF ~ Cl~ IN S~ID ~
~R OF T~ T~CT OF h~ ~D BY 8~ID ~T~
DEC~ ~ HFFECTI~ DA~.
~ams motion. Chew second to ado~ ~he o=d~ee. On =o~1 call
vote. Mo~am8 .aye," ~pk~ne "aye." 8Cephenl "aye, . Xl~ocd "aye,"
C~ "aye," an~ ~yoz Ste~ac~ *aye." ~Cion catered u~nl~umly.
L. T~e Council conmidezed adopt~o~ o~ an ozdi~nce
~e~altng Pa~agcaph Bog ~cciole ~ of Xppe~tx B-Zeaing og ~he Code
o~ O~d~nce6 oE ~he City og Den~mn ~elactng t~ ~he appffova~ by the
C~ty Council o~ pla~e o~ eu~vtmions ~thin an a~ea
anne~t[on p~ooeedinga a~e pending.
Je~ ~yez. D~ec~oz o[ Planntng a~ Co,unify ~velop~ent. zepo~ed
that thim ~tem had been p~eviouwly dtscueeed b~ the City Council.
The ~o~owing o~dinance was p~esented:
~. ~$-203
~ O~D ~Cg ~PEA~ ~ P~PH B OF ~T l CLE 21 OF
~N RE~T[~ ~ ~ ~P~L ~T ~ CI~ CO~CXL OF
P~T8 OF S~DIVISlON8 M~XN ~ A~EA ~E
C~ mot~o~, Al~offd second to adopt t~e ocd~nce. On coil call
Ch~ 'aye.' and ~yo~ 6tewact 'aye." ~Ciou ea~zted u~nimouely.
M. The Council comeideced adoption oC an ocdt~nce
a~ing Appendtx A ~n~on ~velop~nt Code of the Code o~
Oedt~nces og the Cl~y og Den~n. Texas to pcov~de ~o~
~lpom~t~on o~ ~ee8 ~o~ submt~Ctng pet~tto~ ~o~ volun~a~
antic ~ona.
~yo~ P~o Tem HopKinl moated tha~ tht.8 ocdi~noe ~uld a~lov
city to cecove~ a portion o~ the co~t~ ~o~lv~ w~th anmexatton
advectistng co~t~.
The ~ollo~tn~ o~d[~nce was pzesented:
~ COD~ OF O~DIN~CE8 ~ ~ CI~ OF ~, TE~
PROV~D~ FOR T~ I~OSIT~ON OF FEE5 FOR 8~MX~Z~ PETITI~5
FOR VOL~T~Y ~TI~8= PH~tD~N~ ~ 8~LI~
~ PR~ID~ FOR ~ ~FF~CTI~ ~.
Hopkins motion, Mc~ams seco~ ~o adogt the o~d~nance. On =o~1
vo~e, Mc~a~ "aye," Hopkt~s ,aye," 5tephe2s "a~m," Almond "aye,"
Ch~ "aye." a~ ~yo~ S~a~t "a~e." ~ton cl~ied
N. The Counet~ eonaide~ed adoption o~ an o~dt~nce
appEoving a contract be~mu ~m C~y o~ ~n~on a~ C. L.
Little~told loc p~o~eee~o~l coneulctng 8e~vtee8 ~ega~dtng a
~g~nt evalua~ton stay ~oz t~e Utility ~pact~nt o~ the City
~g ~a~on.
Bob Nelson, Ditectot et Utilities, tepotted &~t thim wac the
ocdinance apptov~n~ the conttact ~ch ~d been dtmeummed at the
299
City et Denton City Cou~eil Minutes
~et[~q o~ O~tobe~ 1. ].tis
Page Sixteen
T~e ~O~owtug ocd~nce wes p~eueated:
~. 85-205
8tepb~8 ~ion, Cb~ ~eeo~ to adoD~ ~he o~dinance. On co~l call
VO~e,
5.
A. ~e Counet~ oong~deEed aDDtova~ of a resolution
RESOLUTION
The C~y Counell o~ ~he City o~ Denton, Te~s, hereby
nomtna~e~ ~ Pinta Co be a Beubec o~ the Boa~d o~ Directors o~
tho CoWry Wide AD,tarsal 'Die,riot ~o~ t~e County o[ Denton, Texas.
date o~
PABSRD ~ APP~ this the tat day of OctobeE, ].985.
RIChArD 0. ST~NART, MAYOR
C~TY OF DENTON. TEXAS
ATTEST =
CHAELOTTIt ~.~11. CITY 8ECaiTAR¥
~PR~D ~ ~ L~AL FO~:
DEB~ ~I D~Y~I~, CI~ AT~Y
Stephens ~[tou, Hopkins aeco~ t~t the ~esolution be appcoved. On
C0~1 call VOte, ~aU8 "aye," Ho~[n8 "aye." Step~n8 "eye," Al~ord
"aye," C~ "aFe." a~ ~yor Stewart "aye. . Motion
~niuous
R. The Coune[~ considered app~ova~ o~ a resolu~ion
authocizi~ ~ City ~er to ~ke payment to Lone 8ta~
Company for eligible coa~l ~oc ce[oca~[on of utility ~acilitie8
~eeu~t~ ~E~ acquisition o~ ~[g~t-o~-way ~or Loop 288.
300
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ Octobe£ l, 1985
Page Seventeen
RESOLUTIQ~
~H~RE~5, on July ~5, 1~7~ the City o[ D~nton entered into a
contract with the State Department of Highvays a~d Public
Transpo£tation to procure right-of-way for the ez~enelon of Highway
Loop No. 288 from the present north terminus o~ U. 8. Highway 380.
no£th and west to Znte£state Highway 35: and
MHEREAS, pursuant to such ACqUisition oi tight-oS-wey0 Lone
8ta£ Gag company is £equi~ed to relocate certain pipelines and
~acilttiee: and
k~tEREAS0 in acco£dance with the cont,&ct between the City
· =an~Voztation. the City will reimburse Lone Star ~s io~ the
o~ ut~l~t~e~ ~elocatton and the State Pill ~ai~u~se the City o~ the
eligible ~elocatioa eo~ts yard by the C~ty; a~
~R~S. the reimbursable colt o[ thi utilities relocation
bF Lone Star Oas Conpam~ ~as been dete~mined to be in amount
~aty-three Thouaa~ Pour Hundred Ei~htF-ei~ht a~ Mo/lO0
by the State ot the eligible ~elocat~on eOItl: and
~RE~S, Lone 5ta~ Gas Company has ~equeated that the City
ol ~nton, by resolution, authorize ~he pa~ent ct t~
~eleeation coat p~or to the beginning ol the
s~c~ ~.
T~at t~e city ~nagec ~s Ueceby authectze~, tn acaozdanee
wtt~ the City o~ DeaCon's coat,act w~h ~he 6~i~ ~t~
the estiuted eligible costs thereof ~g ~9 :he a~unt
~nty-th:o~ Thous*nd Fou~ ~rod Eighty-e~ght i~ No/100 Dollars
(823,488.00), and th~ ~etua~ ecsc to be submitted, determined
pa~d upon completion of the ~eloce~ton
SR~ION
That this Eeeolutton s~Xl become elleetive i~ediately
upon its passage an~ ag~oval,
PASSED ~ APPEND thte ~he let day o~ OotobeE. 1985.
RXC~mRD O.
CITY OF
ATTEST:
C~IARLOTTK ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APP~D AS ~ LEGAL F~:
~ AD~I ~YOV~T~, CITY A~R~Y
BY:
call vote. Mo~aue "aye." HOydens "aye." ~teVhe~ "aye,"
"aye.,, Chew "aye," and ~yo~ Stewart "aye," ~tton
u~nimouaty.
301
City et D~nten C~ty Couao~l
Keeling o~ Oe~obe~ 1,
Page 8~gh~eem
C. ~he Counotl cons~de£ed approval dC a resolutioa
~eques~tt~g t~e GrAte K~gtway CoUm~ls~On to autho£~ze the
Coupamy.
Highway h~tBe~ ~o coKt~e and u~gca~e ~he ~m~e~mce
~ntetleotton dC the ~[ont&~ toid ~n~ &~tpo[t Bo~.
The ~oll~t~g eesoluCton ~e p~eeente~:
~n ~nto~ tee~lze t~e ~d ~ot the ~BDtove~ent of the seuthbou~
Ctontaqe told to en~atge the t~tn~ng Cot reactor
ttai~e~ ~u~nt.~ ~v~nt~ ae veil as the need ~ot an entrance tamp
~oB t~e ~o~&age toad ogle southbound Interstate H~ghvay
N~. ~~. B~ IT RB~D BY ~ ~CIL OF ~ CITY OF
~C the City Co~nc[~ o~ the City o[ Denton. Texas does
and au~Etze t~ oonmt~uotton et the a~o~euent~o~ed tup~ovement8;
, ~ F~ ~ %T RBGOL~D, that the City Bectetary
et the'State ~g~y Co,Lesion.
P~61D ~ APPR~ &~tl the ~Gt day o~ October. 1985.
BZC~q~l~D O, GT~N/~T, MAYOR
ATTSST:
CI~ ~ ~. ~
Che~ ao~ton. ~llo~d s~eo~ ~hat the ~esolu~ton be approved. On ~olt
unant~ully.
6. T~ Cou~tt co~atd~=ed app=ovat ol ~t~t pa~ttetpation cost
~o= a ~e~ ttne a~ s~ ttne ove=stze a~=ee~nt ~adows ~btte
~ue Pt~k.
~b~c Utilities Board a~ the C~ty Council had apDtoved a
3O2
city o~ Denton City Council
Meeting ct Octoba~ 1, 1985
Page Nineteen
participation ag£eeuant with Champion Mebtle Kou Pl~. The noue
had been changed to Meadow Mobile Hone Pa£k and it vas nov c&lled
pattic~pat~on had bean given at that time. The ~in~ ~igute was
agreement.
~yo~ POd ~eu Hopkins alked ~ov ~ny eustouet~ veto anticipated.
NeSeon tesponde~ 640.
Ne~eon ~epotted that ~he 640 [~te va~ ~uat ~n t~Lw pa~t~eu~at
~b~Xe ~ome paE~. The seve~ X~ne vas
gemecal aces: hovevec, tbs varec lime
anticipated would go all the way out ~K~nney a~d loop back Up to
H~g~Way 380 amd bao& in.
cost. Motion cat=~ed unini~ue~y.
7. ~e couno~ cons~e~e~ ~ovaZ o~ ap~o~n~nt o~ c~y o~
~&on members to &he Flow Neuot~al Hospital BooEd o~ Di~eoto~s.
HopPing uotSon. Stephen, ,eco~ to appoSat Pt. Don HoSt an~ ~.
stanley ~ntoe to t~e Flow ~uot~al
No&~on tattled umantuou8lM.
9. No items ct New num~ness ve~a suggested by Couuc~l Meibetm
foz ~u~u~e agendas.
~0. The Coumci~ ~ecoavened
discuss ~e~a~ uattets, ~ea~ estate, peteonne~ a~ board
ap~ointuentm. No ot~tciaS action was taken.
Mlth no ~utthet ~teue o~ business, the uee~ng was adjournS.
~370g
City Council #inutem
October ~5o 1985
· ~e COUnCil ~onvened intO the ~0£~ ~llS~on t~ ~he Civil Defense ~OOB
at 6:45
1. T~e Council oon~ned into the Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, teal estate, personnel and boa~d appointments. No
o~cictat action was ta~eu.
The Council then convened into the Regula£ Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
t~e Council Chambecs.
The ~ayo: teed a ptoelaution Cot Day in Couct ~oc the Denton Coun:y
Legal Secretaries Association.
The p£eelauCion vas accepted ~oc the Denton County Legal Secte-
ta£iem Association by M~. Chazlotte Allen.
1, ~be ~o~il ~e~e~ aQQ~oval o~ the Nin~tee ol
Sep~eBbe~ 19, ~985; ~he Special Cal~ed Meeting cE 5epteube~ 24,
~985: a~ the Re~lae ~e~tag o~ ~tobe~ 1, 1985.
~c~8 Bo~on, Ch~ second to appzove the Minutes as pzeuented.
~tion castled umam~usly.
2. Consemt
·he ~olLo~ing ~te~ vets te~ved ~tom the Co~ent ~euda bM
~ 2.A.iO (B~d ~ 9531 - ~teenway Plaza watecltne) and ~ 2,A.1 (Bid
9509 - ~dulac gutnttute).
Hopkins ~tton, Chew 8eeo~ to approve the Consent Agenda without
Che~ ~2ion. ~pktns seoo~ on iteB W~, the bid on ~dula~
Cu~n~u~e, ~ the a~oe be zodravn and zebtd. ~tion ca~ied
uaant~utly.
Conten~ ~e~a:
BY 6T~F 1. Btd$ 9509 Modular ~u~n~tu~e
2. B~d ~ ~20 - Side loading =efuae ~ucks
3, B~d ~ 9%23 Tcau~ot~ec ~epa[t
4, Bid ~ ~S24 - Gasoline amd dteee~
s. ~td ~ 9525 - Police sedans
6. Bid a 9537 - 6tteetltghta
8. Rid $ g&29 - Land, ill excavation
9. Bid ~ 9530 - Blush cleating on u~Lltty ease~nt
LO. Rid ~ ~531 - ateeaway Plaza waterline
11. ~utchage Otdez ~ 70133 to ~eticam
Bgete~ in the amount o:
B. Plats and
City o~ Denton City ¢ounct~
· &~o Tvo
· ddition, Blocks ~-4. (~he Planning and Zoning
Commission ceco~nds appcovat.)
2. ~pp£oval ot final ceplat ot the Ft~et State l~dditio~, Lot
1. ~lock 1. (The Planning and Zoelu~ Commission
ceeo~aends a~p~oval.)
4. Appcova~ o~ pcel~c~ ceplat o~ Oho Go~den To,angle
Industcial Pack Add~tion. Phase V, LoC 2. Block ~. (The
Plannin~ and Zoning Co~tes~on =eco~endn apgcoval.)
Co.issUes ~eco~nd~ appcoval.)
C. Chan~e O~deEs:
l. Constde~ approval o~ C~ngo O~dl~ Bid ~9513 with
5andb~aiting and Pa~m~ng Co~pany Co paine the expec~ion
o~ t~e 2~ ~Kenna 5land
D.
1. Cons~dez appzoval of a con~ae~ w~th SP~ ~n t~e auoun~
o~ 834,707 ~o provide ~canepoctatton secrete, to a
limited nuubez o~ ha~icapped pezeoma u~eE s~x~y (60)
yeats o~ age within tho C~ty listen. (The
Resoucces Co~ttee cecowndl
2. Considec approval cC a co~caet vith 6ecvioee P~ogcau
Agimg Heeds in the amount cC ~Z7,500 co pEovtde
t~anspottatiom, ho~ meals, a~ tmCoc~tion a~ re,octal
ae~vtcea ~o pezsone atxtM (~0) Mea~e o~ olde~. (T~e
Cona~de~ approval o~ a contzact ~ith Denton CitM-CountM
day ease to low income ~autl~e8 whets bo~h patents ~ck.
(The Hu~n RegouEce8 Con~tee ceeomnd~ appzoval.)
4. Congidec approval o~ a contract w~th F~ed ~oEe Child
Cate Centez ~n t~e a~uut o~ ~22,000 ~o pEovt~e dam
~o~ low tmco~ Ca,tiles, in~oc~t~on a~ ceCeccal
sezvicea, p~otect~ve dam caze ~oz abused c~tldzem,
co~ittee ~eco~e~e
~. Constdec app~ova~ cC a eon~aet rich ~n~on County
F~ende oK the Family in ~he a~n~ o~ 030,OO0 ~o
ele~genc~ 8helce~ and counseling to wo~n and
children ~o ace victims o~ tauily viole~ee, co pcovide
counseling ~o victims cE ~ape amd C~e~c ~amtly, a~ to
~antlM violence. (The ~n Reeouccee.
cecouuend8 appcoval.)
305
City of D~ntOn City Counc~
M~eting o~ Octobo£ 15.
Page Three
Ire= #& was loved focwa£d in the agenda order.
5, Resolutionm
&. The Council Conlidered approval of a relolution
app~oving an ag~eeaent by City nC Denton Industrial Developlent
Authoztty to issue bonds fo£ Safety-Klean Co£p. and the bond
£esolution providing fo£ tb~ issuance of such bonds.
Acting City Man&gez Rick Svehla repo~ted that the Denton Indust£ial
Develop~Jnt Authocity had Bet and econo, ended appcoval of the
bonds. The bonds we£e ~oz an addition to the
Co£pozation on the eaet aide of Denton to help improve ope£ations
amd to add [acilitiel; The pzopoeal was Eo~ $2.700,o00
ilpzove~emte in zsclaiming come of the fluids used in dry cleaning
ope£atioue.
Council Membe£ ~%ephane asked where this ~as ~ocated.
Svehla Celponded that the existing site was located on Coope£ C£eek
Road Just no,th of University acrnse free the Pillsbury plant.
The following £eeolutton wa~ presented:
RRSOLUT~ APYROVING ~N ~RE~NT ~Y
CIT~ OF ~ IIE]~Ti[~AL DSV~LOP~NT AUTHORITY
TO IlSU~ BO~D8 FO~ S~F~T¥-[LEL~ CO~P,
~DTI~ BOMI>R~BOLUT~ON P~OVID~N~ FOR
Tt~ ~eZUMfCE OF SUCH BOND~
C~TY OF'~
~S, City o~ Denton Industrial ~velop~t Authority
~as c~ea~ed u~e~ ~he auspices o~ ~he City o[ Denton. Texaa; and
Remolution be a~opted.
~O~. BE IT RESOLED BY T~ CI~ CO~C~L OF DENT~.
~s ~T:
Section l, The "Beiolution ~utho~izing the Issuance
City ot ~ton ~uet~ia~ ~velopuent Autho~itM Industrial
~veloglent Re~aue BO~l (6afety-Kleen Co=p. Pzo)ect) 8ez~es 1985.
a~d ~he Rzecu~ion of a T=HI~ l~entu=e and a ~oan ~ee~ent".
substantially ~he ~oEu a~ aubttance a~tached to t~i, Resolution and
appzoved, a~ the Tzus~ Indentuze a~ Loan Agzee~nt attached
thereto ate hereby ipeci~toelly appzoved, a~ Bo~s in the pzincipal
amount o~ $2,700,000 ~M ~ teeued puteuamt t~e~eto ~oz the
o~ pa~n~ t~e cost o~ acq~t~u~ amd constzuctin~ oz causin~ to be
8eotto~ 2. The City hezebM appzoves the ias~nce o~ the
aSozeeaL~ Bo~ ~n t~ aq~egate pzinctpal a~unt nE $2,700,000 fo~
~a~ety-Xleen Co~p., and ~uE~he~ appzove~ the P~oJec~ aa deacztbed
(' the ato[egaid Loan ~teeMaC, a~ such appEovala s~ll be solely Co~
~ t~e purposes et See~ion 103(~) of the Inteznal Revenue Code o~ 1~54,
o~ the Bonds aQ~ ~11 a~M o~ i~s assets be pledged to ~he
nE the Bo~s.
Sectiom 3. T~ City heceby assigns to t~e City of Denton
I~ustc~$l Do~o~t &u~ty ~t8 allocable po~t~on o~ the state
pcivate activity ~ Vol~ W~th ~eepect to the zese~vatton zequest
to be ~tled ~o~ t~e ~ by the City o[ Denton I~ust~[al
Develop~nt
3 0 6 city of canton city council Hinutee
Meeting of October 15, 1985
Page Hour
Stephens uotion, Hopkins second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, HoAdams "aye," Hop~iul "aye," Stepheae "aye,"
"IFa," ~iddlespe£glr "aFl." Chev "aye," an~ ~Layot Stlvart "aFt."
~otion car£ted unanimously.
The Council then returned to the regular agenda ozder,
3. Public Hearings
A, The Counoil held a pubtic hearing on the petition
Stave Yount regueating a change in zoning from the agricultural (A)
to~ the single family (s~-7) classification on an 8.7 acre tract
located on the south side of Aud£a Lane app~oxiuAtely 634 feet West
of Hockingbi~d Lane. The property is located tn the ~,E.P. &
Coupany Survey, Abstract 1473. ~L-t~
The Mayor opened the public hea~ing.
that the Planning and Zoning Co,lesion bad race,ended approval
t~ ~etit[on am ~d the P~aantng a~d Co~nity ~ve~op~nt
~pa~tment. The ~ezoning o( the t~act ~am ~m con(oE~noe
development ~tdeltues.
Mo one spoke in
The ~yoe closed the public hea~tng.
w%th minimum 7,000 square cost lots. The p~o~cty oouptted with
Denton develo}~nt guidelines.' It w~m designated ts ·
a~a ~hioh were the o~ty'{ Vg~m~{Y houm~ a~.
s~le iam~ly detached housing o~ the 7,000 squ~z~
co~atible with the Denton ~velop~t Guide a~ v~th surrounding
la~ use8 and zoning.
~au8 motion. Al~oEd second to a~p~ove the ~e~on. ~tton
ca,tied u~nluously.
B. The Council held a ~UbltO hea~t~ o~ ~he petition o~
tho City o~ Denton ~or anne~tton oi app~oxt~tely 2g~.97
being pa~t ct the I. Coy Survey, Abstract 212. J. Ayez8 Survey,
Abstract 2, N. Bu~leson Survey, ~bst~aot 93, B. BuEleson 8uEvey,
Abstract 249, a~ the R. Johnson Survey, Abstract 666. A
~gtnntng appcoxt~ety 9O0 lee~ south o~ ~anse~ 2oa~ to a point
ut1~) ts V~ovosod A-26.
~e ~yor opened the pubtic hearths.
cecile carson, U~ba~ ?taune~, ,po~e tn ~avor m~att~ t~c thtm vas
an a~nexat~on along 1-35 o[ app~oxt~tet~ 3 t/2 lites. It did go to
~e~e a portion el the ope~ation ~uld be a~nexed.
~eply fogmg ~tled to p~opezty o~e~l within 200 ~eet with 0
~etucned tn ~ivo~ i~ 5 tn opposition.
Council Meube~ 5tephen~ ae~ed t~ this val the ~tnt~a which could be
CaEeon cesponded; Fee, ~om a practical eta~potnt.
~b~a D~ayovttch, City ~ttozney, zero,ted t~t the law ~equi~ed the
c~t~ not to annex an~ t~act which ~d i,wtdth lees el ~00 feet. The
307
City o~ l~nton C~ty Council Minutes
~yot ~=o TII HoV~tna ita~ed that the attiV then had to be 250 ~eet
e~thet ~ttect~oa ~¢em the oentatt~ne o~ IH-35.
C&tson ~evo£ted that the v~d~h o¢ the st¢~V Would vary depending on
~nte~stlte,
annexation ~s ~o ooat~01 the p~o~o~ty an~ not ~o ~a~e ~n houeo o~
businesses, ~ then aa~ed ~ the an~xat~on 8t~ could be adjusted
~e~uce ~ a~ee ~a to e~tut~te then.
council ~ubez 8tev~e ~ed s~ai~ to pzov~e i~toz~tioa at ~uture
Council b~be~ ~ etatea to the audience that the ~ty
proposing to annex a et=tV going toward Seeger. The 8tt~p vas
pcesent. XF peopled to be appcox~cely 750 ~eet wide. The
looktn~ Late ~ztov~g t~ strip to 500 ~eet which was the u~n~mum
the ZaP
stat~n~ t~ he ~td no~ ~eee~ve a nottee cc the anne~ton.
Counott ~beE ~aug ll~o~ H~. aeZok~n wbeCe b~8 business was
Roaa,
~yo¢ 8~aE~ 8~a~o~ ~t · 750 ~ee~ 8~¢~ ~a~ been p¢o~o8e~,
Council could reduce t~ mtt~p to 500 lest but could not enlarge the
w~dth.
~yo~ ~o T~ HO9~ gawe ~. Belok~n a listing of the dates
~utuze public heaz~e on t~
~. ~ubtey ~t~. coside~t of Argyle, mpoke in oppom~tion stating
~t he ~e~ a tenet of ta~ on the west side cC the interstate
the J.-Ayet8 8uzvey whets tho catltoad ama ~he b~gbway intersected.
Be wan oppom~ because he d~d not ~ve the p=opez tn~o=~tion =o
a[~ttm t~ awEat~o~, l~ t~e vast he had been ~nvolved with othec
city al,~t,,..~ c.~o,teall, the p.o~l, who w.,. tak. n trite
the cindy ~a~t ~ea hel~d ~ot many yeats. This wad especially
~cue L~ ,tzi9 an~e~t~ons. ~ u~otntood the o~ty needed to expand
and to protect iii la~. Ht~ question was why could not the city
ta~e tn a bEoad Ipeet~ no 8etvice~ could be provided.
pcovet~F ~ located such t~t a lttt ~tatio~ could be ~equ~ced io~
308
City of Denton City Council Kinutes
I~eting ol Octobe~ 15, 1985
se~e£ se~vtce to be extended. #ate£ and othec public services ~ould
p£obably be ~an¥ yea~8 away. This pacticula£ pcope~ty Would be good
~o£ industrial use due to the £ail~oad. An industrial pa£k at this
location Would help the City o~ Denton. The et£1p annexation Would
kill that type development Eo£ sevo£&l ysa£$. HLS Eequest Was that
the Council give information to those persons ~ho ~eEe invo~ve~
an intelligent decision could be ~de. The En~ent Wa8 no~ to
Council ~ube~ Mc~ams asked [~ M~. ~ne~'g land ~ot~od on
M~, ~ne~ ~espo~ed yes.
Council Meube~ McAdaug asked Mc, ~ne~ to E~tcate hie que8ttong
~hey could be addressed at [utu~e public
ME. ~ne~ stated he ~ou~d ~ke to know V~t c~ty services could be
the a~ea.
~. ~len Goode, p¢o~¢tM o~e¢ om ~-3~ amd ~ 1~, spoke
oVVoeittom etat~n~ that he had Juat Vu¢chaaea the V~oveztM aa~ was
in the pzoceis o~ opem~ng a eualt business. They ~u~ently had
KEUm ~e~ephome numbez, a 5ange~ add,es8 and ~e now bei~
~ ~nton. He wanted to ~now ~ annexed. Could ha get a Denton
telephone and Denton ~tez. The wales Iotas ha cuz~ently ~d colt
$1200 a~ the sewe~ syste~ cost $~500 lox 1 bui~dtng. ~t the
vzesent t~ae his son lived in the shop on t~ p~opezty and one
his concezns ~as what type zominq a~ ~est~cttons ~uld ~he
pzope~ty have il annexed. He ~ould be opposed to being u~e~ the
C~ty el Denton lu~tsdtctton because he ~ould not ~ant to ~ve
co~ belo~e the Vla~ntn~ a~ Zontn~ Co,lesion and Council each
he ~anted to do so~th~ng on his p~opezty.
~yoz Ste~a:t stated that when land was annexed, existing uses on
the la~ ~ze ~andiathe~e~ in. ~1 land was no~lly zoned as
~ee-exia~im~ u~e on the land o~ auothe~ natu~e. The~e ~e people
ee~z as this was thais choice. ~z. Goode ~ould be a~lowed to ~eep
~yoc V~o Tem Hopkins stated that MC. ~oode could furnish stall
any questions ~h~ch he ~[ght have to be answered.
Council Membe~ ~Adame asked Me. Goode how ~ch o~ his p~oge~y
f~on~ed on 1-35.
Mx. ~oode ~esponded a~oxi~tely 500
M~. Rom RoddM epo~e in opposition e~a~ing that he amd Mx, ~nez
~d an option on pzopezty tn th~8 annexation ~oE 2 Feaze.
development on thio p~ope~ty was in the plannin~ erases. The city
had the aziza te:=~to=~al Ju~iadict~on now a~ wondezed the c~ty
would want to ta~e a s~l st~p a~ cont=ol one of the
exVenstve pieces o~ pzoperty on IH-35 a~ not lu=ntsh any
o~ utilities.
~, Dazin Goode, VzopeztM owne=, spoke tn opposition e~ating that he
was opposed because oit~ facilities would not be b~ought to the
poEtton et VEope~ty iacing on IH-35 on the wet side. This p~ope~ty
had been a ~a~u io~ yea~8 a~ should continue as such. She was also
oppoled to highe~ taxe8 a~ not knowing when city ~eev~ce8 ~utd be
extended.
Council Membez Stephens asked ~eze the pzopezty was located.
309
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
~eeting o~ October ~5,
Ms. StGgleton responded the property was on IH-35 di£ectly behind
the B1Ge ~ound church and beginning on IH-~5 south o~ the COlmUnity
Mayor Pzo Ten Hopkins asked bow ~ny [elt along IH-35 did she own.
The ~ closed the public heating.
of annlxa~to~ was to pco~t develop~nt of p~opecties a~ound and
be anne~d ~o= ~he ~ne~t o~ ~he c~ty. ~11 the extattnq businesses
would become legal noa-coagozaing uses. The annexation ~n question
woul4 ex~end ~o C~ea~ C~ which wa~ appcoxt~tely 1/2 mtXe f~om
o~ the ~t~e~ee ~=e loca~ed so close to IH-35 i~ was almost
impossible to ~go~ta~e azeu~ ~hem. 8ta~ woul~ check ~ootages to
see ~ a 500 ~eet steep could be annexed a~ ~hl~eby eltm~te the
~yo~ P~o Tem ~pktna aiX~ ~oz a map of all ex~ettn~ c~y llmits
lines Em the a~e~tEon azea ac the next publEe heactnq.
Council ~bec Stephens stated t~t M~. ~cnez a~ Mc. Redly ~d
~nttoned ~evelopmen~ tn the planning stagem tn the extca
tec~ttoc~al J~c~mdiettom and asked t~ eta(~ ~d been contacted
ce~acdi~ plat appzoval.
Cazmon Fmspo~md no.
pzoceduEel. ~ten eazzi~ u~ntaou~lM.
~yo~ ~M~t m~ated ~o~ t~ audience t~t t~e annexa~ion
was ~e~ a~ ano~hez ~bttc hea~tn~ would be hel~. The Cit~ did
not to enlarge Denton bu~ ~o contzol the gzo~h a~ou~ the city.
Develop~ata could not ~ controlled outside the c~ty limits. The
city ~d anted a~em8 ~toh ~e tn pooc condition a~ ~he cltF had
then h~ to ~ay ~o b~t~ the a~eets, ~ate~ and sewez e~eteae, etc.
up to ata~ae~. In t~e aelt 25 yeazs, a~l o[ Denton County ~ould be
C. .T~ Cou~il ~1~ · public ~eattng on the petition
G~ul C. Baz~oh fo~ voXaatacy annexation o~ apptoxL~tely 92.90
appzoxi~tely 1,OSO ~eet eag~ of I-3SN
The ~y~E o~ued the publLe
Cecile Ca~eon, Ugban Pla~t, ipoKe in Eaves stating that this wam a
92.~ aeze t~ac~ on H~q~y ~? west o~ the Texas
the PI~I~ A~ Zoning Co~teston ~n November. Three te~ly ~otml
had been ~llmd vith Zm~Q returned in ~avoc and one returned
No one mpo~e ~n oppostCion.
310
City of Denton city Council Minutes
Meeting of October 15, lg85
Page Eight
The MeyoE closed the public heaving.
Stephens motion, Chew second to pEoceed pith the annexation
procedures. Motion catered unanimously.
D. The Council held a public heaving on the petition
Mel R. Lacqueuont fei voluntary annexation of appEoEiuately 50.6
ac£es being peet et the T. Toby Survey. ~bstEmct ~288. and beginning
adjacent and west of FM 2~64 approximately 3,000 tact north
KeEcules Lane A-29.
The Mayo£ opened the public
Cecile Ca~son, U~ban Planne£. spoke in favor stating that this tract
vll a po£tton of a latge£ 4L2 acta parcel noEth et proposed LOOp
288. ~ possible zoning concept pXan had been discussed with the
after fina~ annexation. The second public hea£ing on this
an~exation would be held on NoveBbe£ 5. These vas ~ ~eply
uatled with 1EetuEned in tavo~.
west et the no£th.
extenAed to the south and to the vest. This Wis & 60 &c~a tract
Which vas not in the city. The pzopoeed planned developuent was toe
the enti£e react.
ME. Me~ ~acquemont, planning and zon[n~ consultant, 8po~o ~n
8~a~ng that a p~anned deve~opuent concept plan ~d been
to stale fo~ th~8 V~ope:ty.
No one spoke ~n ov~osXt[on.
The ~Fo~ closed the public
pEocedu~ee. Mot[on cad,led unan[mously.
E. The Council held a public hea~tng to conside~ adoption
p~ovieioni ~elattng to signs and :emitting a n~ ~t~ole X7 of
Appe~tx B-Zoning cE the Code cE Ozd~nauces cE the City oi Denton.
Te~s to p~ovide loc the ~egulat~ng cE s~gns and the permitting
t~zeot; pEeP[ding ~o~ a Ve~lty not to exceed o~e t~usa~ dollars
(8~000.00) icc violations thoEeot; V~ovid~ng to~ ~
cXause; ~o~eal~ng all o~di~nce~ ~n conflict the~eo~; a~d p~ovid~ng
~o~ an e[Eect[ve date.
The ~o~ opened the pub~e hea~ng,
No one spoke ~n
Mc. 81~ck Smith. ovne~ cE 3-D Vo~table 5~gn Co,any, spoke
opposition stating that ~e wa~ op~sed to the po~tabXe part o~ the
ot~tnance. Hie object,on ~am to the port,on on pa~e ~0. ~ect~on D
tegatdim~ a register to be kept o~ a~gn8. ~ d~d ~t see any
significance in keeping a tag[stet o~ t~ e~gns which veto taken out
and brought back other t~n to add to tho paperwork on t~e portable
sign owners. He also objected to t~e lim~tation cE 4 oE~
signs ~o people wac d~d not have the p~ope~ side, Scent and bac~
FeEds to pla~e 8Xga8. He ~elt th~s mhou~ be ~zea8~ to 6.
Tho ~yo~ closed ~he public heaz~ng.
C~atl~e Matk~n8, city staff, tmpo~ted t~t the ordnance
pEa~l~ted o~ t~e a~enda wet one which had been developed based ou
~he C~ty Council study eeae~on9. ~a pzocoes ~equtEement8 ~d
311
¢1t¥ o£ Denton City Council
#eeting o~ Octobac ~5,
heating to obtain thet£ zecomndation. The Plannin~ a~d Zoning
a~ea8. T~e Co~tssion wanted to pcoh~b~t o[~ p~emise~ portable
8~gns in 5 yea~s ~tc~ vel ~ov ~o o~dtnance oc~g~nally ~ead when
~zst ~a, ~evt~d bM ~he CoUncil. The ozd~nanoe be~oze t~e Council
signs ~e at~o~ pe~ bus,ness. ~lso the o~d~nce contained a
standard v~tch a~to~d 1 g~ou~d s~gn ~o~ every 10O ~eet o[
[zontaqe. The P~anntng a~ Zoning Co~iemion had o~tg~ually
~ecom~ed 1 gzound sign Eo~ evezM tSO [eet o~ fzontage.
and Zoning C~tesion ~as ~eoo~n~ appzoval o~ an ozd~nance
ove~y 450 ~eet o~ ~ontaql. The o~dtnance be~oEe the Council
and I gzound sign ~o~ evezy ZOO ~eet o~ street ~zonta~e.
g~n w0ul~ be ~egpongLble foe the 8pacing s~a~a~d viola~ton,
vas the o~ly ~y staff could dev~le to enfotce the tequttement.
~. The Cou~tl comutdezed adoption o~ sa o~dtuance
zepeatt~ the eltlti~g hEt~ole Z7 and othec pzovtu~on8 zelattng to
s~gut a~ ~oe~oting a ~ k~t~e~e 17 o~ Appendix B-Zon~n~ o~ the
Code cC OE~ueea of t~ C~ty o~ Denton, Texas to p~ovide ~oc the
pe~ltM not 2o excee~ one thouaa~ dollars ($~000.00) ~oz
T~e ~ollo~ing oe~nce ~e pte~ented:
~, 95-~06
~ ~DIN~CR ~Z~ ~ KX~STINQ ~TICLE 17 ~ ~R
17 ~ ~P~X B-Z~IMQ OF ~ CODE OF ORDnanCE50~ T~
CI~ ~ ~, ~5 TO P~IDE FOE T~ REGU~T~ O~
I~G ~ ~ ~1~I~ ~BEOF; PR~IDI~ FOR A PENALTY
~ ~ EX~D ~ ~UB~ ~h~ (ll,O00.O0) FOR
VIO~TI~S ~; p~ZD~NG FOR A 5B~RAB~LI~ CLAUSE;
R~I~ ~L ~I~G IN CO~LICT T~REOF; ~ PR~DING
Hopkinl motion. Chew second to adopt the ordinance a8
~yo~ P~o T~ HopW~n~ sta~ed t~t the ozainance could be a~nded
p~oble~ areas alOeS tn the ~u~ute.
Step~e~ ~tton, C~ 8ecou~ to a~ t~e Pa~e 9, Portable Signs,
3.A. to ~noteale t~ n~et of o~ premise8 signs to 6 ~ximum
instead O~ 4.
Council ~ubec ~au8 stated t~at ~ny cities were
pogtable signs altoge~eE. FOUE seemed to be a zeasonable place ~o
be~im. ~z ~sona~ teelt~u weED that po~able signs weze eyeeoze8
and 8~ ~uld like to nee ~hea zeneved. ~ the city ~a8 ~o~n~ to
allow ~ou, A ~f enou4~ ~o ~ave. Businesses could ~ve signs
t~e~t Loaat~o~ ~hele ~Eo ~ one8 Soa~teted over to~.
council ~e~ Stephens sta~ed ~t businesses did not ~ve to have
the signs but tE they wishe~, they could ~ve no ~ce t~n 4
9teu~aol
312
City o~ Denton City council Minutes
~eeting of Octobe= 15, 1985
Page Ten
A vote on the motion to &Bend wes taken. Motion ca£~led 4 to 3 with
Council Meube£s Riddlaepe~ge= and MoAdeu8 and Mayor 8tewe=t casting
the "nay" votes.
& vote on the amended o£dinance wes taken. On £oll cell VOte,
Me,dam8 "aye." Hopkinl "aye," 8tepbe~, "aye." Al~O=d "aye,"
· i~lespe~ger "aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yoz Stewart
ea~iea u~niaou,ly.
4. O~dinancea
A. The Council ~onsideEe~ adoption o~ an
providing ~o= ~he eEpendituce o~ ~u~8 therefore; a~ ~ovtaing
an e~e~tive ~ate.
· ~e ~ollowing o=di~n~e wa8
~ OHD~N~CE ACCEPTI~ ~[T[~ BZ~ ~
OR SERVICES; PR~[DZNG POE ~ ~[~R OF
Hopkins motion. Chew second ~o adop= ~he o=dinance wi~h
exception o~ B~d ~ 9509 ~h~ch wa8 ~euoved ~EoR ~he Con~ent Agenda.
On zoll call vote, Mo~aml "aye," Hopkins "aye." 8~lpheul "aye."
"aye.. ~[ion ca~ie4 uMnimoully.
a. The Council considered adoption o~ an o~di~nce
accepting competitive bids a~ p~ovidtnq ~oc t~ a~d o~ con, rests
fo~ public works or i~proveaents; p~oviding ~o~ ~he expenditure
~u~8 ~he~e~o~e; aha ~oviding ~o~ aa e~ective date.
The ~ollow[ng o~d[uance was pzeaen~ed:
NO. e~-zoe
~ ORDIN~C~ ACCEPTING ~RT[TI~ BID8 ~ P~IDINQ FOR
T~ A~ED OF C~8 ~ P~LIC ~RK8 OR
PROVID~ FOR ~ E~P~K ~ F~
PROV[D[M~ FOR ~ EFFRCT[~
~8 notion. Hopkins second ~o adop~ the o~di~nce. On
vo~e, Mc~ams "lye," Hopkt~8 "aye," ~tephe~8 "aye." Almond "aye."
Riddlogpe~geE "aye," Chew Says,. and ~yo~ Stewart "aye." Mo[ion
carried u~n[mouaIy.
C. The Council conltde~ed adoption o~ an
~e~ials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance wit~ the
et competitive bids= and p=oviding lo= an eilec~tve dace.
The iollowfnq ordinance was p~esented:
NO.
~ ORD[~CE PROVIDING F~ ~ EXPE~I~B OP F~ FOR
~RQ~NCY PURC~SR8 OF ~[~S, E~l~, IUPPhl~8 OR
SERVICE5 IN AC~H~ NI~ ~ P~ISI~S OF ~TA~
R~TIN~ SUCH PUR~SE8 FR~ REQUIEMS OF C~ETITI~
BIDSI ~ PR~IDIN~ FOR ~ RPFRCTI~
Etddlegpe=ge~ motion. AtEo=d second ~o adopt =he ordinance. On
"aye." Riddlelpe~ger "aye." Chew "aye," and ~yo~ 5~ewa~t "aye."
~t[on oa~ted unantuous[y.
313
city o~ ~enton C~ty ~oun~]. Mtnutee
~settng o~ ~obe~ ~S. ~9~
~ ~e CoUnc~ ~om~de~ed adoption o~ an o~d~nance a~
service, m a~xi~ a~x~ely 30A.gA acres ~oc~ed no~ and
south o~ ~ ~2~. e~.~ a~ ~ o~ Tz~n~y Road. and .out~ o~ ~ghway
380 8aec ~-Z3.
MO.
~T ~ P~L ~ L~ C~GIGTING OP ~PROXI~LY 304.94
~ OF ~ ~I~ ~ B~ING 8I~ATgD IN T~ ~ O~
S~Y, ~1~ ~BR 330 ~ M. FO~T ~Y, ~T~
Stephens ~to~. ~gktns '.tco~ ~o adop~ ~he o~t~noe. On
"aye." ~S~tes~e=gaz "aye." C~ "aye." a~ ~yoc 5~eva=~ "aye.
~tton ,ea~tte~ u~nt~ualy.
g. ~e Cou~et~ aoae~aetea adoption ot an ocdtnance
ap~tovtng a lu~t~ a~e~nt between ~e City ol Denton
The ~olt~tng ot~t~nee was p~esented:
~ ~I~ AP~I~ A F~ING ~Rg~ B~ ~ CITY
~ ~ ~ 6~Vl~6 PR~ FOR ~1NG ~DS (SP~)
~IZI~ ~ ~Y~ ~ EX~CUTE T~ ~~: ~PROVING
~ g~I~ ~ ~8 ~REFORg: ~ PEOVIDING FOR
C~W ~Ofl, ~p~t~ See~ ~o adop~ the ordinance. On to~t call
vote, ~ nlyl," RO~II "iys." Gtephen8 "aye," Iltotd "aye,
F. T~e counetl comst~eted ado~ttom o~ an otdt~nee
apptovt~ a ~unat~ agcee~ut between :he city ot Denton and
aetvtoeu Pt~zat tot ~t~ ~eed, (8P~).
~. 85-212
~ ~t~g ~l~ A F~ZNQ AGRE~NT B~EN T~ C1~
Of ~ ~ ~I~S PR~ FOR ~ING ~R~; AU~RIZING
[~l~ Of P~ ~R~FORK l ~ P~IDX~ ~R
Ro~ktms ~tion. C~ ee~ to adopt ~he otit~nce. On toll call
vo~e. ~ 'aMe.' Bo~t~s "aye." ate~eme "aye." Alioti "aye."
atddleS~tgaz "aye," Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yot St~act ',aye."
eaccte~ u~ut~ue ~y.
~, T~o Counetl oonat~eced a~optton o: an ocdtnance
apgtovtng a ~u~tng agteo~nt be~en Oho Ct~y oi Denton a~ ~nton
trig-County ~y ~caecy.
The Co~towt~ oral,nee ~s pcesente~:
314
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meetiu~ ol October 15, 1985
Page Twelve
NO. 85-213
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FUNDXNG AGR~EI4~T BET~EN TH~ CITY
OF DENON ~ D~ON CITY-~ DAY ~EERY;
T~ ~YOR TO EXECUTE ~ AGR8~; APPH~INQ
EXPE~K OF F~D8 T~HEFORE: ~ P~V~DING FO~
EFFECTI~ D~.
vote, Mc~ame "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aMs," Alto=d "aye,"
BLddlee~etge~ "aye," C~ew "aye," a~d ~yo~ Ste~tt "aye." ~on
tattled u~ntmously.
H, The Council considered adoption ol an o~di~nce
aVp~ovtn~ a lumd~n~ a9zee~ent between the City ot ~ton amd Fzed
~oze Child Ca~e Centez.
The iotlowin~ ozd~nce ~as pzesen~ed:
~ ORDIN~CE ~PROVING A ~ING ~~ BE~EN ~
OF DEaN ~ FRED ~HE ~IhD C~E ~ A~RIZIN~ ~
OF F~S ~REFOREI ~ P~IDI~ FOR ~ EF~I~ DA~.
Chew mo~ion, ~ephens seco~ to a~op~ ~ ordt~nce. On =oll ~all
VOte, McAda~8 "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," AllOtd "aye,"
Rtddtespe~ge~ "aye," Chew "aye," &~ ~yot Stewart "aye." Notion
cazzted unantBousty.
I. T~e Council considezed adoption ol an ozdt~noe
app~ovim~ a ~undtng apzeeaent bet~en the City o~ Dem~on amd ~nton
County Friends o~ the FaBtty.
TAe iollowin~ ozaLmance vas pzesented:
MO. 85-215
~ ORDI~CE ~PROVIMG A F~IMG ~~ B~M ~
OF D~N~N A~ D~ ~ FRI~B OF ~ F~ILY;
T~ EXPEditE OF F~8 ~REFOREI ~ ~VIDIN~ FOR
EFFECTI~ DATE.
Hop~ins motion, Chew second to adopt the oKdt~nce. On roll call
vote ~ams "aye," Hopkt2l "aye," 8tephe~l "aFl." Al~ord "aye."
H~ddleape~ge~ "lye," C~ew "a~e," a~d ~yot 5tew/~ "lye." Motio~
caz=ted unanimously.
6. There wan no O~ictal Action on ~xecu~ive Geeston ~tem~ o~
legal ~tte=s, =eal estate, pe=sonnel and boa=d appoint~n~s.
7. The iollowing trees ol New Business we=e suggested
Council Neabezs ioz lutuze a~endas:
l. Council Meabez S~ephens elated t~ a situation ~d
developed at the new outlet at t~ 8ou=h=tdge D=tva a~ Ltllian
Mtlle= Pazkway. He would li~e ~o= s=ai~ to look at
~n~e=eectton with the idea o~ tap=ovin~ sale~y app=oaches. The
tntezsectton was ~za=dous a~ dangezous at t~ts ~t~e amd could be
tapzoved with so~e dozie= wo=k to t~pzove vtstbtlt=y. Stephens
asked ~c=tng City ~nage= 5vehla to look into the
~yoz Pzo Tem Hopkins sta~ed t~t he also was coneezned a~
t= was possible that dtllezent stg~e eight be zequtzed.
315
C~ty o~ l~on C~ty Counsel M~nuteg
Page ~bt~teen
2. ~ayo~ P£o Ten Hopkins also asked sta~ to g~ve a ~apo~t aa
~gemu~ ~oE ~he goat Seating ~ch had beau done.
8. T~e Counc~t Eoconveued into ~e ~ocutive 8~ston to
appo[ut~n~a. ~o o~iciat eolian was taken.
Mtt~ no ~utthet tte~ o~ bultnes~, the ~Joucne~.
316
city council #inures
Novembe£ 5, 1985
The Council convened into the wozk cession at 6:00 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room of the ~unicipal
PR~8~T: i~yot 8tewact, #ayo~ P~o Ten ~opkius, Council Me~be£e
~8~T: Council ~be~
The Council ~eld a discuee~oa o~ a zeques~ o~ Millez
Texas, lac. ~o~ a~exa~om o~ 801.705 ac~es a~ua~e~ ~n ~e ~.E,P.
· .R.R. Survey, Abs~o~ 1470~ the E. ~. An~e~so~ 5u~vly,
16~ ~he E. k. O~ Survey, Abetcaet 983: ~he G. M. A~e~son Survey,
kbetz~ 12~ ~e M.E.P. & P.R.R. Sucvey, Abe~ac~ 1502~ amd ~he
T & P 6ucvey, Abs~cac~ 1302, Dem~on County, Ta~aS~ being ~he paz~ o~
a ~ac~ ~nown aa ~be Golden Hoof Ranc~ and beginning aou~h o~ U.
H~g~ay 380, eae~ of ~ ~56, a~ ~8~ o~ Egan Road ~o~ ~e purpose
o~ determining v~a~ha~ ~o beg~ ~ha a~oza~on pto~est,
~vi4 E~eon, ~en~ot Planne~, ptesen~ed ~e proposed vo.~un~aty
no~h. The a~ea i8 abou~ ~wo u~os ~o~ ~he De~on Munic~pal
~i~po~. Th~s may lead to pous~ble ~u~u~e develop~nt.
said ~hat no housing cz populations would be ag~eote~ a~ th~8
begin the annexation p~ocees.
Council Meubez Hopkins a~ked if any pa~t of the azea ~8 tn
Council ~be~ ~c~dams asked about ~he advantages a~ d~sadvan~agee
ag annexing the pEope~y. Ellt~on 8a~d that the advantage8 a~e
use oon~ol. Theze axe no disadvantages ~t he could see,
enid. The~e [8 no hoed to p~ovide c~ty 8e~vtcee to the asea a~
time.
it i8 801 ac~e8.
Council aeabe~ Hopkins asked about tha exact bozdeze o~ the azea to
~ ammexed. E~lieon delineated the a~ea, ~ch ~as a "~tngez"
e~temeton to the mocth. Ellis~n said t~t theze ~uld be no need to
do anF involuntazy annex~n~ to get to the
·cttng City ~nagez Rick Svehla said t~t the need ~oc zoada ~ul~
de,end om ho~ the am~xat~om was done. Coumc~l ~abez
ea[~ that it ~ould be logical to extend ~igh~ay 3~0. ~?oz
sat~ that that u~gbt involve involuntary annexations. DavLd
said the land acquisition would need to be eza$ined.
8aid t~t it is wise to ~ve the an~t~on done tn advance.
pzoeeduze. Motion cat,ted umami~ouelM.
2. The Council held a discussion on a £eeolution adopting
th£ee pe£sonnel policies:
~. Longevity Pay 106.07
B. Pe£sonal Leave Mtthout Pay lll.08
C. Tuition Reimbursement 107.09
Kath~yn Us£ey. Di£ecto~ of Pe~aonnel/Ruployee Relations, explained
that there is nothing in the p~oposed policies that deviates f~om
City o'~ DeD, tol~. City COUD,~il Minutes ,. 3 1 7
iqaeting o~ Movembec 5, 1905
Page 2
p£aetiCe chocoughly.
uscey said that thane was a change on the longevity pay policy
£egardtng umndatory Eett£ees, Xandato~y rett£e~eat will be t~e only
case in ~hic~ an employee gets pro~eted ~ongevity pay If he or she
reti£es before D~oembec,
p~ocedu~es.
paychecks.
~aul ~t~o~, Ch~ seco~ to approve the poticteB as p~esented.
~otiou oa~ci~ unant~usty.
3. The Council Eoceived a repo~t on request by
Debts D~ayov~to~, City ~ttocney, said that Chaclotte Allen, City
Secretary, ~ va8 u~ble to attend the ~eet~ng that n~ght, had
s~milae situations.
elect~on sam be ~eld u~y 4~fecent way~. 6tx~een c~t~e8 ~e~e
po~led by C~z~o~e Allen. ~uost all o~ them had different ways
~ounc~l ~R~ Ch~ said t~at ~e ~ould object to c~m~tm~ ~nton's
~yo~ ~o Te~ Hopktn~ ~atd that it ~s ~o~e econo~ca~ ~o
would ~ve ~o pcov~de it. ~ ~cke~s.
Council bubec Rlddlelpezge~ li~d that he saw no ~eason why ~he~e
couldn'~ be one pol~tng place in each distE~ct at ~ch people could
vote t~ all e~ee~ons.
o~y d~8CcLo~s. ~o the D.I.G.D. vou~d have to a~ign its pcectnc~i
council ~uboc Chew again sa~d that he wanted to, ~eep the city's
eo~uc~. The Cou~ d~ouu~ed the options. ~yot Pcs Tam
~pk~n~ said that ~en the o~tter ~s amended next, mote po~ling
places should be added. Dcayovitc~ said that Lt ts beet ~en
8a~d t~t uos~ people pcofec to go to the same place each t~e. She
l~ve. ~ ,aid t~t thece ~uld be no teal cost saving~
Counc~i ~be~ ~ddlespe=ge~ euggested having one po~tng ptace ~o~
all elect~on8 a~ a~vectts~ng ~t ~n the newspaper. The Council
d~scusaed a~vantaqe8 a~ disadvantages o~ hav~ng one central
place a~ ~vtmg ne~ghbozhood polling places.
city o~ Denton City Council
I~ettng o~ ~ove~ber 5, 1985
~age 3
Chew lotion, McAdams eeoond to s~a£e our polling plaOll with the
oac£ied unanimously.
4. The Council held a discussion to consider autlxo~izing the
sta~ to oppose the p£oposed £ules o~ the Texas De~a£t~ent o~ Health
~or assessing annual ieee amd permit application/ami~d~ient ~ees ~oz
~o~ disposal ~acili~tes. The annual ~ee cove~m et~e. tnspeot~o~ a~
~eze a~e ~ees ~o~ pezui~ applications oz a~nd~en~a. T~e lee ~o~
~n~ou ~a 12.eO0. ~t would cost oyez lla.O~ ~oz ~nt~m ~o ale~
~te la~ill pe~mit. The~e is a lazge ~la~ zate whtch ia adJu~ed
u~ bM population amd volume o~ easts. Da~lae voul~ pay 120.]00.
~alil that the Cee lhou~d Be o[tente~ ao~e ~o ~l
~eview~ng. the oha~ge would be oyez $~8,000 to Denton. Foz only one
c~nge in the pc=mit, the ~aae c~=ge woul~ apply.
council Me~bez Chew a~ed ~ ~h,~e was ~ep=eaem~a~ton
opposi~on fa Austin. Rick Svehla said ~ha~ lta~t would ao t~t at
t~e di~ectiom sE the Council.
Co,oil Me~be~ Riddlesper~er asked about t~ m~bor
using t~e disposal ~acilittee. Bill ~gelo enid a total o~ smut
7~,000. Council ~uber Ri~dleape~e~ 8aid that
C~Eged by ~ Would cau8e higher iadivid~l
~p~in8 motion, C~ew second to aut~orize 8ta[~ to zop~euent the City
o~ ~nton in oppoain~ t~e p~oposed ~ulee sE t~e Te~e
bi,th ~o~ as8e8simg annual Eee8 and peEuit
ieee ~o~ disposal ~actlities. ~tion carried
S. The Council received a repo£t om the electric utility
Bob Neleon, Director o~ Utilities, said that ~s
shocte~ version o~ the report he would give at the ceg'ular meeting
upstairs. He eatd t~at 5-8 percent overall increase would be
n~eded. He had thought ~t would be 6-7 peEcent, but there was an
l~.~ percent g~owth £ate, la~ger t~an expected.
The Utility Oepa£tuent vas projecting a St tnorease in the kilovatt
hOUr ISles over last year, with a £evenue o~ 869.4 Billion. The
cost sE service program with eYe~y customer claes paying an equal
share, the increase in residential rate would be
aveza~e electricity o~ 9.~6~), comtcial tats would be ileum 3.~S~,
govet~ental ~oul~ be an increase ot 2.0a~, a~ e~utc~ a~ ~mcteale
o~ .~2t. The tats proposed ~ould not recover t~e ~ull
Nelmon said that the Utility De~tt~mt needs 8.~
~out. It ts cuttemtly bttnOtmg tn ~.~7~ pet Kilowatt ~ut.
~o~cil Kembe~ ~a~ asked Nel8o~ abou~ the ~atiQ~le EO~ t~e ~ate
c~nges. ~elsom explained how t~e ~O~tes itc azttv4d
Said that t~e enet~ soot adjumtmemt is not being c~O~. ~ounc~l
~bet Kopk~nm asked ~E the ad]umt~nt ts ~t&~nq ~11. Heleon said
t~t it vas and that ~e ia recoiling ~o c~e
City O~ Denton City COU~CiL
MeettGg DC Noveube£ 5. 1985
Page ¢
accounts would change from 5.5o# pet kilowatt hou£ to 6.¢0~.
~ovecnuent would go frou 3.,0# to ¢.90~. Churches would go
3.9o~ to
City of ~enton costs, an l-1 user with 500 KinD.att
wou~8 ~ave · c~Ange ~n acer o~ abo~t $~.50 ~u~g t~e w~tet
sune~ ,~at~e. He etat~ t~t ou~ ca:es, as opposed to TPi~ o~
Dallas ~owe~ a~ L~g~t, d~d mot have a ~anc~se ~ee on top o~ :We
za~e. ~e ~-2 ous~omez, tm w~a~ez, w~ch used abou~ 750
houzs/~n~h would ~ve a z~te ~mc~ease azou~
~c~mg ~he suez, ~ za~a wou~d go up ~o a~ou~
Nelson s~a~ed ~ha~ ~he ~a~e c~mge would ~o ~a~o e~[ec~
Nelson saL~ t~at sevezal yea~, ago the pe~lty :ha:ge was ~opped.
~ s~owe~ ~e ~i~ezemce .be~weem ~We accoum~s zece~vable
gloss zevenue. Nelson ~ t~at t~e ut~itLes ~oazd race,ended a
~lve pageant ~lty ~oz all ~el~nquent cuntomez8 w~en paint
mot ~e by the 16th ~ay a~tez the bill ~s
attributes to ptoble~ caused by ~ncottect billing procedures,
Nelsom sat& t~t omly a s~tl amount ate the :ault o: the CLty
~mtom'a billing e~tot8.
not a contributing factor.
bills on t~, ~t costs e~ty cuatouec.
Nelson said a posstbtttty ts to ee~ a "so~t" teut~de~ ou t~e
a~ 25th day, a~ then a 9e~tty.
The Council then convened into the Regul&~ Meeting at 7:00 p.m. tn
the Council Chalbe£s.
PRESRNT: Mayor Ste~a:t, Ma¥oc P~o Te~ Hopkins, Council )~embets
~lford, ch~, M~daas, and Riddlespetgec
~S~NTt Courior1 ~ubet ~tephens
1. T~e Coumcil conei&e:ed app£oval of the minutes of the
Regular i~et~ of O~tobe: 15, 1985
atddlespetget motion. Chew second to app:ove the Minutes as
ptesente~. Motion car:ted umant~ousLy.
The Kayo: presented a pzoota~atiom fo: Rs[ual Pe£sonnel Meek. Monte
2. consent Agenda
HcAdaBa Bo:ion, &lfo£d Second to app£ove the Consent &gauds as
ptesene, od, Mot:on carzio~ umaniuousl¥.
3 2 0 City ct Denton City Council #inures
~eeting ol Novembe: 5. 1985
Page 5
Consent Age,da:
1. Bid # 9512 - &uxilia~y back~ash
2. Bid # 9526 - Auto~Atic trans{n~ apparatus
3. Bid # 9531 - G~aa~ay Plaza -
4. Bid # 9534 - #ate£ m~te£s/valve boxes
5, Bid # 9537 - Front end loader
Pu£chase O~dez # 70374 to Bone Engineers tn the
amount ol
7. Vu~hase O~ds~ # 70520 to J. S. ~gu~ent
Company ~n the llount o~ ~L2,042.16
8. Vu~o~se O~de~ ~ 706~2 to ~us~on
Plats an~ Replat8:
1. A~cova~ o~ ~1 cep~a~ o~ the ~ol~eu
Industc~al Va~k ~d~t~on, Pha~e V. Lot 2.
~aoo~e~8 approval.)
2. A~p~oval of Vzel~nina~y ~lat ol the
Heights ~d~0n. (The' ~aaniag and
Co~t~ston ~ec~nd~
3. A~oval Da p~ll~t~y ~lt o~ the No~t~od
Zoning Co~88~on zeoouends ~pV:ovll.)
4. Approval o~ V~el~u~nazy plat o~ the Western
V~ntage Estates ~d~tion. Lots ~-8. Sloc~
apvzov~l.)
C. Change O~de~8:
C~nge O=de= to B~d 9 9410. 8Ven~,~/~od~ow t~e-~n
the a~unt o~ ~6,723.45
D. F~nal Paints:
1. Conl~e= a~v~oval DC ~t~l ~e~t on
2. Cone~de~ avv~ov~l of I~1 VaCant to
Construction Company ~o~ ~he Loo~ 288/S~ence~
3. Public
A. The Council held a public hea£ing on the petition
Buzke Engines=lng zequesting a change in $on~ng ~zom the
ag~icultuzal (A) classiitcation to the planned development
dist£tot on a 27.29 acre t£act at the southeast oo£ne~ ol ~
and Hobson Lane. ~ apv£oved, the planned developer w~ll permit
the tollow~ng 1&nd uses:
Heeting of November 5, 1965
Page 6
I~lti-famtly-X - ~20 unite om 5.6 ao£es
w~th a deBStt¥ o~ 21.1 unit8 per acre
Tr~-plex - 18 unica on 2.8 ac£es
w~th a density ot 6.3 units per acre
Tow~heuse - 28 unit8 on 2.76 acres
with a density o~ 10.~ un,ts per acre
Re~ea~on. ~en Space an~ D~a~na~e k~ea8 -
T~e ~z o~eued ~e ~blio
~n ~avo~ of ~he petition, b 8ta~ed tha~ ~h~s deve~opuea~ ~d been
before Council a~ one o~Ue~ ~le. A~ ~ ~ue. ~ ~d been
determined ~ pzo~ec moP,cee ~d ~o~ been ~e twd ~e deve~opmen~
ven~ bae~ ~o ~i~ag i~ zoa~ng. T~e [ize~ ~ue ~ v~t in P~amn~ng
an~ zoning, ~ vas appzQved ~ a vo~e o~ 5-0. A~ ~e Counc~
meeting. ~t ~s 4,~eca~ned t~a~ p~opec not~ftca~ton ~o ~e netghbo~8
~ad no~ ~en ~de, a~ t~ ~n~ back ~o Planning and Zoning. A~ ~he
second Pla~ag and ~on~ ~a~iug. ~e ~evelopaenc ~a~led by a vo~e
o~ A-2~ ~. Jea~ec s~a~ ~ ~he developmen~ wan a compce~ensfve
fourth drawing et the plan so ~hat i~ would uee~ all CL~y
and
M~. S~ian B~gge, Bu~ge ~giaeezing, a~so 8po~e in tavo~ o~
~t~on. He s~ated ~t a loc st ~ ~a~ been spent on
addressed with om-ll~e retention, and full cigh~-of-way would be
dedicated ~oc the ~Jot t~ceeta ~ece the come,rial developuent
wou~d
Council Member Rtddlespe~gec asked ~ow much neighborhood ~nput
~en ee~ht a~ receive.
Mr. ~uz~e replied t~t t~y ~d gotten quite a lot el ~nput. They
~led out ~ e~te ~laa to eve:y~ne om the C~ty'e u~l~ng l~st as
well al stYE Lntece8~o~ veovle. AppcoxL~tely 16 plans were ~L~ed
our. He ~ spoken ~a~l~ually w~ abou~ seven o= e~g~ people
who live In ~he &zen. specifically om t~e west s~de o~ CountcM Club
Road. A ~e~ug ~ith t~ eu~ize neighborhood Wad not been held.
Council ~z ~i~leev~gec al~ed t~ Hr. ~uc~e though~ it would
~ve beam he~VtuL ~C t~y ~d had a ~et~ng wi~h the
Mc. Burke cepl~ per,po, but ~ te1~ that the cuccent system they
used wag a~wate. T~y ~ued t~ ~nloc~t~on ~cou the c~ty stall
~o vat iate~eetod in the aevelo~en=.
CoumctL M~c Rtddlee~zgec etate~ ~a~ a~ t~s the Council ~ad
not be ~bXe ~o be butl~ 4Ge to the ~act that th~s development would
uae up t~ a~ot~nt toz t~t
~ey ~e aloes ~o ~ LLmL~. but as ~az as L~e o~ec uses.
vece not ualM all the at~eoations.
coueccial azea In t~e development. He wondered why the commercial
aced ~8 not left ou~ on ~he ht~hvay,
3 2 2 city of oenton city council ainutes
~attng of Nove~be~ 5. 1985
Page ?
Mc. Sucks ~eplied that the lesson it vaa put ia that pa~ttoula£ a~aa
was because of the two emJo~ a£tezies t~at meet thece. One lesson
it was not put out on the htgh~ay was due to finances, and the
pcesent location was good loc the highec intensity use,
Council Membec Riddl~specgec asked if it was tcue tl~at crecy
develope£ would be able to sat asids a certain amount fcc co~meceial
uae.
Buc~e £eplied that it was a function of the intensity. #ich the
gene£al cetail, the development would not be using all the allotment
~o£ that ac£oaga.
M£. Cba£1es Davis spoke in favo~ of the petition. Re stated that
the plan was acceptable to him. l~ felt that a ~CoJIc~ ~uld
~Et owme~ o~ t~e p~ope~ty amd had ~en Cleated ~a~ly. ~
t~t the p~ope~M, ~en completed, ~uld b~t~ ~n ~250,000 pez
in ~axes aa based on coupazable develop~n~e.
M~. Bob CaRaway spoke in Eavoc o~ the 9et~tto~. ~ stated
The City had always develo~d uo~t~ of 1-35, mot to the south
~uld bm handy to the ouc~ent ces~dentl. Fe~t ~hat t~ bulk og the
gc~h o~ ~nton tn the ~utuce was to t~ Seuth. He I~ated that
project ~ae a ~ood ptoJect and should be approved,
~oc Stewart asked how close Mc. Caca~a~ lived to this a~ea.
~. Ca,away ~eplied appEoxi~tely o~ ~ile.
~. Ji~ Roach spoke in ~avo~ of the petition. ~ ~as an adJo~ning
~d no object,on to tt at all.
~Mo~ 5tewa~ a~ked ~z. Roach ho~ close he l~ved ~o ~
Mc. Roach ceplied he vas d~ectly adJacen~ to
Mc. D~c~ Kelse~ 8poke ~n Eavo~ o~ ~he petition. ~ va8
the p~eaent ovnecs. He ~elt t~t ~t should be ceme~zed that
ea~ plan paased Ptannin~ a~ ZouinV vtth a vo~e ol ~-0. All
of the notices did not go out. T~ ~unctton cC zoning ~s ~o get
the highest and best use out of property a~ not to please the
netghbocs. T~e plan pceeented vas a good eoap~e~ena~ve plan, took
into account all o~ ~he ~undaueatal ~ta~n~g cC ~he city. an~
pzovided the highest and best use o~ the p~ope~ty. Tho complaint
~uld mot be ~ood plann~n~ w~th t~e two ~Joz tho~ough~azea at
location. He stated that it was tzue that tha~e was ao~ "soaking
up" o~ the allotment o~ capacity, but that ~aa t~e plan t~t the
C~ty had adopted on a '~tzat co~, ~i~at serve" basis.
~z. ~wazd ~att spoke in opposition to the petition. He cap,scented
aim lando~ezs w~o lived within 200' o~ the p~o~oa~ develop~nt.
~ pceeented aevecal points concecmi~ the ~ettttoe: (1) A similac
plan with only slightly d~ecent density ~ ceJected by Placing
a~ Zoning. Then the cuz~ent plan ~a app~ov~ by a 5-0 vote. ~n
vas ~etu~ned to Planning a~ Zoning ~o see t~ ~e was
by the local cea~dent8. The O~pO~ttom van tbece, a~ Planning
Ze~Lng den~e~ the ~et~t~on by a 4-~ vote. ~ ~elt t~t the o~gt~l
baaed. (2) The people in the tUEEOU~inO a~et, both Ln t~e
a~ea and within 200', were agatns~ the plan. (J) Seveza~ issues
st£eet pEoble~i, end pol~e amd ~i£e calls vould cost mote
othe~ &£,tus. (4) ~e ~n~n ~veLopueut ~u~de iti~ld ~
a~ea .~td ~ ~ , MJ~ o~ uode~a~e ac~tv~y cen~e~ bu~ on~y
~ow ~nto~y. Ltu~t~ eo~Ec~a~ deve~opuen~ was acceptable, bu~
s~ou~d no~ go tbtoug~ the ~tghbo~ood.
sta~nq t~ celestial de~lop~n~ should not go thzoug~ the
neighborhoods ~n ~ ~al ~y the eo~e~cial development ~n th~s
plau vas ~ut on the ~EneE o~ thee developing.
~. Matt ~epl~ t~t he tatetp~eted the ~uide to say t~t except
~o~ ~g~ oC~ o~ I-~5, o~zc~al development should be
developuen~ e~uld be =ight wha=e tt wag, on ~he co=nez si the
developing. In te~ o~ distance, It appea~ed no Kurthor than
~. Wa~t ~o~li~ ~at ~t u~ght be a little ~uzthe~. All the density
~ae bet~ tt~ up tn t~te pazt~eulaz ~o)eet and could see nothing
compelling te e~nge a~ go against the policy og t~e ~de. No
approved. ~o~ guze i~ the pla~ ~d been vell thought out i~ [~ used
Council ~= ~Ma~ ~ ~t ~ee~ that the pzo)ect eontzadicted
~he ~L~. 1~ ~ density ~s all used up sE clone to ~t, it vas
a~su~ed t~ ~e~e ~uld not bo any uses ~n ~at aEea.
Council ~be~ Itddlegpe~goE asked ~[ ~ vas not an aeeu~on that,
t~ the ~o~le Living 8ou~h o~ ~is say t~e benefits o~
ct apaet~b~4, t~F too ~ld ask the Council to a~tov th~ to build
apartments next to that.
eezve'
co~. ~tze~ sezve" policy. The Council could no~ a~loca~e
~n~ens~y sta~arda ~n ~he axes. It canno~ va~t and let one
develo~ u~ shim a ~oc~ton o~ ~We ~ntema~M amd le~ aomeo~ etas
Coun~l ~er Btd~epeE~ ~e~l~ed ~hat ~he ~t~s~ one do~ng
~uld use up i ~eu~oue ~oun~ oC ~e bemeCtta ~o~ ~e axes.
Coune~ bUZZ ~aus said ~t uultt-~au[1y could be put on evezy
~ult~-~aully ~utd ~ tn one a~ea, .and the Council would kuov what
M~. MLI~Ed ~th epo~ tn opposition. He~e coucezned with
~ouz-plem. Bu~ they ~ze no~ h~h de~l~y un~e
~ep~es~ta~tve sC .t~e hem d~l~uge. ~ ~eX~ ~ ~here should
be eo~thi~ lu ~he-io~ ozd~nce8 ~o pzo~ect people v~o ~ad an
~nveat~ tn el~mtiM ~. ~ e~a~ed chat he ~d spoken
Mc. ~s~e a~t leav~ ~ the apaz~mem~ and possibly t~e ceta~l
With ~ ~tti~ z~p~m ~rou ~, BucKs. The plan ~d a very s~ll
bulle~ MM. ~tBeu t~ ,dovelo~nt a~ tho cu~=ent ne~bozhood.
He eau us u~ cE ratio~lo ~o~ addttioma~ ~etai~ on the co~ne~ o~
the ~evelo~n~. l~ all--d, ~e ~etail requests would be
duplexes, t~ouil8 a~ garden ~oues.
324
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meed. ins of Novembe£ $. 1985
ag£icultu~al when it wet Ei£st b~ought into the C~ty, and the
sorting was actually what is would be. He unde£steod t~at M~. tteeth
was not p~otetting the change f¢om agricultural, but Wes against
~ulti-fauily and wanted something else.
Mr. Heath £eplied t~at wac cor£ect. He would ~ike the neighbo£hood
Mayor S~ewa~t ~aid the~o wa~ ~ti-~aaily t~o~e now.
~. Heat~ =ep[ied yet. The=e ~Ee fou=-plexe~, a nine unit. a
~ con~dezed lo~ denlit~, 8~a a~ed ho~ ~ny duplexe~'~e~a in the
~. ~ath ~eplted ~t ~e~e we~e ~ou~ duplexes.
Council Me~be~ ~a~s stated that the duplexes ~e the
denait~ in the azea no~ and tha~ she felt ~. Heath ~aa suggesting
t~t the entize acreage should ta~e a cue ~zo~ the ~ou~ duplexes
~at~e~ than ~om Kilkenney Cou~t which waa mo~e dense ~han the
duplexes.
~z. ~at~ zeplied t~ t~t wac mot exactlM z~qht. ~ had no
objection to the ~ou~-plexee, t~-plexea, duplexes, and
but ~anted ~e apaztaente ~odt~ted o~ not included ~n t~e p~o~ect a~
~z. Ho~azd ~att asked ~he Council to ~peah a~atn. ~oz
zeplied no. unless one o~ the Council ~e~beza wau~ ~o ~eaz
~. ~att ~ad am objection to t~e collem~ by the ~o~ ~egazding
cons~de=ed aaa w~at ~e adve=~s~ng s~a~ed was ~ ~h~s wis
zon~ug change [=ou ag=~cu~u=al ~o plinne~ ~evelopMu~. Th~s
ott~tnal zontu~ ~attet. EvetMt~inq he ~d heard peeviouely ~de him
~oz 5tewazt tntez~upted ~. Narc to co~zect hil tega[ding the
aon~ng. He ita~ed t~at ~ vel o~tg~ul zoning ~zo~ agzicultuzal to
Io~thing, Them vece not Calk~ng about the p~oeeduce ~t vent
through. The ~yo~ said that they ~re aware GE t~t a~ t~ he
~uld have to call ~z. ~a~ out o~ o~de~ amd asked him ~o taXe his
tT ao~one buys ~n an a~ea and the p~ope~ty wa~ zoned 8F-t6
=ea~denttal. that pc=eon would have so~e =igh~ ~o expeo~ tBat zoning
ag=ieuttu=al, it ~d no~ yet been xone~ ~oz any use w~Keoeve= eo
~he~e can be no assumption ~ha~ it ~u~d be any 9a~t~eula~ zoning.
ooncezn va8 ove~ czaC~c ~n C~e a~ea, ~ould ~he
onlM ~wc lane a~ mote t=at~ic wou~ only add ~o ~he pzobleE.
vas not opposed to ~he gzowth et the ntis, calm ~n~ed
gzow~h. ~ee~ioned ~C ~he ~nczeased ~ax ~uey ga~ tzom
a~ea to Cacilttate the tnc~eale in
tit, o, city coup, il .tnut..3 2 5
Ms. V~ck¥ ~clntolb spoke in opposition with a conceCn ove~ the high
donlity in the a~ea, The eutcent neighbo£hood was low ~n
and wo~ld lt~ to keep it that Pay. She vas in opposition to the
coBme£ctsl development and the apartment development.
~ayo£ 6repair &lked hey close to the p£oposed development
I~. ~clntoeh l~ved.
~. ~clnCo~h replied about one
The ~o~ allo~d ~. Jeltec C[ve ~tnutes to IVea~ in ~ebuttal.
also stated t~ the ~uE~eUt ~lan ~a8 no~ the sane as the one turned
down by Plau~tnq a~ Zo~ng. T~ density tn t~e aperients and the
~eta~l a~la was Eeduoed by 25 ps,cent. The plan wa~ well thought
the cost o( streets, (~=e ~ po~$ce. ~. Jemte~ stated that ~
al~ the citl~en, ~e=e entitled to those so,vices and that the City
handle the ~af~tc tha~ th~s p~oJect ~ould generate. The
~e~e del~gned to ca~y lo~s o~ t~aE~c, and they could do
Hebron Lane ~ae not ·
~. Je,te~ ~ep~ed that Hob~on Lane a~eady had money
Council ~ ~k~ns asked ~t t~p~oveaents this p~o)ec~ ~ou~d
~. Je~e~ ~epl~ed t~ cu=b and ~tte~ ~ou~d be done along the
The ~yoz cloll4 the ~ublic beading,
Denise ~ivey. ~velopment Review P~anne~. stated that out
zetuzned in (avoz a~ (~z in OppOe~t~o~. ~llO zeceLved 22 reply
(Ozms tn opposition (zoB ~eople ~o ve~e mot on the City's
l~8t. T~e pzope~ty vas 1Qoated ~ a ~ov tntema~ty a~ea. The Denton
~velo)Bent Gut~e ~d deeig~te~ the low intensity areas aa the
according to t~e ~i~eli~es ~o~ dive~st~ed p~oJeets in lev
intensity a~eas. (~) 8tie plan control - The City did have the
zight to ai~e plan a~p~oval CQuncil had the z~ht to approve, add
condition. (~) kceee8 ~o the develop~nt shoul~ be ~zov~ded
thzoug~ collecto~ side Gt~eetB cz gzeatez. ~ 1S)O and Hobson bane
comply vktb the ~VelQ~ent Guide (oz this zequ~ce~ent. (3)
~ez-all dePUty shoul~ not ~ violated when the ~equeet was
approve. I( approved, ~ sta~azd would not be violated and would
p~ov~d~. Th~I ~equ~te~t ~6 been net. (S) Neighborhood ~nput
Styli ,Eecone~s t~at notices be mat~ed out to property
~ecel~a=y. Tbt~ =equipment had been ut. (6) Retatl/oC~ce/
t~attea to 200 un,ts proposed ~evetopaent ~d ~20 un,ts ~tth 50
ex~at~g units ~o~ a total o[ ~70 un,ts. Wou~d sttt~ be u~e¢ the
200-unit l~a~t. The plan did comply ~ith the guidelines In the
3 2 6 ct. of Denton city council Minutes
Meeting of Novembe£ 5. 1~85
Page tl
Developeent Quids. Traffic would not be · proble~ Sen alt the
developments are completed. As p£evieuzly st·ted, Pl·nning
Zoning denied the request et the O~tobe£ 9, .1905 meeting by a vote
of 4-2.
Council Member Chew asked how usry VOteS Would be requited to
overturn the Planning end Zoning denial.
Spivey replied four.
Coun~il Membe~ R~ddlea~e~ge~ asked ~o~ ~he ~antng cE t~
neighborhood preservation is vto~ted because o~ the
being directly aczose E~o~ the du~lexes.~
Spive¥ ~eplied that one of the policies that was looked at in
evaluating a development vas ttyi~ to provide eoa~at[ble buf~ers
between existing land u~es and proposed l&nd uses.' The
wam ~ote intense than the existing duplexes across the attest.
was not the same style and density ·s the existing
Council Member Ridd~espetger restated Spivey's explanation ·s zoning
vas violated due to the fact that the existing structures are not
buffeted.
Spivey replied that it was a gte·tel density than what wee across
the street and that it wa8 not the ~ozt ideal buffet.
Council Meuber Hopkins asked if · street could be a buffer.
Spive¥ replied that · street could be ~ega£ded as · buffer as could
be fencing and landscaping.
Council ~e~ber Riddlespetger asked if a requize~emt could be added
~oc ptope~ bu[~et~ng.
· p~vey replied yes. any condition= eou~d be a~ed.
~yo~ 5~ewazt asked how 22 oppoe~tion ~eply ~o~s could
~oa people outside the 200' ~eply a~ea.
S~ivey ~eplted that an in~e~ee~ed pezaon ob~ain~ a zeply
xe~oxed the ~ozm a~ distributed tt to people on,aide ~he 200' a~ea.
stated by Planning and Zoning in the previous 5-0 VOte.
Coumc~l Membec ac~aua co~ented on the etzeets es tt Eel·ted to
th~s develo~nt. ~he ~tate~ t~t, a~ ou~ taz sFete~ w~s no~, the
~ ~ight-o~-~ay ~ch ~ould ~ac~l~a~e get,tnt ~he s~ee~s paved.
~d be tn the development. ~omt o~ the existing ~etal~ no~ on
abou~ 96 pezcen~ which eu~geet~ ~ ~nton dt~ need' t~ cuzzent
a~ft~ente and ~o~e tm the Eu~u~e. The p~o~sed d~Iop~nt was
la~d out ~o ~ the ~lt~-fa~ly a~.eae ~e no~ d~z~tl~ close ~o
the ~o~zee~ldge, ~on~eci~o ho~es.
C~ty o~ Den,.on C~ty Council M~nut~s 3 2 7
14eettng oC tlovember 5, lge5
Counc~ ~e~bel &l[ocd Bade · stateuant om be~al~ o~ ~oet oC the
Counci~ ~eu~becs, It ~ae ,zegcettable ~ba~ ~e~e ve~e 6~vie~ona
G~o~osdl. .~ Co~c~I ,~a ~o vere aecems~b~e ~o ~ public
~d ~Q~b~l ~i{~y~ o~ ~ bus~mess ~om t~e nulbe~ o~ people v~o
~a~e~ o~ ~ t~ ~0 leo ~B, ~ van~od ~o 8iy ~n~ you ~o
people ~ c~ ~a 4~ ~ t~e~ ~ne o~ when they ea~ed, used
the p~o~ea~. ~t vas tbs ~ae~ tha~ they use~ the~ ~ am~ ifad vho
~ey ~=e. He ~e~t ~t. t~ Council g&ve ~e~ ~houg~ ~o
counc~ ~ec 8~ep~ as~ ~ any ney ~n~oc~t~on ~d been
~u~zo~d duz~ng his ibae~e a~ ~he ~e~i~g. ~ no~. he ~eX~
coufoz~ab~e ~ti~ as ~ ~ad ~ep~ u~ ou ~e ~a~o~u~oa already
pzesen~ed.
Council ~ez C~ stote~ ~ mo me~ ia~o~ion ~ad been
~yoc SC~act ea~ed tOE t~ vo~e. Mo~on ~o approve C~e pe~C~on
v~h ~ aerations ~ ~ ~ ~lanu~ng a~ zoning co~ssLon ~n
5-0 v~e ~acc~e~ 5 ~o ~ v~ Couue~ ~embe~. ~4~es~ecgec and
, B. The C~me~ ~eld a public heac~ng om the petttion o~
l~ale X~n ~e~es~g a a~aage ~n son~ng ~£ea the t~o-~&m~ly (2~)
d~stc~et te tt~e pla~e~ ~elo~nt (PD) elaest~tcac~on on a 0.426
ac~e ~E~ ~a~e~ e~ ~ sout~e~ ~ozne~ o~ Cazzol~ Bou~evazd amd
Pca~c~e stcMt, ~e pce~c~y ts ~o~ated ~n the U~l~am ~ov~ng
sucvey~ AboteeoC 7S~. 1~ the ceques~ La aVVcoved, t~e V~anmed
developMut rtl1 pecn~C ~he development o~ ~ o~iee building.
The ~yoz ope~d the public
~, ~Le I~wt~ ~o~ t~ ~z o~ t~ petition. ~ ~u~d lt~e the
zont~ c~ed 8o ~t a~ O~tee butldtng could be butlt on
ni~e. ,~ ~opecty ~ ~ up ~o~ mon~ng ap~coxt~tely a yeac and
a ~1~4 a~. T~ Co~aeil a~ ~ ~t~ ~ecouend~ tt be ~e~uzned
T$~le ,pgQbl~ ~ ~v~o~d ove~ ~he p~opezty
p~ope[ty ~ ,s~et~tcil~y ~=e. T~ pzobleB had been ce,o~ved,
a~ t~ e~c~ ~epez~ l~e ve=e kno~. The plan ~mcluded a
rYe-stay of~ee ~L~LM ot 6,750 square test, access to the
~CK~n~ lot V~th o~e o~ta~ OG Pc~c~e 8rEset and no cuzb cut on
Caccoll BX~., ~c~ i~o c~u~cod ~QC the stte ~d been met,
ample germ ~EM ~ ~ pcov~ded. He wen~ on Co 8~ate the
No one ~o~e ia
The ~c elo~e4 ~ ~btte ~acing.
~oc~ ~ce ~tt~ ~ vt~ ~ cet~cued ~n ~avoz a~ 0 ~n ovpoatt~on.
neighbOrhOods. ~ site ~8 located tn v~t could be ~ecmed a
decltn~g older netg~bo~od. The plan did con~l~c~ v~th the
Develo~t ~e poll~ ~t e~oucaged pcotectton oK adjacent and
ceside~tJ on ~t~ ~o ,~ld a~iozd, ihs vas concecned t~t the
contin~d ~a~ ~ o~ chta type ~uld t~ceaten t~eue types
o~ um~gh~z~8. ~ t~ zoning ~d been changed, other
328
City o~ Denton City Council Ntnutes
I~eeting el Novembe£ 5. t985
Page 13
e~Eeot on the neighbo£hood that was al~eady in dange~ o2 losing
zesidential chazacte£. 5tai~ had al£eady hea£d coBRents that
p£ope£ty ovneEs would also be asking io£ zoning ohanges,
stall vas opposed ~o the p~o~olat, ~he bol~ posstbtt site pla~ had
been secured. Planning and Zontn~ ne~ on ~tobeE 9, tO8S on
issue a~ voted appEoval vt~h
Choy notion, lllo~d second to approve tho petition, r
we~e destroyed, t~e ~e t~e~e was a need ~o~ apae~s, etc. Not
the entt~e neighbo~hood would go, only enough et it to Mke the zest
el the neighborhood an unhabttable place io~ ho~8,
Council ~e~be~ Hopkins pointed out that this ieee was going to be
cad,ted 5 to 2 with ~yo~ Stewart a~ Council ~mbe~ ~ams casting
the "~y" votes.
C. The Council held a public hea~tng on ~ petition
the Ctty cE Denton ~o~ annexatton el app~oxi~tely 2~6.97
Abl[caet 2, N. au~[eson Survey. ~st~aot 93, B. Bucleson Sucvey,
Abstract 249, a~ the R, Joh~on Survey, Abatcact 666. A
beetling aD~oxtuately 90o [eat eout~ el ~anzec Road to a potn~
The hyo~ opened the public
David E~lteon, Sento~ Planne~, spoke tn [apse o~ the petition. He
8~a[ed that ~9 ~eply SeEms were ~t~ed to people who would be
alice[ed by' the annexation v[th no~e ~e[u~ned tn lavo~ a~ tvs
t~o' tn ~td[h. t[atl chose to ~e this anne~[ton ?50' to avoid
as ~Gy structures and existing businesses as ~osutble, Council
t~ option to ttsconttnue the annexation, te~ve ~t as tt ~as,
aext scheduled heating being the institution of annexation
triturated a~ Counctl ~eques~. and ~he sole t~ti~t wa8 to extend
hn~on'8 c~y tiutts to a ~ult 3-t/2 atto tiutt. In~e~ef~ as a
planning 8ta~potnt vas to be able to cOntEo1 ~he land uses along
the 1-35 no,th corridor. By ~vtng the inaction t~ place, could
21ate out etthe~ east oc west when deeued necessary fEol a
development standpoint. Not talW[ng about amnexa~[on by
tal~i~ about expansion o~ its
Counc[[ bube~ Stephens asked [~ all the la~ me,th o~ ~nton'e
a~ H~. AS5 ~equtze wzttten consent o~ p~o~e~ty ~eEa be~o~e
oeuld even be in the
Bt[inert zepl[ed coz~ect. Elltson etat~ t~at he undezetood
6augoz,s City ~nagec t~t expansion o2 its ~J ~ook place at
Council meetings, one on Oc[obe~ 2~ and one on ~abe~ A,
~o~ the annexed axes: ([) police - p~ov[ded upo~ a~zation, (2)
t~a~[e s[g~ls, 8tEeet signs a~ ~ktngs, etc. installed as
need ia established, (3) Ctze p£otection - pcovtded upon aunexetLon,
(4) watec/se-d~Z - extended et p=ope=ty ovme£ expense et develope~
expens~ - a£ea ~ev~ewed at the annual tire-year Capital Imp£oveuent
update0~ (5) =cruse aolleetion - extended Within one month, (6)
tntpee tou services - ba8 nee , (8) p anntn and zon n -
available upo~ an~xa~on. (e) attest ~ghttng - Lnsca~ed
substantially de~Zo~ aE~8 accoCdSng to pOliCy, (L0) ~ecceacion -
industries ~uld be a[~eeted wam unclea~ at this point, due to the
z[ght-~-uay ~ 1-35 vizir. Only way to be absolutely claim
bulLnesaes ~ l~zue~uzes would be a~Eec~ed would be to
Council. Me~e~ 6~op~m8 a~ed ~ s~aC~ ~d the ~eld uo~e8 ~om the
H~q~vay ~z~m~ ~zom ~n c~y bought t~ pzope~ty.
Rlli8o~ ~eplted ~hat a~l t~y ~d ~e~e ~tg~t-o~-way ~ps.
· ub~ey. ~E spoke In op~e~t~ou. He 8ta~ed t~ ME.
outttnm~ the me,vices t~t ~uld be p~ovidmd but t~e~e wasn't
anyone to zecetve t~em. Merited to Know why the City wanted a
8t~[~ o~ pE~peE~y euc~ ~. ~t ds auggeet~ng. D~n't ~now o~ any
~, ~meE Eepltod t~t ~e land vas con~o~le~ u~e~ the
Council ~t ~pki~ ~o~uted ouC tha~ the ~3 extended on~y two
M~. Gllnn Goud Spo~e in op~ett~on. He ~4 Bol~vac varec a~, to
h~e u~eEmta~ng, the Ctty o~ ~nton could neve~ accutec h~m
wa~8= aa l~g as ~ ~d ~l~vaE wa~e=. ~ s~,~ed =~ he counted
seven bMst~see8 ~nvolv~ ~n ~e a~nezat~on ~nstead o~ the ~wo
counted. Could nec see thaC he would ceceive amy beneCtCe Czom
Council m~uutes o~ ~tobe~ 15 one ~eason ~oE annexation yam mot to
enta~gl ~ but ~ co~o~ ~e g~o~h a~oun~ ~e C~ty. ~ ~tated
c0UntEM ~a~E t~n ~ ~ C~y. Rules amd ze~lat~on8 put on the
p~one, Sa~ge~ addcess, t~ the C~ty o[ Denton.
should ~ve ~d mom ~tice =egatdtng the annexation, a~ the
taxed. DLd ~t Ceel ~t ~ t.tg~t to tax people unless they zecelved
The ~yoe closed the public heating.
330
City o~ Denton City Council Winutes
Wearing o~ Novembe~ 5, 1985
Page 15
Mc. David Ellison. 8enioc Planner. responded to comments made by the
citisens. He contacted the local Post O~ice and the annexation
would not change any present addcesses cc ~ocm o~ Secvice. He also
contacted OTE, and telephone secviee would not be a~ected by
annexation o~ the a~ea. He cla~i~ied a previous cement regarding
businesses a~ected by the annexation. He stated that only
~b¢ee actual s~¢uc~uCe8 wou~d be a~¢ec~ed, ~e Cee~ ~outd be only a
po~on o~ ~be ~om~ yaz6.
annexation. He ~el~ ~Ea~ pe¢haps a 500' e~¢~p ~oul~ be ben,aC
a 750' s~¢~p. ~ asked Elltaon ~o ~heck tn~o ~he log~e~oa
Ceduc~ng ~he
Council ~eube~ Stephens ata~ed that he ~elt that the st~p should
Celia a~ 750' and ~ba~ ~he wRole idea was ~o~
woul~ be involved on ~he p¢ope¢~y being b~ough~ tn. He 8~a~ed
~he omly Ceases ~o~ ~ts annexa~io~ ~a8 ~o¢ pEo~ec~ton both
people and si ~he City.
Council Membe~ Hopkins sta~ed tha~ ~he a~mezat~o~ was a p~o~eo~on
~o~ those people ~o might ~an~ a t~ ac~e t~ac~ cE 'la~ because
~utd p~e~nt certain ~ype8 o~ develop~nt ~tch n~ght not be
desk=able. I~ 5angez ~amted to contzol t~t a~ea, tz would be
wt~ him, Juet es that the asea was controlled. Without any
con, vel, any type si deve~op~n~ could occu~ a~ any
~asn't zeally opposed to the annexation, as the City o~ ~nton had a
sight to annex to the l~a~tm o~ ~te ~TJ. In the aa~ ~nnez, 8anqez
axes ~d a sight to annex to tie ~J. He outl[~ed tn detail the
a~ea that 8angez ~as pzopoaing to annex ~nto itc ~TJ. He
t~t this was bein~ done mo t~t 5ange~ ~uld not be eventually
eu~ou~ed by Denton. Sange~ vas very interested in cont~olltng the
aeon.
Council babes ~ephen8 asked ME. 8huts t~ the City O~ Senses ~d
loo~ed in~o the possibility o~ annexing south o~ CXea~ C~eek.
6~ephens thought tha~ Rectos Road would be uoze o~ a ~uzat
boundary than 2~00' noz~h o~ Rec~oz close to ~he ~1~ plain.
~. 8huts ~eplied no, but t~t ~n the ~utu~e ~heze ~y ~ a need to
~ve so~ boundary s~aightening o~
~yot Stewart thanked M~. 5~utt ~o~ co~ing to ~he Council meeting
and aha~ng some cE ~tg v~e~otn~u wt~h ~he Council.
I~eu ~7 was moved [o~wa~d In tho agenda
7. T~e Council ~ece~ved a ~epo~ on the electric u~ility
Budget/Rate ~uimtst~ato~, gave a pzesenta~ion to the Council
~ega~din~ the Utility ~ates ~o~ ~lical yea~s 1~86. The Utility
Depa~t~nt was ~oJecttng a 5~ increase ~n t~e ~tl~att hou~ sales
ove~ last ~ea~, with a ~evenue o~ $69.4 million. The cost o~
lecvtce ~og~au with every cuetoue~ claee paying an equal e~e. the
~nc~eaae tn ~es~denttal EaSe vo~ld bo 7.45t (coat o[ average
electEic~ty ct 9.36~), cone~ctal ~ate would be minus
govez~ental would be an Increase ol 2.08t, and church, an
o~ .32t. The ~ate p~opoued would not ~ecove~ t~ full amount.
Council ~ube~ Riddleepe~qe: asked the Reason Io~ the do,nd
on churches ~en they utilize ene~ ~on ~t wan tho lowest level
need.
33
1
city , ton city council .i te. -- -
I<eettng o~ Novelbe£ 5, 1985
Page t&
c&~tu£e ttl~ ~lE~d ooetSo &~ t~e ene£gy ct~£ge Yas to capture the
v&~ab~e costa, ~he City ~td not oa~tu~e all o~ the ~i~ed coste on
Lnc~eaat~g, on average a~t 60 days which was 20-30 ~ay8 mo~e than
Eo~ t~le ~o ~Ld not ~y by t~e 16th day aEte~ the bill was
Chacle8 ~yau pceaent~ I co~ac~on si cared ~n ~he aced. In te~us
~nth, ~utd ~ve a c~nge ~u cost st about ~1.50 du~tnq the
~ate. Tho R-2 cugt~E, in W~e~, vh~ch used about 750
~ou~s/~onth ~u~ ~ve a ~a~e ~nc~eage aEound
~tng ~be su~ t~ ~ate ~uld go uR to a~ound $9.00/~nth.
Act~ngt City ~n~gec Rte~ 9vohla asked CEyan to dettneate the
did not use ~¢e t~n 700 ktlowa~ Eou~s/~nth duCtng ~y -
Ootoboe. T~t Cate Vould lave t~em 85-86/mon~h depe~ng on usage.
C~yan s~d t~ Counct~ le~ Jaup~e btl~s ¢o¢ cu~toueEg. A
see an %ueEeame o( about St.00 a~ a ~a~ge coueEcta~ use~ ~uld see
Council ~U~E Rt~los~geE s~ted t~t he could see ~y
houee~IdeE ~ed~ to u~s~nd t~t tn the long ~um he ~u14 be
paying ~Ee ~eause t~ ~ity could not get t~e Eates do~ to attzact
t~UgtEy. ~ diked ~at to anticipate ~en Co~uc~e Peak came
l~ne.
o~ Co~ ~ ~ ~o11~ t~ to ouz ~atea al~ea6~.
but ~at~ o~ ~cem~z ~.
added on to the cctleo~Lon p=oees8. Pe~haps 8end out past-due
not~ee ~ ~t-o~ ~t~e 8oone~ to ~ee ~ t~t would generate
Ne~8on o~et~ t~ ou~ cut-out pEocedu~eo p~e~y wet~ 2otlowed that
~ot bustle, eo~oiat~ a~ t~uett~al ueez8, but not a penalty
couetcial accounts t~t did ~t pay.
OounciX ~ ~pk~ns sta~ed ~t a lo~ sC g~ll bills also added
up ag t dll. ~2 va~ ~ ~t we could no~ a~o~d to ~ve on ~e
books. Xn a ~eu~tal o~ o~hez account. 30 days was too uuch
,,~loa~.
332
City et Denton city Council B(inutes
Meeting o~ November 5, 1985
willingness to help people pith problems. She It&Led t~at sba
~ece~ved a bt11 ~or ~ouc ~nths ~ ~en s~e v~a ant1 about it.
abe Would be toed this t~ ~ould be tn th~ Mil soon.
6~e stated t~t a rats ~nc~eaae vouldn'~ be so ~d ~ the service
to do the Job. or the sta~ vas ~t ~o~ug the ~ob. So~th~g vas
w~ong with the system.
The ~yor tbanke~ Ms, U~ban tot her oo~e~ts.
Item ~5.~. ~as moved leeward ~n the a~enda
A. The Council cons~dezed approval si a zesolutton by
~e lolloving resolution wa8 presented:
Vu~luant to the Texas Non-P~o~t Corporation Act. lee the purpose
~u~t~et~ng educatio~l ovvoztunttteg of students by pzovid~ng ~und8
~ucation Authority. Inc." (the 'Autho=ity'): a~
~RRA5, the Authority has proceeded in the development
purpo~e~, and p~ov~s~on should bo ~de Eo~ ~ ee~u~t~q
bo~s o~ io~ the acquisition o~ the poEtiolio el loans generated
the~e~, additional tu~8 a~e ne~ed to eontt~ the peog~au, a~
18 now appropriate ~or this governing bodF to approve the issuance
of additional bonds tor such put,ese.
N~. ~REFO~, BE IT RESOL~ B~ ~ CI~ ~CIL OF
CI~ OF ~N~N. ~:
by the Authority t~ such Co~tation. u~n approval C~teoC by the
govotnin~ bodies o~ the Cit~ o~ ~nton. Te~8. and the Ctt~ o~
A=tington. Texas. p=oposes to is8uo =evenue bo~s ~n
provide ~und~ (~) ~or the acquisftten o~ add~tio~l silent
a p~tnc[pal amount not to exceed eL00.000.000: a~ (ti) ~o~ the
refunding sE all o~ pa~t o~ the ~uds o~ the Authority outate~ing
/tom tine to time ot lot the 9utpoee ol aequi~ the ~ztlol~o
loans now held unde~ the tndontu~es~ t~t such bo~ would be
nBo~l") a~d t~t s~ BoDd6 vo~d be payable [zol a~ secured by
p~edge o~ revenues de~tved ~tou cz bY reason o~ the o~ere~tp o~
8t~ent loan note~ a~ investment ineo~ a~tee deduotio~ o~ ~uob
expenses ~o¢ operating the loan pE~taa aa My be e~ied by the
bond resolution or trust indenture authorizing o= ae ing
Bondi and the pa~ent
The Sond~ are issued to obtain tu~g with which to
9uto~se Student Loan Notes which ate ~atanteed unde~ tho
9~owision8 o[ the Higher Education eot o~ t965. at a~nded, to
establish ce=rain ~eserves and ~0~ the purpose of paying certain
333
City c~ Denton City Counctk Minutes
#coting og #oveBba£ 5, 1965
the tstuancs and dekive~ o~ such Bonds in one or ao£e sa£ies ~o£
the pu£poses a~o£esatd. &~ in this connection £aquests that the
co,potation ~11, tn the1 connection, exacc~e ~uch p~ec~ ~oc and
8eot[on ~.47(e) o~ the Te~s Education Coda.
SE~I~ III: Tha~ the C~ty does not agree to assume
any responsibility ~n connection with ~he administration o~ thio
being assu~ by tho
S~I~ IV: T~t i8 it cecogntze~ by this governing
body t~ ~he tnstzu~nt~ which authorize the ~ssuance of 8ends by
the ~utho~ty will 8peo~i~a~ly orate the th~s City i8 not obligated
to pay the p~fncipal o~ o~ interact on the Bonds p~oposed to be
issued ~ the ~utho:it~. Nothfnq tn t~ts ~esolution ~hall be
constt~e~ as an i~tcati~n by this Ctty that it will pay or provide
~oc t~ 9a~ent cE any oblk~ations cE the oaid Authoctt~ ~hethe~
he~eto~oce cc hereafter i~cucced, and tn the connection, attention
i8 calked to ~he restitution o~ Texas wherein it is provided C~at a
li~dl i~ ~1~I~ O~ ~[~zl ~1, /lil~l oC mouey loc the pa~ent
o~ any t~ebtednees o~ obligation of the Authority.
~I~ V: T~t the ~yo~ o~ ~yo~ P~o
u~e= ~ect~on 103(n) cE ~he In~ez~l ~evenue Coda
a~nded, a~ ~he ae~t t~ ~e kuthortty o~ any al~ocation ~ade
o~ ~o be ~de to t~is C~y in t~e calenda~ yeac ia which a secie8 of
bo~8 ~l ~tivec~ kg ~o~ ~de and approved.
zeeolut~om he~eto~oze adopted ~pzil 23,
5E~I~ VII: T~t i~ is hereby o~tolally ~ound
de~ec~ine~ ~t the ~eting at which thio reeolu~ion
t[~, 91aec a~ 9u~9ose o~ sa~d ~eet~ng was g~ven as tequ~ed.
PA~S~D ~ ~PP~D this %t~ day og Novembe=,
RTCHARD O. 5T~NA~T, M~YOH
CITY OF DRN~N. TEY~8
RTTEST:
DEB~A ~DM~I D~AYOVITC~
CITY ~TTOI~Y
C~TY OF DLIT01i, T~ZA8
334
City' o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ November 5. ~985
Page 19
J(~. Mike Bernard, Executive Di£ecto= o~ the l~e= Education
Se=vicing Co=po=alton, which was the se=vicing agent ~o£ the No,th
Texas Highe£ Education Authority, cosmented to t~e Council regarding
st~ent loans. Zt had pu~c~se4 iMut 865 m~ll~o~ ~u st~ent loans
a~ ~d assisted about 10,000 students. He b~ie~ly discussed t~e
lpec~ic8 cE ~he ~eaolution ~o~ ~he Council.
~pkins motion, Stephens seco~ t~t the ~eeolution ~ approved.
Eol~ ca~l vote, McAda~ "aye," Hop~2S "lye," 6tep~ "aFe," Al~o~6
~ion carEied unanimously.
T~e ~uncil them zeturmed to the ze~laz agenda o~deE.
P. T~e Council held a public hea~ing on ~ petition
S~l C. Bacuch ~oc voluntacy ~exation o~ a~oxi~tely 92.80
acEo8 beginning approxi~tely 500 ~eet no,th o~ Highway 77
app~oxiutely [,050 [eel east o[ [-3SM (A-28).
T~ ~yo~ opened the ~ub[ic
M~. David Rllison, SenioE Plaune=,. 8tared t~t ~o ~e~ly [o=M
=etueued in ~avo~ o~ opposition on t~i8 public ~i~g. Tonight vas
a continuation o~ t~e p~ocess o~ voluntary anne~tion.
Mo one ~poke in oppo8itton.
T~e ~yor clo~ed the public hea~ing.
~p~im8 notion, Chew seco~ to proceed Wit~ t~ annoxa~ion
peo~d~e8. Motion ca~ed u~ntmougly,
E. The COUnC~ ~d a ~ubt~e hea~ng on ~ pe~tion
~1 R. hacque~nt Eoz volunta~ annexation cE app~oxt~ll~ 59.6
aeEes being pa~t o~ the T. Toby Su~veF, Abs~Eac~ llgt, a~ begtnui~
adjacent and vest o~ FM 2164 app~QXi~te~y 3,000 ~oO~ no,th
Hercules Lane (A-29).
T~ ~yor opened t~e public
ME. David Rllisou, Senio~ Planne~, iu~o~med ~o ~ou~il ~hat theEe
vas no new involution ~egacding ~he a~xation, no cepl~
~ec~tved, no objections Cron 8ta~.
Mo one 8po~e in opposition.
The ~o~ ~losed the publl~ hoaEing,
Stephens ~tfon. Chow second to con~uo with the
pEoeeduEe8. ~t~on cavE,ed
A. The Council considered adoption o~ an o~d[~nce
accepting competitive bids a~ p~ov~d~ng ~o~ ~he awned cE contracts
~o~ the pucahage o~ ~te~ials, ~uipment. ~pplt~ cE
p~oviding ~o~ the expeuditu=a o~ ~unds the=e~oz: ~ pzovtdtug
an e~ective date.
ThA followin~ ozdinance sas p~eaented:
335
City o~ Dento~ city Counctt M~nute~
Meettn~ o~ Wovelbe,' 5, ~9~5
WO, 8S-216
~N O~tDIW~C~ ,%~"~"~PTI~3 COmPeTITIVE BID~ ~ ~KRDI~ A
C~ FOR ~ P~C~E OF ~KI~LS. EQUI~NT.
F~8 ~FOR~ ~ P~VIDIN~ FOR ~N KFFKCTI~ DATE,
vote, ~Kda~l "aye." HOpkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Al[otd "aye,
RiddlelDe~get "aye," Ch~ "aye," and ~yot 8~ewatt "aye." Mot[on
B. The Council considered adop=ton o~ an ot6~nance
accepting eo~pet~tLve b~d~ a~d providing ~ot the awatd o[ conttact;
~unde ~e~e~o~; and ptovidtn~ ~ot an e[[ect[ve ~ate.
The ~oll~t~ o~nance waa
~, 85-2~7
~ ~D OF C~TZ FOE ~U~IC ~RK5 OR
P~IDI~G FOE ~ ~F~TI~
vote, ~a~ "aye," ~t~l "aye," Stephens "aye," A~o~d "aye,
RiddlespeE~ez 'aMe," Chew 'aMe," a~ ~o= 5tewa=t "aMc."
ca==ie~ u~ntaouelF.
C. The Couae~ coastdezed adoption o~ An ozd~uance
pzovtd~ng ~oz the expe~tu=e o[ ~u~e goz emez~encM pure~eee
o[ co~ttCtve bide; a~ 9tovtdtng fo~ au e~ecttve date.
The Collov~ng otd~nee was presented:
NO. 8%-2~8
~ ORDIN~ P~IDIN~ FO~ ~ E~ITU~E OF FU~S FO~
~CY P~SE5 OF ~R~AL6. EQUTP~NT. ~UPPBTES OR
~ING SUCH P~6E5 ~R~ HEQUIH~NT5 OF ~ETITI~
H~ddlo~zg~= IO~On, C~ IICO~ ~o adopt ~he ordinance. On ~oll
call vote, ~ "aye. · ~p~n~ "aye." 6tephen~ ~a~e." Al~otd
"aye," aiddlaa~ezgec "aye,' Chew "aye," a~ ~yoz Stewazt ~aye."
~tion eatc~ u~nt~ual~.
D. The 0o~o~1 cons~de=ed adoption o( an o=dknance
setting a da~e, t~le and p~aoe ~oc public ~eatkngs ooncecn~n~ the
petition o~ ~e City o~ ~n~on ~oz annexation o~ 136.588 aczes
be~nn~ a~p=oxt~tely 500 ~ee~ eaet o~ the cen~e=l~ne o~
H~ghwa~ 377 a~d South o~ Bcueh C~eek Road, and being pac~ o~
Oeocge M. ~eECy 8u~v~, Abstcac~ 3~ (A-~).
Mc. Dav~d R~l~8on, ZeAlot Planne~. comuen~ed that c~s was the
o~ ~x anme~on~ whteh ~* being zedone because oE an ezzo~
the p~bltea~on p~ocees. One 9zel~zM plat had been app=oved,
and the ocig~nal develop~nt pcopo~ed wac continuing.
petition o~ voluntary a=nexat~on w~th no tesponae, a~ teco~nded
that the public hea=~ng~ be ~etd on Noveabez 1~, 1985 and Deceabe=
336
City of Denton City Council Minutes
I[ee~.ing of Novembe~ 5. tg85
Page 2t
The following ordinance was presented=
NO, 85-219
1~ ORDINANCE SETTING A D&T~o TI]~ A~D PI. ACE ON
PROPOSED A~N~XATION OF ~TAIM P~PE~ BY ~ CI~ OF
Chew ~ion, Hopkins second ~o adopt Cbc o~dtnance, On fell emil
VOte, ~alS "aye," ~pkins "aye," Gtep~e~l "aye,' AI~oEd "aye,"
Rtdd~espe~ge~ "a~e," Chew "aye." a~ ~yor ~ewaE~ "aye," aotion
E. The Council considered adovtton el an o~dtnince
Se~ttn~ a da~e. ~iue and place doe public hOaEtag8 eoneo=nt~ the
pent,ion el the C~y ol Denton io~ annexation ol app=ozt~oly 93.67
ac~e8 beqtnning 350 lest sou~h of and peE~tcuta= =o
comte=line el U.i. Highway 380 a~ seat el ~esttug Road (A-L3).
The iottowtng o~dt~nce was ~=esen~ed:
NO.
PRO~ ~TI~ OF ~RTAIN PROPBR~ BY ~ CITY
P~LISH N~I~ OF GU~ P~LIC.~RI~,
Hopkins ~o~ion, C~ew second to ado~t the o~di~n~, On ~oll call
atddlespeEgeE "aye," Ch~ "aye," a~t hyol StoNiEr "aye.,' ~ion
carEied un~i~un fy.
F. The Council consi~Eed adoption ct a~
setting a date, time a~ place gee public hea~tngf eonee~ntnq the
appEoxtuately 250 feet south el and pe~pendtcula~ to the cente~ltne
o~ ~ 426, app¢oxt~te~y 2,000 ~eet east el ~yhtll ~oad (A-t4).
T~ iollo~ing oCdt~noe ~a~
PROPOSED ~TION OF ~RT~IN P~OPEE~ BY ~ CI~ OF
Chew ~otton, MeAde,s second to adopt the oedtnanoe. ~ ~oll call
vota. ~Adams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Atlot~ "aye,"
ltddtespe~ge~ "ave." Chew "aye," and ~yo~ StewlEt naye." ~tton
oa~ted
9. The Council considered adoption el an oCdt~nee
set,ins a ~ate, time and ~tace foe public hea~t~s concerning the
pe~t~ton el the City cE Denton to= a~tton el a99=~t~ely 41.~
acres situated In the S. Hutzat SUrVey, Abstract 514, a~ beginning
approximately 5oo feet no,th of and ~tculi~ ~o the oeate~ttno
el U.6. Htq~ay 380 and ~est el ~so~ B¢aaeh ~o~ (~-t~).
The Eollo~tn~ o~dt~nce ~as pzesent~:
Meeting o~ November 5. ~15
~&ge 22
NO. 85-222
AN ORDINI~C~ ~ETTING A DAT~, TIME AND PLACE O~ THE
PROPO~D M~gE~ATI~ OP CEHTAIN P~OPERTY BY TH~ CITY OF
DHNTO~. TI~I~8, ~ AUTHORIZING ~ DIRECTING THE ~AYOH TO
I PUBLI6H NOTIC8 0~ 8UCH PUBLIC
Hopkins ~otion, Stephens second to adopt the o£dtnance. On £o1~
call vote, 14~Ad&ls "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye,"
'aye," Biddleepergec .aye," Chew "aye." and Kayot Stewart "aye."
Hotio~ o&£rted unanimously.
H. The Council conside=ed adoption of an o£d~ance
set=tug a date, tt~ end place ~ot public heatings concerning
request of Halmat~ & N&eh, Inc. end the City of Denton
annexation of approx~utately 150 acres situated in the D. Hough
approxLlately 4,000 ~eec ~ccb o~ ~-35 (A-17).
The ~oZ~ow~ng ocd~nance w&s
NO.
~ O~N~ 5~TING A DA~, TI~ ~ PLA~ ~
~O~ED ~TI~ OF C~HTA~N P~OPEHTY BY ~ CITY OF
P~I~ ~I~ ~ 8U~ PUBLIC ~.
~ame mo~on, Al~o~ ~e~ond to *~oD~ the o=~Lnance. On =o~ call
vo~e. ~a~ "aye," HoB~I "aye," 8teDhe~8 "aye." Al~o~ "aye."
R[ddlelpecql: "aye," C~ "aye," and ~yo= Stewart "aye." ~tion
I. The Couae~l conetdeted adoption o[ an ordinance
8ett[n~ i date, t[~ and p~ace ~oc public heac~nge concerning the
t,O00 2~t east O~ ~y~ill Road (A-18).
~. 85-22~
~ ORDIN~ SI~ING A DATE, TI~ ~ P~ ON
P~ ~TI~ OF CERTAIN PROP~H~ BY ~ CITY OF
D~. ~8, ~ AU~RI%ING ~D DIRECTING T~ ~YOR
P~LISH ~1~ ~ ~U~ PUBLIC ~RI~.
Nc~a~S ~O~On, ~p~lnS Se~O~ ~O a~op~ the o~d~n~e. On =oil carl
Rtddtelpezget "aye." Ch~w nays," a~ ~yot Stewart "aye." Mo~ton
ca~ed
J. The Cou~e~t conltde=ed adoptton o[ an o~d~nance
the City o~ ~tton el~ab~isht~ ~l~ng [ee~ 9=evaded [o~ by
A, the ~nto~ ~veto~nt Code,. tot petitions Eoc voluntary
annexations, o~ t~e Code o~ OEdinance~ o~ ~he City o[ ~nton, Texa~.
~ct[n~ Cl~y ~goc Hi~k Gvehla informed the Council t~t th~8
ordinate would Institute a ~ee o~ $250.00 ~ot voluntary annexation
9etkt~o~.
Tbs (ollow~ng o=dknance wag p~egented:
338
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
#eet~ng o~ November 5, 1985
P&ge 23
NO. 85-225
~ OP. DINP~.NCE OF THE C~TY OF ~ R~SH[NG
· E~S P~V~DBD ~0~ BY ~P~Z~ A, ~ ~ D~hO~T
C~E. POE P~TITION~ FOR ~L~ ~TI~E. OF
REPEALI~ ALL O~N~5 ~N ~L~ ~NI~;
PR~IDI~ FOR ~ RFFRCTI~ DA~.
RiddLespetget motion, Mc~ams seeond ~o adopt t~e ordinance. On
~o~1 cal~ vo~e, MeRda~I "aye," ~R~Lna "aye," 8~e~ "lye," Al~otd
"a~e," ~tdd~espe=ge= "aye," C~ew "aye," a~ ~yot 6tewat~ .aye..,
K. The Counet~ oonatdet~ ados:ton o: an otdt~nce
amending Section 9-1, ~t~Lo~e I, C~pte~ N~ne o~ ~he Code o~
OEdt~noe~ o~ the C~ty o~ ~nton, Te~s. telatt~ to the
· ~opttng the 1984 edition o~ the Nat~o~l ~lect~teal Code
certain deletions and a~endmont8
Ao~ng CL~y ~ge~ Hick 8vehla In, oEcd the Coune~l ~ha~
o:d~nce would adopt the 1984 e~ou o~ ~hl Na~o~
Code.
Counci~ Member HopKins aeked t~ ~he otdi~noe Lnctuded the
a~e~aents as adjusted by the Natio~l 8leetz~oal Code.
5vehla zeplied t~t the a~en~m~a ~e the eues suqgested by
~a~d. the C~M o~ Denton Electzical Co~e Board.
The follo~in~ o~d~nance ~aa p~eeented:
NI~ OF ~ CODE OF O~IN~5 OF ~ CI~ OF D~.
ELE~H~CAL CODE ~ BE~T~ SAED SR~I~ ~IN~
1984 EDITION OF T~ NATZ~L RLEC~ICAL ~ N~ ~HTAIN
DB~ETIONG ~ ~T8 ~; ~IM e~t~ ~-6 OF
~ D~N CITY ~DE BY ~NG A ~ P~PH (d)
RRP~LING SE~ION 9-30, P~H (~) ~T~NG
~PLICATI~S FOR J~~*6 LIaR ~~ PRIOH
J~ARY 1. ~973; ~ ~ ~R~ SE~ION 9-30.1
RELAT~N~ TO EEC IPR~ ~l~G ING ~ P~DI~
~HEFOR~ ~DIN~ A ~ S~ION 9-34 ~RQUZH~NG A
C~C~R'5 LIC~E ~ EGTABLISHIN~ A FEE
~DDI~ A ~ SECTION 9-~6 ~~ ~8~ ~IC~6 OF
EGEC~IC~ ~~R6 ~ B~ I~I~[CATI~ ~EH5
LE~H8; ~ING ~ ~I~ I~I~ 9-46 ~
& CO~R'5 LIEGE BEFORE ~RK PN~I~ ~
PR~IDI~ FOR ~ REPE~ OF CO~LI~I~ OIDIN~E~
~KING THIS OHDIN~E ~TI~ OF PHIO~ O~IN~C~
P~T6 ~REOF N~ IN ~XCT ~1~; ~IDI~ A
8~R~IhlTY C~US~; PR~ZDI~ F~ ~TIB8 FOR
Htd~letpe~ge~ "aye," Chew "aye," and ~o¢ 5tewaE~ "aye."
ca=Eied unantuou~ty.
L. The Council conside¢ed adog~oa o~ an o¢dt~noe
approving a cont:ao~ ~ot the city's participation ~u the co8~ o~
tnatalltng oversize varec.line [actlttte8 ~ot W,H. Smith.
Hr. Bob hllOn, Dtreetor o! Utilities, informed the Council that
Mr. W.H. 8u~th was developing property weft cC Bonnie Brae on Payne
Dr~ve. The City needed to extend a 20" l~ne ~rom Un~ve~sity
about 3,100~ up to Peyne Drive. The overs~z[ng cost would be
$66,?S0. The line would tb~n need to be extended west along Payne
Dr~ve fo£ about 2,000' at a 12~ I~zs and the colt Eot that poet[on
would be $3,142.00.
The Colloving ordinance vii
NO. 85-22?
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CO~T FOR THE CITY'S
P~HTIC~PATZON IN TH~ COST OF INSTALLTNG O~BGIZE
~ ~T: ~P~V~NO ~ EXP~I~ OF FUNDfl
~KEFO~E, ~P~OVIDI~ FOR ~ EFFECT~ DATE.
MCAda~ ~o~, Chew SeOo~ to adopt the ordinance. On =o~t
~tddlelpe~gl~ "aye," Ch~ "aye," and ~yo~ Stewart "aye." ~t[on
oa==~ed uninttOUlly.
~ 15~5 w~th~n t~e co,po=ate l~uitl o~ t~e C~ty o~ Denton.
had done so~ ~a~a~ s~udtes ~ ~he zoad ~zou the I-~5 ovezpasa to
overpass to Co~b~n Roa~ a~ a ~5 mi~e per hour s~eed ~tut~
The Eollowtng o=dtnance was p=eaented:
NO. 8%-228
O~IN~ ~RI~ ~ PR~ FACIE SPEED LIMITS
E~T~LlS~D F~ ~ICLES ~EH ~ PROVI5I~5 OF SECTION
1~%(b) OF ~HT~CLH 6701d. ~NON'5 ~ CIVIL
~ ~TI~G OF F .M. HXGMY NO. 1515, hi,IN T~
C~TE ~ OF ~ C~TY OF D~N. A~ SET
· ~D ~200.00 FOR ~ VIOlATiON OF ~IS OHDIN~C~
Chew ~t~on, ~a~ aecu~ ~o adopt ~he o=dEnance. On =oll call
vote, ~all "a~e," ~p~l "aye," Stephens "aye," AlCo~d "aye,"
R[ddlelpezgez ,,aye," Ch~ "aye," a~d ~yor 8teva~ "aye,"
N. The Cou~[1 considered adoption oC an ordinance
beginning a~ Oho leEv~oe ~oad o[ 1-35E ~o the [n~e~sect~on o~
Teasley Lane.
Acting. City ~gez Rick Sveh~a informed t~e Council that th~s
o~d~nee would establish a 35 ~ile an hou~ speed l~t ~com Teasley
Lane to t~e ~=om~age ~oad tn
The ~o~lovtng o~di~noe va~
~. 85-229
~ O~N~C~ ~GZ~ATING ~ EGT~LIGHING A SPEED ~tMZT
~ ~ILLI~ M~LLRH PAH~AY (FO~R~Y R~EMAY DRIP),
~I~ AT ~ SE~ICE HeAD OF IN~5TATK 3SE ~ T~
I~HIE~ION ~ ~5~EY ~, OF ~I~-FI~ (3S) MITES
city ot ~enton city council Winute~
J~etinO of Novembe~ 5. lg85
Page 25
HUNDRED ~OLLAR~ ($Zo0.o0) FOR VIOLATZO#8
8~FECT~ DATE,
VO:t. ~Ada~8 "aye," Hopkins "aye." 8~ephe~ "aFl," A~goc~
R~dd~eipeEge~ "aye." C~ev "lye,- ann ~yo~ Stewtct "aye." ~t~on
ca~E~e~ unan[mougly.
o. ~ha coun~i~ cons~de~e~ adop:~on o~ an o~unce ,'
appzov~n~ a 8ubeczibe~ ag:eemen~ between tbs C~ty o~ ~n~on a~
· ub~sbin~ Company.
C~y ~ocney Dob~a Dcayov~cb ~n~o~ued the ~u~L ~ha~
o~d~noe ~uld allow tho execution o~ a l~oonul agceemen~ to use
NO. 8~-230
~ ORD~N~ APPROV~ ~ ~RR~ B~ ~ CI~ OF
DE~ON ~ ~5TL~ FO~ A S~B~IBER A~,
PR~IDI~ FOR ~ RFPRCTI~ ~.
C~ow ~ion, McA~ams secon~ ~o adog~ ~he o~dt~n=e. O~ =ell
VO~e, McCall "aye," Hop~t~8 "aye," S~o9~t~8 "aye," Atfocd "aye,"
R~d~espe~ge~ "e~e*** C~ew "aye," an~ ~yo~ G~evl~ ~aye.,
P. The Council ~ons~deEed adoption o~ aa o~di~nce
approving a 8ecvice ~ee ~oc 12 months ~oc ~icam ~blic
· aeociatton ~o~ ~nton ~mic~pal
~. Bob ~elaon, Dizecto~ o[ Uttl~tiea, ~n~oz~d the Council that
o~di~nce ~uld pa~ the cit~'~ annual ~P~ dues o~ ~ll,A~O.
The ~ollow~ng ocd~nance ~a8
~ ORDIN~CR A~RIZIN~.~ ~P~I~B OF F~ BY ~
CI~ OF D~T~ FOR ~AL 5~VI~ P~H POS ~RRGHIP
~ ~RIC~ P~LIC ~R A~IATI~ ~ ~P~1NG
E~E~I~ OF F~S ~RRFOR: ~ PR~IDIN9 FOR
RFFKCTI~ D~TE.
Chew ~tton, Hopkins second to ado~t t~ ocdl~nce. On coil call
vo~e, ~e~a~s 'aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "~," ktlo~d
· tddlespe~ge~ 'aye." Chew "aye." a~ ~yo~ Ste~az~ ~ay~."
One,led ~-~ ~ith Council ~ 8~ep~us casting ~he "~y" vote,
6. Resolutions
B. Tho Council constdeEed approval el a ~etotutiou
adopting t~cee peceonnel policies:
2. Pe~sonat Leave M~t~out Pay
3. ~t~ton Re~mbucseuen~ 107.0g
The followtm~ zeaolu~om wes pzeeea~ed:
CJ.'cy o<' Denton. C~.ty Counc~.]. M~.nutes 3 4 1
Maer.~.'~g o~ NOVelber 5. 1915
Page 26
~g 8 0 [= U T I ON
~egl~d~ ~oyoe ~u~e8 a~ ~e~a~ons ~0~ ~he Counc ~ ~ ' 8
~. ~he C~ty Counc~ ~ee~Eea ~o adop~
OF DR~, ~6, ~T:
~=eof, Ace ~zeby ado~d a. o~c~a~ po~ic~ o~ ~he CL~M o~
~[t[on ~[~bu~e~n~ (Re~e~ence 107.09 )
PoEgo~ Lo~ W~hou~ ~ly (Re~eEeu~e ~1.08)
The ~ozegotng ~tc~ee aEe a~ached he~o a~ ~de a
City Se~ze~aEy.
~ R~oyee Rules a~ Re~X~on8 o~ ~976 a~op~ed by
baolu~Loa of t~e C~y C~u~I on February ~, ~77, ate ~e~eby
~eec~nded ~o ~ ez~en~ ~y com~e~ v~h ~he a~ae~e~ po~e~es
T~8 Reeolu~Lon 8~1~ be e~ec~ve ~zo~ and
da~e o~ ~aaea~e a~ a~p~oval. ,
P~ ~ ~PI~D t~ie ,t~e Sth day o~ ~veube~. 1985.
R~C~D O. S~T, ~YOR
CITY Of ~. ~
~T~GT ~
BY:
Chew BOttom. Mih~dale leOOg that the =alOlUttOn be:~9£ovad. On
£011 Qall voto, He/~dame ~aye," Hopkius "aye,"~ )hang "aye,"
~l[o~d ~&ye,u ~ddle8~ ~iFG," Ch~ "aye," a ~yo~ 8tev/~
"aye." ~tiou ca~ied u~l~usty.
342
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
I~oting of November 5. 3.985
Page 27
C. The Council considered app£oval o~ a resolution
authorizing condemnation proceedings to obtain an all purpose
utility easement.
Acting City ]tanager Rick Svehla informed the Council that this
easement was across a piece o~ property out near Highway 380 and the
railroad tracks for sewer. The o~er vould not sell the City the
right-of-pay at the appraised p£iceo and he would not accept.
The following resolution vas presented:
RESOLUTION
WtiERERS. the CLty Council of the City of Denton. Texas
has heretofore dete~mined the necessity for ann ordered the
acquisition by the City of Denton o~ the hereinafter described
tight, title and interest in the land hereinafter described: and
bm'eR~AS, the CLtg o: Denton ham been usable to agree and
cannot agree with the o~ets upon the value o: the
described right, title and interest in the hereinafter
la~ m[tuate& tn the City o: Oe~ton, ~nton County, Texas; ~,
~ae~oe~, BE ~T RESOLED BY T~ CO~CIL OF T~ CI~ OF
S~CTION I
The City Council hereby ~t~l a~d determines
necessary to acquits the ~eretna~tet described rights, title a~
interest in the hereinafter described ta~. and t~t it i8 necessary
t~t it authorize proceeding tn ~miuent ~tn to acquire the
tight~, title, and interest in the ~ceina~tlt described property,
The city ~ttorney ol the City ot ~nton, Tmxas. is hereby
authorized a~ directed :o bring condemnation proceeding to obtain
an all purpose utility easement in. ove~, a~ u~et the ~olloving
t~act cE land situated in Denton County. Texas:
~11 that certain lot. tract cz parcel ct land IMta~ and bein~
situated in the City and County ct ~ntou. State el Te~s. and being
pa~t ct the ~. B~yan Survey. Abstract Mo. lA~ an~ also being pa~t
a t~act ol land conveyed by deed recorded tn Volu~ 612. Pa~e Al0
the Deed Records ol Denton County. Texas. and ~o~e particularly
described as
Be~inmtn~ at the northwest co:ner ct said tract, said point l~in~ in
the east boundar~ line o~ said ~. Bz~an Survey;
Thence south alon~ the east boundary line ol said t~aet, a distance
cE 16 feet to a point io~ a corner:
Thence west. 16 feet south o~ a~ parallel to the no,th boundary
line ol said tract, a distance oi appzoxi~tely 1~3 feet to a point
for a corner in the west bou~a~y line ol said
T~ence no,th, alou~ the west bou~azy line oi said tract, a distance
o[ 16 test to a point to~ a co~ne~, sa~e being the northwest
o[ said tract:
T~enoe east. alon~ the no,th boundary lime cE said ~gact. a distance
o~ app~oxi~tely 1973 ~eet to the place o~ begL~tng a~ containing
0.73 acres of land. mote ct Less.
343
City o~ Denton City Council I(inuts~ ,
Meeting o~ November 5, ~965 ,
p~t 2- Conat£uctton
In addition to the 16 ~oot pe,.uansnt easement as ~emc,.lbed above, an
initial coust:uction eame~nt [o=ty (40') gees ~n width is to be
pe,.uanent eaaauent and will lay on the south side o[ said
easement. The cone~uction easement to be used [cz ~n[tial
construction
~o~ t~ purpose of constructing, zeconetzuctioa, amd pez~etually
~[nta~ninq an all puzpose utility eaee~mt in, on, and undec said
T~te Resolu~ion ehal~ become e~Eect~ve ~zom and
da~e o~ passage.
PASSED ~ APPEND this the 5th day cE Novembec, 1985,
CI~ OF D~N, ~
ATTEST:
BY:
At~o,.d Botion. Chew 8ecoud that the ceeolution bm, appcoved. On ,.ell
"aye," ttd~lolpe~ge= "aye," Chee "aye," and Mal~oc 5tewa£t "aye,"
D. ~e ~ou~tl considered appcova~ o~ a
cast[n~ t~e City o~ ~on vote ~oc a uembe~ to t~e BoRed o~
DtcectoE8 o~ t~m Couuty-wtde ~pcatsal Dtstc~ct.
The IOllovt~ ~esotutton was p~osented:
RESOLUTION
BE IT ~GOL~D BY ~ CI~ ~CIL OF ~ CI~ OF ,D~TON, TE~5:
T~ Ct~y Cou~i~ oi ~he City el ~ton, Texas,
easts at1 o~ tls ~S6 votes ~o~ Ra~ond Pttt8 as a ~mbeg o~ the
Boa~d el DtEecto~s el t~ County Mtde ~Vp~atsat Dtst~ict icc the
County el ~nton. Texas.
P~IED ~ ~PE~D this the 5th day o~ November, 1985,
344
City o~ Denton City Council M~nutee
#eet~.~.g ot~ November 5, 1985
Page 29
RTL'"H~D O. STll#ILIT. I~YOu
~TT~ST:
CHJLR~3~eTE &LLEN, CITY
CITY Ote DENTON. T~Y~8
APPrOVeD AS TO LEGAL
DI~B~J~ ADAI~I DRAYOVITCH. CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
Eiddleepetget motion, Chew eecond that the resolution be approved.
On toll call vote. ~c&dams "aye." Hopkins "aye,. Stephens "aFc."
Al~Otd "aye." ~iddleepetge: "aye." Ch~ "aye." and Mayor Stewart
"aye." Motion cat:ted u~n~mouely.
E. The Council conetaeted app=oval o~ a resolution
approving plans and spec~[icat~ons EOF h~nga:s on the Jay Hoge;s at~d
Bruce Bto~ ~ease at the Denton ~nte~pal ~ttpott,
lease property a: the attpoct along ~ttb the appropriate taupe
taxiWays. This was phase one o~ their project. Tho least agtee~nt
requited ~hat the plans and specifications be approved by the
Counctl.
The :elbowing resolution ~as
~R~8, the C~ty o~ ~nton ~s Ieal~ La~ upon the
~nton ~n[ctpal Aitpo=t to Jay D. EogeE~ a~
partnership, by lease agreement dat~ ~t~ 2.
~R~S. Jay D. loqete and 8:uce Rto~ dearie to
oongttuct two 80 x 75 foot and one 60 x 60 ~oot. a~tcta~t ~totage
~ngats with related o~ice space, taxi,ye, and to,ways
leased premises; and
~REAS, the leas~ agreement provides
8peet~ieat~onf and the location o~ the imptoveaent;, the eet~tea
coat o: auc~ comst:uc~ion, a~ t~ ag:eed estt~ted lire o: eueh
nttuctutea be approved bM the City Council o: t~e City o: Dentom
be~ote eonettuetton ~ co,encee a~
~R~B, the p~an8 and speciE,cattY.
by t~e appropriate o~icee o~ ~e City 8ta~ i~ the Aitpot~
~visory Board and Cound to be tn complta~e wtth applicable City
ordinances a~ policies: ~,
BR IT RESOLED BY ~ CO~CIL ~ ~ CI~ OF ~ON, ~S, ~T:
T~e plans and spec~:tcattong :or t~l p:opoled
consttuctton o~ three atcpo:t ha~aEs and Eelated
taHiways, a~ roadways, attached hezeto and tneo~tatea hotetu by
te~e:ence, at the location sho~ thetoon, a~e ~e:eby approved.
345
C~ty o~ Denton C~ty Council X~nutos
leering o~ Noveube~ 6, 1915
Page 30
The est~m~tsdl eoet o~ such conet~uct~on o~
and the ee~uated l~e ~ ~he ~opoeed sttuctu~e~ o~
TR~I Resolu~iou 8~11 be e~ee~tve
~auna~e a~ a~zoval. '
PASSRD ~ ~D t~s the ~tb day o~Noveube~, 1985.
O. 8TEM~HT. MAYOR
CXTY OF DENTON,
I~TTE6T:
]~PROVRD J~6 ~O L~L
Head&us notion, Chew second t~t the =eeolutiem be app=oved. On
cell ca,ll vo~e, ~]V~.ale ~IFO," ~p~ins "aye," Stephen8 "aye." Al~ozd
Ho~on cazz~ u~m~uouely.
ff. T~ Coune~ eone~e~ed approval o~ a zesolutton
appzov~mg t~ p~el~uina~y plane an~ e~ec~eat~Ons ~oz the C~a~g
T~us an~ J~u Co,teeM leans at ~he Denton
M=. Cl~nt Lynch. A~zpo=~ ~gez, ~n~o=med Council that on 8epteubeE
~, ~985 ~e Coun~l appEowed a cone=cial lease ~oJz ~, T~u8 a~ Mz.
Couzsey ~oz cong~=uc~ion of ~ ~nga~ end a =aap seen. A~ ~hi~ t~me.
=~ey wau~e~ ~o bu~d only the zimp an~ ~ax~way and la~e~
~mgez.
Lynch ~lplie~ t~t they ~d 180 days ~ou 8epteube~ 3, 1985.
a~so~uTlo~
~. t~e City of Denton ha8 lea~ed land upon the
, Denton ~tei~al Atz~ozt ~o C~a~g Ttua and Jt~ Cou~sey. a Texae
~, CEaiQ Tins and J~u cou~sey desJ~ze to conetzuct ·
p~opoged ~ngm~ upon t~ ~med pzea~ue8: and I
cost Oi e~eh eouetzuetton, and the agceed
3 4 6 city og Denton city Council #inures
Meeting of November 5, 1985
Page 31
life of such structures be approved by the City Council o! the City
of Denton be~o£e const£uction may commence; and
the estimated cost and lt~e o~ such construction have been reviewed
A~viso£y Board an6 found to be in compliance with applicable City
ordinances and policies; NO~, THEREFORE.
construction o~ ~ ~aK~ay and parking =,~p a~ =els=ed d~=t wo~ ~o=
The es~ed uos~ o~ such construction o~ ~4,000.00
hereby approved.
Th~s He~oIutXon ~haXX b~ ~f~ectXve ~ed~at~ly upon
passage and
PASSED ~ APPRO~D th~s the 5~h d~y of November,
RICNAHD O. STEMA~T, MAYOR
CIT~ OF Dt~TON. T~
ATTEST:
CHAH~TE aLLEN. CITY
CXT~ OF DENTON,
APPHOV~D AS TO LEGAL FO~4:
D~BBA ADA~I D~AYOVITCH, CITY ATTOHN~¥
CXTY OF D~NTONo TEXAS
BY:
Stephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be appmoved. On
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye,'* Chew "aye," and Meyor Stlwamt
Motion ca££ied unanimously,
6. The Council received a ~imA1 £eport o~ the #astewate~
Collection System Kester Plan and, considered adoption of the
Mastewa~e£ Collection System Master Plan ~or the C~ty of Denton.
Mr. Dave HaB, Aleistant D~eoto= o~ Utilities goc Matec and
~as~e~ate~ gave A mepomt to the Council. ~ s~a~e~ ~t the
~ate~ plan a~opte~ wis Xn 1974. This plan took ~nto effect the
a~ the Planning Department worke~ very closely w~tb then on
de~in~mq boundacies. ~m stated t~t the present plant should be
a~uate until 1990 ama a~te= t~t the plant ~uld ~ve to be
incceamed. ~m a~owed the Council mevecal ovecbea~a in~icattng
~eze the new tines would be constructed tn the ~utuce. He aake~
that the Council consider adopttng the plan.
Page 33
Council ~elbe£ Ho~k~n, co~emde~ Ham fo£ the £epozt.
Hopkins ~ao~on, Che~ 8acend to adopt the mastez p~an. Mot~o~ po.sod
unani~ouely.
~e Cou~l ~onvenea trite ~e ~xeCUtive Session to
appo~nt~ntm. Mo o~c~al action vas taken.
Council ~abet. ~ot ~utute age~as: '
l. CouneL~ ~bet 8teghene tequea:ed a ~zittem ~epott on
With no further tte~ o: business. :he meeting wa,~ adjourned.
348
City Council Minutes
November 19. 1985
The Council convened into the York Seeeion at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil
DeKenle Room.
puusEHT: )tayo£ Stevart; ~ayor P£o Tem HopKins; CoUncil Membe£s
A1Ko£d, Chew, McAdame, Ntdd~esperger aaa AlCocd
Acting City Manegec. City A~ocney a~ C~y 8e~ce~a~y
~S~: None
1. T~e Counc~ received a pteeenZa~on cC a Par~s aaa
2. ~he Counc~ ho~d a disouls~ou o~ a Eeso~u~on ~o ido~
the ~ogu~a~ agenda ~oc passage ve~l the cmnu~t o~ th~ Fa~c Labor
hours baa gone ~n~o the pcepaca~o~ o~ ~ese po~tc~e8 ~o eotp~y vt~h
~e ,~ew Eegula~onm. The ~LBA engo~eeuenC ~uZd beg~n ~n Apc~
1986 an~ due co ame~men~8 vh~ch had been ~de ~o t~ ~,
would ~ecomaA a ~eco~eide~a~o~ o~ the coapeasa~ocy ~ ~ltcy.
Ac~ng C~ty ~nagec R~ck Sve~la cepocted ~t envisions
adjustments ~d been made ~n pcepacat~on ~oc compX~ v~th t~e
Faic Labor S~andacds Act. Mh~le there had been c~mge~ to the Act
prior to canal approval, etaC~ gala it ~uld not be in the
Uscey cepocCed that two changes had ~m ude tn the sick leave
policy. UaAec t~e o~d policy, s~c~ leave coul~ not be uee~ until
the employee had been with the City ~oc 81~ ~nc~$. T~ six month
pEov~a~on had been c~nged to one ~nth. T~e ~paEc~n~ o~ Labo~
~uld cona~de~ thee ~o be a leg~C~te sick leave plan.
~Voc Pro Ten Hop~in~ aske~ v~ was the ~xi~u amount CC
~ea~ an employee could iccffue.
uscey cesponded 720 hou~8 ~oc all employees except t~ Police
Pice ~pact~nt8.
T~e 8eco~ change to the sick leave policy ~malt w~th the ~ent o~
· ~ck leave benefits to the euzvEvEng spouse o~ a ~eceaaed employee.
"Selection Pcocedures ~nual" ~oE ~tl~ing Council appointed
pomtttons.
4. The Council convened into the Executive Session to dilCall
legal utteze. ~eal eetate, personnel, and board appoin~uemts.
official action wa8 taXen.
T~ Council then convened into the ~e~laz ~ettng a~ 7:00 p.m.
the Council C~am~ce.
PR~S~: ~yo~ Stewact: ~yoc P~o Tem ~pkinn; Council Memboce
Almond. Chew, ~ame, Riddleepecgec and At~ocd
Acting City ~gec, City Attorney a~ City Seccetacy
AB6~: None
1, Conaen~ Agenda
~teR 91.B.2 wa8 =o~oved ~=om ~e Congeu~ ~e~a by ~he
~ motion. Chew aecond to apgEove the Coneen~ ~e~a w~th
exception o~ Item 1.8.2. ~=~on ca~=~ed
CLoy o~ D~nton City Council Ninutes
Meeting o~ NoveBber ~9, 198S
Page ~o
Co~g~t kgond&: I
B~ds and P'ur~baee orders:
the /~G~t o~ $17,002.44
5. ~tchase ,Orde~ ~ 70426 to Xeto~ Corporation
t~e a~u~ or
/
~tc~se Otdet ~ 70430 to XetoE Corporation
the alou~t Of ~9,4~6.00
~teba8e Ot~et ~ 707~8 to 1.8.H. ~tn the a=ount
· . P~ce~se ~deg ~ ?0~20 to 1.B.K, lin the aBount
~c~.e Order ~ 70606 to Xeto~ Cotpo/at~on
the a~unt o~
~to~se Otde; e 7090~ to Joan~ Co~gen tn the
a~ou~t o~
12. ~te~le Ot4et ~ 71014 cc Floyd, Glenn S~ith
~dittou, I~on ~I~, Brocks F,I G a~ K. (The
a~pE~al.)
(R~D BY 2. ~ptoval o~ ~i~i teplat or the Gouthtidq8
P~TITI~H) Virile G~pp'ing Cen~ec ~ditiou$ Lots 1, 2 and
3. (~e PLanning a~ Zo~tnq
3. Appteval ~t ~t~l tepla~ oC the, Cooper Landing
~lt~on, ieet~oa II, Lots 1-157 Block ~. (The
Pla~ing a~ Zoning Co~il~ion teco~nds
a~peoval.)
4. ~p~owal of ~nal ~eplat o~ the Coops= Land~ng
~dition. 6ectiou IV, (The Planning a~ Zoning
CoBllitoa reeownda approval.)
z. T~i CouGcil teoei~ a report Ctou the City or ~nton
~. FtaG~ ~vLIiA, c~it~ o~ ~he City oC Denton Sesquicentennial
~yo~ 8~Met aM Council ~bez C~v. ~k[ng theulhouozaty Te~nl.
~. Davillta cepoEt~ t~t ~zat activities ~d be~u planned during
t~e Seeq~eente~al y~g. ~ oE ~e larger events ~ere the ~agon
train ~hLeh ~ ~c~dulad ~o a~P in Den~ou on Ju~e 24 and a book
which vii being Dtopaged givi~ a ~iitotical pic~ute oC ~uton.
Hz. Davil~ dil~Eibuted a pac~eC oC inCozution on the vatiou8
activities.
352
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meting o~ Noveube£ 19. 1985
Page Three
~ayor Stewart thanked Mr. Davilla and the entire couittee for the
work which had been accomplished.
3. The Council received a p£esentaticn of the Gold Medal
f=o. the Sports Foundation,
Steve B=inkman. Dt=ector o~ Parks and Recreation. reported that the
Gold Medal Award had been presented to the City o~ Denton ~o~
Sports Foundation. This award was a recognition of Pa=ks and
Rec£eatiom Depa=taemts from a£ound the coun~=y a~ ~he
~s~ be noah,=ed bM a local a~oz~s oentez. The=e weze ~ive
Wa8 a ~fna~lt in 1984 and th~8 yea~ was ~oaen aa ~he g~and
Mr. B~in~n thanked the city 8ta~, the Council a~ ~he Pa~8
Roe~eit~on ~v~8o~y 8oa~d io~ the~ support.
· ~lnk~n then p~esented the plaque and ehe~k ~o ~yo~ ~tewA~t,
4. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hea~ng on the petition o~
s~ngle family (SF-10) zoning diat~ot at 623 ~ctoz Street. The
Vgovl~ty ~s located at the ~outhw~t co~nez o~ 8e~a ~ ~cto~
operation o~ the Jane ~=8hall School in the single t/~tly (SF-10)
zoning district. 8-185
asking the Council to follow the =eoo~at~on o~ the Planning
Zoning Co~ss~on ~o~ approval.
N~te ~eupon~ed the school would be to= eh~ld~e~ W~th
~ilabtlities.
Mr. White relVonded the school WOUld be housed f~ the Gr., David's
Episcopal Church.
Council ~mbe~ Mc~ams asked, si~ol this wag ~ueh a highly
add~tioual sign .
~ch the church ~ght have.
council Membe~ ~a~s asked what size the s~gn would
~. ~lte ~eeponded that ~ d~d not
~yo~ Pro Tom ~pkins asked lg the sign ~uld be attached o~
de,ached,
~. Mhite replied there would be one detached sign on Senn Street,
Council Membe~ ~tep~ena asked i~ an addi~ional co~ltion could be
attached to the zoning reque8~ which would state t~t 8~gning would
No one spoke tn opposition,
The ~yo= close~ ~he public hea~tng.
353
c~¥ o~ D~n~on C~t¥ Counoll ~nu~ee
Meeting o~ November 19. 198S ,
Page Fou£
the echeo~, This was a ling.lc easily ueighb~od [n a ~ow
undecided. T~ P~ann[ng and Zoning Co~88ion ~d reco~emded
single ~utly neighbo~hoo~ and ~ho~e
B. ~e Couuo[~ ~ld a public hearing
the City cC ~nton ~or annexation o( [36.588 ac~em begtnnkng
app~ox~te~y 500 (eet east o( the cente~[[ue
a~ south o( B~Uah C~eek Road, and
Coolie Ca~mon, UEban Pla~z, spoke
been ~[lod v[th zeco
T~ ~yoE etol~ t~ ~btte ~a=ing.
C. The Council ~ld a public hea~[ng
beg[nntnq 350 ~eec iou~h ct and perpend[cula~ to the centecltne o~
been ~tled with zero retucmed.
No one m~Ko [n o~poettton.
Stephens mOtiOn, ~ eeeo~ Co pcoceea with the a~nexation. ~t[on
cad,led ~niuoug~y.
D. ~e Council ~ld a ~ub[[c hea~[ng
250 ~ee~ south o[ and pec~ndtcula~ to the centel~l~e o~ ~ 426,
app~ozt~ely 2.000 Cee~ east o~ ~yh[~ Road A-14.
354
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
~eting o~ November ~9,
Page Five
The ~tayo~ opened the public hea~ing.
Cecile Carson, U£ban Planner, spoke in ~avo~ £epo~ting that a
p{stimina£y plat had been submitted and the trna1 plat Ecs this
p~opa~t¥ had been approved, One ~eVly io~ had been ~ailed with
se~o zeturned.
The ~a¥o£ closed the public
Stephens ~otion, Chew second to p£oceed with the annexation.
ca£~ied unanimously.
E. Tbs Council ~eXd a public ~ea~tng on ~he ~equelt
t~e C~ty o~ Denton ~o~ annexation o~ a~p~ox~tely 42.35
s~tuated in the 5. Hu~za~ Survey, ~,tZaCt 514, ~ beg~nni~~
a~p~ox[~tely 500 [est no,th of and pe~pend~cula~ tO the centerl~ne
el U.S. High~ay ~aO a~ ~eat o~ ~sch B~anch ~oad ~-15.
The ~yo~ opened th~ public hea~tng.
Cecile Ca:eon, U~ban Planne~, spoke [~ Javex zepo~t~ng t~t the
V~ope~ty ~a, o~ed by T~-Steel. Th~s ~aa an tnvoluntazy
wt~h ze~o ~etu~ned.
The ~o~ c~oaed the public hea~tng.
Hopk~n~ motion. 6tep~ene second to pcoceed ~th the
Motion cad,ted u~n[mously.
~ett i Nash, Inc. and the C~ty et Denton ~oz a~exat~on
appcox~tel~ 150 ac~es ~tuated ~n the D. Hough Survey,
646, a~ begi~nin~ ~e~t et ~yh~ll ~oad, appeo~tely 4.000
T~e ~yoz opened the public
Cecile Carson. Urban Vlanne~, s~o~e in iavo~ ~epo~ttng t~t this wa~
a Joint vo~uutazy/[uvoluntaz~ anne~t~on. A zoning case was
Vzocese and would be hea=d by the Planning and Zon~ Co~i~lon on
~ee~be= A. Six =eply Eorms ~d been ~led w~th ze=o =stunned.
~yoz Pzo Tam Hopkins asked w~t was meant by a volunta=y/
involunta=y annexation.
i~ust~tal zoning and annexation, sta~i ~d [~cluded an
~yo~ ?~o Tem Hopkins a~kad ~E sta~E ~d included enough oE
adjacent a~ea ~n the ~nvolunta~y
Ca~son ze~ponded that stall was waiting ioz ~o~e voluntary petitions
in this a~ea.
No one ~Voke ~n ov9o~t~on.
The ~yo~ ~lo~ed the public
Hop~ng motion, Chew second to ptoceed wtt~ the annexa=~on.
cae~ied unanimously.
355
City o~ D~nton City coun~t~
I~eeting o~ November ~9, ~985
~. The Council h~ld · public hearing on the ~equest o~
Redditch, I~veetunt co£pocation tot annexation of
beginning adjacent and east o~ Edvacds Road appcoz~telV ~,000
ease o~ ~yhill ~oad
development. ~o pla~ting ct development had oecuc~ed. One
io~ ~d been ~tted etth ze~o ~etu~ned.
No one s~e tn opposition.
The ~yot elos~ t~e public ~eattng.
annexation. ~tton ca~ed
OtdL~nces to ptohLb[t teconstdetat[ou of a vatiance request ~de
w~thin t~ pteo~ twelve ~nthe; and deelact~ an e~ect~ve date.
Cecile Cat,on, Ucban Pianist, ~9o~e tn favo~ cepotttng that the
p~t~ty puzpoee ~ot ~t~ o~dinanoe ~a~ ~o ~ve uniform ~equ~ce~en~s
~oc the a~ount o~ t~ua ~tween an ~tem being den~ed a~ being
brought ba~ to the Plan~lng a~ Zonimg Co~llion and t~e City
Council. T~ ~td~nee ~al similar to one apptoved hy ~ha Council
concetn~ zomtmg cases ~ch st·ted that a request [o~ the same
zoning ct a h~ghe~ zoning could mot be b~ought bac~ [o~ one Meat
a~tet denial by t~ Council. Currently there were no l~m~te on the
~eque~t.
zonkng ettuat~o~ on adjacent p~ope~t~ ~h[ch ~i~ht bzing about the
pomeibilt~y o( a variance.
Ca~eon ~espon~e4 t~t biato~icallM, this ~ mot occu~ed. T~e~e
~eze very detailed items ~ch ~umt be met km o~de~ ~o~ a va~kance
to be q~anted. ~tth tbs develop~nt pcoceas which euzzentl~
existed, state ~d not seen any ca~es where the property whets a
variance ~d been ~equested had been a~ected by a change in zonin~
ct develo~nt. ~en t~ the ptopecty auttou~tng the aces was
developt~, t~ae pto~ o~e~s would have to do drainage
tequemt ~he Variance. ~ ~ieved the 12 ~on~h waiting period
356
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of Novembe¢ 19. 1985
Page Seven
havin~ to keep coming back to oppose tb~ same mouths Cequasts.
least a ysa~ without h=Ving tO come ba~k. 1~ t~e ~ezn was ovo~
· ~gn~oan~ changes, a ~ause cou~ be add~ ~o ~he
to the o~dinance allowing io~ a w~ve= o~ the ~2 ~onCh wa~C~ng
No one 89oke ~n oppoe~on.
The ~yo~ clogt~ tho 9ubltc hea~ng.
1. The Council conside~ed a~ogCion o~ an
w~th[n the preceding twelve momths; a~ declaz~ng an atge~tive data.
The ~ollowing ordinance was
NO, 85-~2
~ O~IN~CE ~ ~TICL~ I, C~
~IX A OF T~ CODE OF O~D~8 ~ PROHIBIT
REC~81DK~TION OF A V~I~ HEQ~T
PRRCEDI~ ~L~ ~; ~ DRCL~INQ ~ RPFB~I~ DAT~.
Hog~n8 ~t~on. A~to=d ~econd to ,dov~ ~h, otd~ne,
a~ ~hat should 8o~ethtng e~nge, the 12 ~th pe~tod could be
waived io~ good cause.
DEc. Pitch =e9ogted t~t a clause would ~ atdei to zead "Upon
petition, t~e C~ty Council ~o= good cause, ~y waive this waiting
on =oll ca~l vote, Mc~aas "aye," ~p~n~ "aye," Stephens
~l~oCd "aye," Riddlem9e=ge~ "aye," Che~ "aye."
"aye." Motion cas=ted unanimously.
A. The Council conside=~ a~oVtton
accepting competitive b~ds and p=ovt4tng ~o~ the awa=d o{ eont:aetm
p~ov~dtng fo~ the expenditu~e of runts t~ze~o~e;
~n e~LfeCtive tats.
The ~ollowing ozd~namce was pzesented:
NO. ~5-2~
~ ORD~N~CE ~C~PTING ~ETITI~ ~I~ ~ ~DX~ A
OR GERVIC~G~ PROVIDING F~ ~ EXP~B OF
~FORE; ~ PHOVIDI~ FO~ ~ EPFECTI~ D~.
Chew motion, Me,ams second to adopt the o=dtnanco. On =oll call
vote, ~am8 "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Al~o=d "aye,"
R~ddleepezgez "aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yo~ B~az~ "aye."
ca~ted unanimously.
B. T~e Council constdezed adoption
accepting competitive bide and p~ovtd~ng ~o~ ~ ava=d ct cont~acls
~o~ public works or tmp~ovementl~ p~oviding ~o~ the ezpenditu~e o~
~und8 the~eEo~e: and pzov[d[ng ~o= an e~ective date.
The ~o~low~ng o=d~nance was ~reeented:
357
City ol ~enton City counoil Ntoutes
llaettng ol ~ove~be£ 19, 1985
~O. 85-234
~ O~1~R ~~ C~E~l~l~ BID6 ~ P~IDIN~ FOR
P~IDI~ [OR ~ ~IPREI~I ~ i~ ~RRFORi
~OVID[~ [OR ~ ~CTI~ DATE.
~tevh, ns ~tton. C~w seeo~ to adopt the o=at~nc~. On ioll
atddtespe~ge~ "ayo," Ch~ 'aye,' and ~yo~ S~eva~t "aye."
cacz te~
C. ~he Council eonetdeCed adoption o~ an o~d~nance
p~oviding 1o~ t~ ezpendttuze ol lunds io~ eue~genoy purchases
~tertats. equiv~nt, suppliso o~ se~vioea in aoco=dance with the
p:ovtaio~s ol state lev e~tin~ such purchases i~ou ~equt~eueuts
~.
~ O~l~ P~IDI~ ~R T~ $XP~I~R O~ F~ FOR
BIll ~ ~IDI~ ~H ~ RFFECTI~ DATE.
Hopkins ~ton. ~ leoo~d to adopt the ordnance. On =oll call
VOte, Mc~a~ "aye," Hov~t~ "~ye," Stephens "aye," &lloyd
Rtdttespezgez "aye," C~e~ .aye," amd ~yo~ S~ewaz~ "aye."
cad,ted uaam~usly.
'D. ~ Cou~tl conmtde~e~ adoption o~ an ozdt~nce
Stzeet l~ tie lmte~s~tion with ~eleh Street to ~t8 intersection
stteet.
Acttm~ ctty ~gez Rtox 8vehta repotted that the citizens
Silet/ 6upvott Co~tseton ~d ~evt~ed this ~equest aaa tett tt was
apptoptiate. The tequemt ~a beem uae by Nott~ Te~s State
Unive~stty and they had eomtaeted the ~emtdeut8 ,~eoted by the
chan~e.
~. 85-236
~ ~IM~R PR~IBITING ~ P~KI~ OF ~HICLR6
~ ~ SZ~ ~ ~B~RRY 8TRRgT FR~ 1T8 TN~Sg~I~
WI~ ~ 8~R~ ~ IT6 I~RS~CTI~ NI~ BR~D
liPiD ~ ~ ~81 ~ DECLAHIN~ ~ EFFECTI~ D~TE.
RtddlesDeEge~ ~t~ou, Chew 8eeon~ to adopt the ordinance. On toll
call vo~e, ~ "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Aliotd
"aye." ~i~A~eS~EgoE 'aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yoE Ste~ "aye.
Motion cazEt~ u~nt~ly.
· . T~e Council eoustte~ed adoption ol an o~atnance
designating ha~toa~ ,Va~ktng on the street t~omtage at
Robez~s.
358
City o~ Dentou City Council ~inutes
Meeting o~ Noveube~ 19, ~985
Page Nine
Acting City Kanage~ Rick Sveh~a ~epoEted this £equeet had been Bade
by a £eeident who was handicapped and had a uodi~ied van.
· ddit~onal pa~k~ng space was needed ~o~ the van,
The following o~din~nce was
NO. 85-237
AN ORDINANCE ~NDING 8ECT[O%f 24-~36 OF
CODE OF O~DIH~CES ~ PROVID8 FOS ~
SP~E FOR DIS~D PERSONS ~ ~ORSRT8 STREET; PR~IDIN~
~ P~AGTY IN ~ MIN[~ ~ OF ~0.00
~ OF ~200.OO FOR V~O~T~5 ~OF;
~ 8FFECTI~
Hopkins ~ot~on. Z=ephens seco~ to adopt the o=d~nce. On =oll
"aye," R~dd~espe~ge~ "aye," Chew "aye," and ~yo~ Stewart "aye."
Mo=ion ca=ried unanimously.
F. The Council cons~de=ed adoption o~
so~v~oe plan instituting annexation p~ocBad~ng8 on ~he ~eques~ o~
~ City o~ DeGton Eo~ annexation o~ apGEox~tlly 296.97 ac~e8
being 9a~t o~ the I. Coy SuRvey, Abstract 2t2, J. AyeEI Survey,
A~aet 2, M. Bu~leson Survey, Xbs~ic~ 93, B. BuEleson Survey,
cont~nuetSon ot the exSatSn~ Dento~ oity ttu[t
beginning appto~tely e00 teat Iouth ot ~anzet Road to a point
agptox~utely 2,600 ~eet no,th o~ Recto~ Road (app~oxtute~y 3
ltlOl) ii p~oponed (A-26).
Cee~e Cacson. u~ban elanne~, cepocted ~t the ~nal action on
annexation was scheduled fo~ January 7, 1986. 8ta~ ~d ~ev[ewed
the ~n~o=uat~on on t~e annexation and found t~
In,sEt,ate 35 va=~ed ~o~ 312 to 400 ~ee~ ~n width depe~ng on
b=~dgos and the service Eoad. The Council could =educe
aC=ucCu¢e=, etc. at a tutu¢e date.
Acting Ctty ~nage~ Rick Svehla ~epo~ted ~t
l~ate ex~et~ng building on the au=rays ~uld coordinate
InSolation w~th ~ight-o~-way
Council Membe~ McAdams asked why =he 750 ~eet strip ~d been
=eco~ended =athe= t~n a 500 feet
accessible ~ight-o~-vay.
avattable, ~o ove~ay a 500 ~ee~ stc~p a~ the 750 ~ee~ etctp vtch
an eye to delete unneceleaZM poCtion8. The intent o~ ~be annexation
was ~o eont¢ol land use onlM.
The ~ollow[ng o¢dtnance web
NO.
~ OHDIN~CE ~EXXNG A ~T OF ~ C~I~OU5
~NT TO T~ CITY OF DE~, ~
T~CT OR P~L OF L~ ~fl~STING OF ~P~~Y 296.97
DE~N. 8TA~ OF TE~S ,~ BIING P~T OF T~ I. COY G~Y,
5~B~Y, ~5~ACT 93, B. B~N S~Y, ~GT~T
~D DECLARING ~ EFFRCTI~ DA~.
359
C~ty of Deuton City council Minutee
~eattng of Nove~be£ 19, 1985
Page Ten
~[ddleepl~ge~ ~tton, Che~ g~eo~ to adopt the o~dinance. On ~oll
part o~ the B. ~to~n~ Gutvoy, ~bsttact ~800; the C. C~con Sucvey,
Cecile Qa~8o~, Ut~ Pla~c, ~epo~ted a ~tnal p~at bad been
NO. 85-238
T~ ~ P~ ~ ~ ~SIBT~NQ OF ~PROX~LY 1~7.5
~S OF ~ LY%~ ~ BEI~ GI~ATED IN T~ CO~ OF
~, ~T~ O~ ~5 ~ BEING ?~T OF T~ B. ~T
,6~Y, ABS~ ~. 900, C, ~ SURLY, ~8~CT 298,
C~GGIFY~ ~ ~ AB ~RICULT~L "A" DIG~I~
vote. ~a~ "aye,' HO9~%~l "aye," Stephen~
· iddlms;mzgez "aye," C~Iv "aye, · and ~yo: ~tewart "aye." ~tio~
B. T~ ~o~il c~n~tde~ed ado~tion o~ an o~dtnauce and
8hau[ C. ~eueh Co~ volu~a[y annexation o[ appEox[~tely 92.80
acce8 b~i~iug app~oxt~toly 500 ~eet nogth
app¢oxt~ely t,050 [eot eag~ o~ 1-35N (A-28).
The [ollovi~ ozdt~noe vas
~T OR P~CEL ~ ~ C~SIST~ OF ~PROXI~LY 92.8
~ OF ~ LY~ ~ BEING S~TUA~D ~N ~ CO~Y OF
~, GT~ OF ~ A~ B~ING PART OF T~ A. ~ITE
~, ~G~T ~. ~&OS, T~ M. ~Y 5~Y, ~GT~CT 807
~D ,~ 6. ~G~ S~Y, ~G~CT 683, DEM~N CO~TY.
P~P~; A~ D~C~I~ ~ EFFECTI~ DAT~.
5~ephe~m ~%On, ~9k~ ~o~ to adopt
call vo~e. Me~BS "aye, · ~pki~ "aye," Stephens "aFc," Al~ord
"aye," ~%~ge~ "lye," C~ "aye." a~d
Motion carried
I. ~e Council eonsideced a~Op~ion
Nel R, ~eq~nC toc vo~a~y anne~C~on of ap~oxt~ely 59.6
ac~e8 betng ~EC o~ t~e T., ToBy Survey, Abitcact 1288, and beginning
adjacent a~d .~l~ ot FM ~164 app~oxi~tely 3.000 feeC ~o~th o~
~e~cule~ ~ (~-Zg).
360
City o~ Denton City Council Minutee
Meeting o~ November 19. 1985
Page Eleven
NO.
MQ OED~N~ ~gBX[NG A TBACT OF T~3gD C~I~IGUOUS
~AC~T TO T~ CI~ OF DE~. ~S: BEING ~LL ~T L~,
~CT OR P~CEL OF L~ ~8IST[NG OF ~PHOX~LY 59.6
8~Y. ~S~A~ NO. 1288. D~ ~.
C~ASBIFYIN~ T~ 8~ AB ~I~ "Aa DIS~I~ PROPERS:
~D DEC~RI~ ~ RFFECTI~ D~.
Hopkins uotton. Chew second ~o adopt ~he otat~nce. On ~oll
vo~e, ~aus "aye," Hopkins "aye," 8~ep~ns "aye," ~llotd "aye,"
carried u~nimoualy.
J. The council constdeted a/option oi an ordinate
adopting ta~e schedules ~ot electrical services.
Bob Nelson. Dicec:ot el UtttLtiee. cepotted t~t this ttea ~d bonn
ateeussea with the Council on November ~, Blair ~s~ea to focus om
:he 4.~ increase tn residential tatee ama the 1.~% aectease
o~etal =ates. A tare comparison ehat~ was presented ici 20
cities across the United Grates ~oc the month o~ July. Real,enlist
customers in Den:on would have paid apptozt~tely S.2S* pet kilowatt
category, ~nton's customers would ba~ paid 9.0t~ pet ktl~att hour
~tc~ placed t~e city tn the upper gat el the cttte~ ~oupated.
Latget Lndustctal customers 8~o~d apptoXt~tety 7.S~"~} ktloeatt
hour ~ich was also tfl the upper 2St o: the cities co~ted. This
was part el the tatto~te icc the Public Utilities Board ~tng
pto~sed teco~e~attome :ct adlust~nt. These 20, cities were lust
a sampling el various United States ci~tes.
Council Member Riddtespetget asked ii the current co,atrial cares
were such that t~uettiat prospects ~uld locate outmiie o~ the City
ct ~aton.
c~e oo~etcial/induettial ratee might ucc keep a n~ b~einess
locating in the city limits o: ~ntou, t~ prospect routs ahoose
ct going with auothe~ eleotti~ source, such as Taus P~t a~ Light.
Council ~mbet Stephens le~t the ~eett~g.
C~nctl ~ber Riddlesperget asked t~ the city had ~t talked
No:th Texas State University ee~tal Festa ago ~atding an
adjustment.
one type o~ ~uel 8ouroe to another. ~en on ~tugal gas, there
been a low capital coot and a very higR variable cost. All
~e levelized. The city ~d not ~o~d tea vetM high capital
plan with a relativel~ low variable coat. T~ capital had to
available to serve t~e load and the c~eto~a ~0 utili~aa t~e lea&
rate. The Council ~d appointed a tats co~iCtee ~teh stunted tho
various issues and ~ad eade their :eeo~attone to the ~ounctl.
Sta:~ recognized a need [ct a mhi~t in the cares but did not want to
uKe thOee shills in one year. '-
Council aeaber Chew s~ated that theze ~re 4 ta~ge ea~t~tee
to Eat{onalize a reduction La co~etcial taros a~ an iRc/ease
Council ~mbet Me.am8 asked how the eit~ ~uld t~n give an
advantage to those come,rial culto~rs in the ctLF ~o did pay
taxes. Most o~ the coca,rial ventures were
361
C~ty off Denton C~ty Council
Meeting o~ Movenbe£ ~9. ~985
Page Twelve
Counctl ile~be~ Cbev asked, .~aen ~C came down Co dollars and oent8,
how gould the tnczease ia z~etdentia~ and decEease ia con~ezcial be
Mayor P~ .~em l~opkLns seated ~l~ one way to Justify the Lncreage
vas ~o ~h~ ~ ~ ~Y ~u~d ~ve ~o coue ~oR 8ouep~aee
~axe8. Comcelal en~e8 .~n ~n~on ve~e now ~ay~ng al~8~ 20~ o~
ca~e wa~ betug catsed ~m ogdec ~o ceduce auo~hec. The CoumcL1 vas
looking lC ~he oomzcia~ oui~ome~ ~o see iC ~hey ~ce a~ paying
Coun~l bn~ 6~epheas s~a~ t~ ~he Counc~ s~ou~ also ~ave a
concern ~oz ~e ~eeiden~al Ease paye~.
~e~u~n zequ~zed. T~e =~y ~d app~ozi~ely 685.000.O00
~ouzs ne~ ~oz ~ u~Lt~y sye~en ~as~ yeaz and anticipated
719.000;~0 ~ ~Og ~e 8~S~O~ mez~ ManE. To,al zevemue
~ou~d be ~60.4 Ut~liom ~ch was equal ~o 8.19~ ovezall.
pzeeen~ gAc~ w 8.17~ ao C~e overall ~evenue vas no~ ~nc~eae~ng
very much. ~eu C~o b~get ~8 ~pa~ed, ~ appea~ed Cha~ a 5t ~o
8t ~nczease aig~t be ~equ~E~. Gca~ had ~ev~eved ~he budge~ and
A~ ove~&Zl ~evi~e ~a~eail vii ~ot ~equ~e~ ~oveve~, 8ome
i~lt~tl ~ need to be u~e. The city vas using a cost o~
a~ Aelo0~a~es ~d ~en ~OY ~d v~th ~he ca,es. Th~s wag the
applied ~o all o~ then, t~ Eovo~o ~nc~ease Would be .il~
Reg~den~el ghould ~ave a 7.4S~ ~nczeaee: cone~c[al ~hould ~ve a
base. Ot Ch~s a~un~, 81~,ttO,0~ vas applied to t~ ~esidentta~
813,200,0D0, ~ the 10.2~ zeta ot ~eCuzn. 6~ vent tn~o ~e ~ene~a~
Fund and 4.2t vas used to pay the debt aecvice and ~txed
eve~Mome vas ~i~g an equal ~aCe o~ cetu~m amd Co~e[ctal ihould
that ~az 'thee y~z a~ had eecomnded 4.42t ~nc~eaee tn ~eatdenttal
a~ 1.~2t ~ee~ee tn ce~e[al. T~ zate of ze~uzn Which this
ktn~ o~ ~e~emue p~oduce~ was ~621,000 on zeaident[al (oz ~.~St) and
Sl,900,0~ ~ o~EcLJl (o~ 14.89t). There vets 3
p~cy ~ze t~ ~C~e~ ~ chei~ entt~e distribution
a~ 1 wit seMEn1 ~zv~ee p~LM~y (~se ~e ~a~ge cugto~s who
~ze metezed on the pzt~zy erda).
t~t rue ~a~ee S~M~ be t~eEeaaed 7.45~ a~ t~e Public
Roaz~ ~4 E~o~d 4.4t tot ~es~dentta~. ~he cost o~ aecvtce
study ~ also o~ied ~t t~ ~ates should ~ deozeaaed 3,75t
co~e~c~al. ~ enez~ cQeC adJuat~n~ ha~ not c~amged. The
~ea~den~al Ease ~c e~ ehaf~e had been 4.A~ and the
~eco~e~atl~m ~as te t~g~ae ~[~ to 4.7~. The co~e~c~at/
tndustzial baste e~ e~gge ~ been 3.9~ and the
vas to decrease to 3.55~, The Govecn~nt categozy vas pzopos~ co
362
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
~eating o~ Novembe~ 19. ~985
Page Thirteen
go ~om 3.9~ to 3.~ and Chu£ches Would go ~£0m 4.0~ to 3.5~.
DeBamd cha~gas on coue~cial/tnduat£ial wa£a pEopoaed to go gtom
up to 6&0: Government Would go ~om 3~o up to 490 and Churches
3g0 up to &25. The demand chazge Eot chu£ches was 2/3 that
coB~e£cial/tnduat£ial. A compa~ison vas then Bade o~ ~he eu~ez and
~tn~e~ ~atea ~n Denton. Garland. G~ee~ville. ~&~ a~ ~nton County
· lectzic Cooperative and ~t ~a~ ~eam~ ~o~ a t~pical bill.
~Mo~ P~o Te~ Hopkins stated that a atud~ co~tee ~de up o~ 20
c~ttzene ~ad zeco~nded the ~atee last Mea~ a~ ~e ~eco~ndatton
,alh~ngton wan ~oin~ to be neduced and [unda had to come [Eom
source in o~de~ to ~nta~n ne~viee8. The c~ty ~it ~ave
o~ the tax ~ate would ~ee a t~emendoue tnczease. The utility
a~ tax ~ates s~ould be compared to~ethe~.
Counc[~ ~be~ R[ddlespe~ge~ agreed t~t Denton mu~t
competitive ~oc tnduetc~al business p~ospeet~.
Coumctl Membe~ Stephens .tared ~hat the ~ates e~ould also be
~estdent~al iu ~tu~e and asked i~ ~he city could Oo v~hout
cu{to~e~s would ~ve to be iuczeaaed to imau~e the }~o~z total ~a~e
o~ ~e~u~m to o~e~ate the
Council Membe~ Riddtespe~ge~ stated tha~ ~he ci~ had been ove~-
c~zging co~e~cial cue~oae~e a~ ~hia a~ould be a~Julted cz
could become a "bedroom" co,unity oE p~t~Eily ~eu~denttal
cu8~o~8 and ll~le new indu~rie8,
Council ~e~ber Chew etated that he d~aa~Eeed a~ did ~ot like
be chaz~ed o~ but a c~ttzen could no~ chazge o~ utiltt~
T~t ~ comparing apples and ozanges.
~o~ PEg Tea ~pk~na stated tha~ ~he coe~ ~tgu~ee ~o~ ire
o~ the eyete~ were zeal.
Nelso~ ~epo~ed that sta[~ ~d been vezM careful ~o ~o~1o~
allocation ~t~es which ~d been pze~a~ed by ~ilbe~t and
Council ~mbe~ McAda~ stated that she was coneo~d about
to ]~tt~y the ~eco~ndat~on. She ~8 nov looking ~oz "nickels a~
d~s' and aeXed ii the ut[1AtM eMstem could opeza~e ~ lees o[
Nelson ~eplied t~t 8ta~ could go back a~ vo~ ~p a ~a~e
on t~e basis o~ a s~llez inczease in ~he ze~iden~al Eaten. The
pzopoied ~ates were based on a s% g~o~h ~ate. Z~ t~e ae~ual g~o~h
adequate ~ate o~ ~etu~n. t~ the gro~h ra~e vas ieee t~n ~. the
~ate of ~etu~n would be
COUnCil ~e~ber ~lEoEd ag~aed that h~ would like ~o~ ~a~E to b~i~g
to Council a ~ecoa~endation wit~ a ~ed~ced increase in the
363
City o~ Denton City Counct~ Minuted
Meeting O~ NQvembe~ ~g,
Page ~ou~teen
ca~Eied ~uJ.~uoue~y.
K. The Counc~ considered adoption o~ an o£dinance
p~oviding ~o~ a penalty oha=ge ~o~ ~o la~e payuen~ o~ u~t~y btt~s.
~aus ~cto~, chew seco~ toe a ~on~tnuanoe oc ~b~e agama LCeu on
~be~8 E~ddlospe~ge~ a~ 5~ep~enl and ~yo~ P~o Tau Hopkins casting
6. ,letotut~on8
St~ ~eave
~t~ue Pay 106.o4
The ~ollovt~ ~eiolutton vas pcesen~e~:
RU~9~UTZO.
~G, the DtEee~o~ o~ ~he Personnel/Employee Relations
Depa~t~'Co¢ t~ City o~' ~u~on has p~eeen~ed ~opoeed poltcte~
~ega~di~ e~ploy~ ~ule8 a~ zegula~ions ~o~ ~he Coumc~l'~
consideration a~
Denton,
~eE~ (Re[e~ence No, 106.04)
dick ~ea~ (Re~ezence No.
city Secretary.
T~e R~loyoe lulet a~ Regulations o~ 1976 adopted by ieso~u~ton
o~ ~ho ~ity counet~ on Febcua~y ~. 1977, and ~e ~e~t~ue Policy
ado~ed July 16, 1~85, aec hereby Eesctnded to ~he exten~ they
conflict vi~h ~ ~oEe~tng policies a~ imm adutn~st~at~ve
p~ocedu~es a~ ~eot~ve8 t88uo~ unde~ the authority o~ the
City ~e~ t~le~n~t~ ~ polto~es hereby adopted.
P~G~ ~g ~8 ~e 19~ day o~ Soveubez,
EIC~a~RD O. 5TI~ET, M~YOR
CITY OF D~TOH, ~XAS
364
City o£ Denton City Council Minutes
Maeting o! ~ovembe£ tg. t985
Page ~t~teen
CP~RLO"I~I'~ ALLEN. CITY
CITY OP D~TON.
BY:
~o~am8 motion, Chew second ~
~011 call VO~e, ~lda~l "aye,"
No~ion ~arried unanimously.
7. T~e~e was mo o~tcial ae~ion on ~xecu~fve Geeston i~eEe o~
legll ~e~8, zeal ea~a~e, personnel oz boazd appota~a~e.
8. Ney Bus,ness
The [ottoving i~ess ol ~ev Business veze 8ugges~e~ by
Council ~ba~s io~ ~utu~e agendas:
i~e~aec~iom and asked t~ ~he
Co~isl~om could zev~e~ ~hia azea.
B. Council ~ber Stephens alked ~o~ an it~ on ~he
Ct~y ~gez'e a~a~us Eepo~
tmvolum~azy annexation ~ts yeaz.
The Council ~omvened tn~o ~he szecu~tve lession ~o
legal utters, ~ell estate, personnel an~ boa~ ap~tnt~nte. No
olltciat notion vas taken.
Ni~h mo ~u~he~ items o~
CI~ 8~ET~Y
365
City Council Minutes
November 28, 1985
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:00 p.m. in the City
Manager's Conference Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Alford
ABSBNT: None
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss
personnel. No official action was taken.
The Council convened into the Special Called meeting at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Alford
Acting City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSBNT: None
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing
the issuance of City of Denton General Obligation Refunding Bonds
and matters incident and related thereto.
Acting City Manager Rick ~vehla introduced Frank Medanich.
Frank ~edanioh, representing First Southwest Company, reported that
for the past several weeks, his firm had been working with the
city's' bond counsel, underwriters counsel, Salomon Brothers and
Merrill Lynch Capital Markets on a refunding proposal whereby all of
the city's outstanding general obligation debts could be refinanced
and reissued. All of the outstanding debt would be defeased and
there would then be only 1 series of bonds with the principal
payable on February 15 of each year and interest payments payable in
February and August. A summary had been provided which gave the
details of the transaction. The important item in the su~unary was
that the debt service for all outstanding general obligation bonds
and the debt service if the refunding occurred. This would result
in a total savings to the City of Denton of $2,272,180.59 over the
life of the debt which translated to an approximate $90,000 to
$95,000 annual savings. Salomon Brothers and Merrill Lynch were
agreeable to purchasing the refunding bonds at the interest rates
indicated. An escrow acoount would have to be established. The
refunding information had been forwarded to Ernest and Whinney and
had been verified. The closing on the bonds would be held on
December 19. ~irst Southwest Company recommended the Council adopt
the ordinance authorizing the issuance of the refunding bonds and a
resolution authorizing the execution of an escrow agreement at the
closing. There were approximately 5 or 6 issues of bonds which were
callable in 1993 or 1994 at higher interest rates than the new bonds
would bear. A call of the bond would need to be executed at the
time.
Council Me~nber Stephens asked if it was required to get bids on the
Medanich replied that the bond counsel had advised that refunding
bong series did not require bids.
Council Member Stephens asked if other buyers had been approached.
Medanich responded yes, but the offer from Salomon Brothers and
Merrill Lynch was the best one.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if Mr. Medanich felt this refunding
would increase the city's bond rating.
366
City of Denton City Council MinUtes
Meeting of November 26, 1985
Page Two
Medanich responded yes; the debt service would be less and it would
also reduce the city's internal bookkeeping system ae there would
not be as many issues to track. This refunding would take 27
separate bond issues off of the book. Also the reduction in the
debt service would give the city more flexibility in the future and
would improve the overall financial position.
Mayor Stewart asked who put the money in the escrow account.
Medanich responded the City would. The proceeds from this bond
issue and the moneys which the city would be paying out for all
outstanding bonds during the fiscal year would go into the escrow
account. All of the outstanding bonds would be paid from this
account. If the bonds were sold at true interest cost which
currently was 8.30, the money in the present interest and sinking
fund would be invested in U.S. Treasury strips which were coupons
from existing government obligations and these would yield 10.30 to
10.50. The city would be making the difference between the bond
yield and the strips throughout the life of the escrow. In effect,
the city would sell the bonds to raise the money to form the
escrow. Another interesting aspect was the Capital Appreciation
Bo~ds which were for relatively small amounts. This was the
discount values of the par value of the bonds to their maturity.
Each 6 months throughout the life of the debt, the amount was
compounded at the interest rate shown so that at ma~urity, it was
worth par or $5,000 per bond. As this was being compounded but no
interest was being paid out, it would allow for the maturity of the
other part of the debt sooner and thereby cut down on the interest
cost which was a departure from straight serial bonds. The serial
bonds were at par value or a current interest coupon.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-239
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF DENTON
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1985, LEVYING
THE TAX IN PAYMENT THEREOF, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO
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.
The Council then considered the approval of a resolution authorizing
the execution of an escrow agreement relating to the refunding of
City of Denton, Texas, tax supported obligations.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN ESCROW AGREEMENT RE-
LATING TO THE REFUNDING OF CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TAX
SUPPORTED OBLIGATIONS
THE STATE OF TEXAS :
COUNTY OF DENTON :
CITY OF DENTON :
WHEREAS, it is necessary and advisable that the City of
Denton (the "city") enter into the escrow agreement hereinafter
authorized with InterFirst Bank Dallas, N.A., Dallas, Texas.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
367
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 26, 1985
Page Three
Section 1. That the Mayor and the City Secretary of the
City are authorized and directed, for and on behalf of the City to
sign, seal, and otherwise execute and deliver an escrow agreement in
substantially the form and substance attached to this Resolution and
made a part hereof for all purposes.
Section 2. That, upon its execution and delivery by the
parties thereto, said escrow agreement shall constitute a binding
and enforceable agreement of the City in accordance with its terms
and provisions.
Riddlespe~ger 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 Council considered approval of a resolution exercising option to
redeem certain tax supported obligations of the City of Denton,
Texas.
The ~ollowing resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
EXERCISING OPTION TO REDEEM CERTAIN TAX SUPPORTED
OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
WHEREAS, certain tax supported obligations of the City of
Denton (the 'City") are presently outstanding and are subject to
redemption prior to scheduled maturities, at the option of the City~
and
WHEREAS, the City has determined to exercise its option of
redemption aa hereinafter provided.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DENTON,
1. That there is attached hereto and made a part hereof
for all purposes a list and description of certain tax supported
obligations of the City, and notice provisions relating thereto,
which obligations are hereby called for redemption , and shall be
redeemed, prior to their scheduled matures, on the dates, at the
places, and at the prices, respectively, set forth therein.
2. That the City shall cause the appropriate notices of
such redemption to be given in accordance with the requirements of
the respective proceedings authorizing the issuance of such
obligations.
3. That prior to January 1, 1986, due provision shall be
made by the City in accordance with law for the payment of the
redemption prices of said obligations by the places of payment
(paying agents) for such obligations.
McAdams motion, Stephens second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdama "aye," 8opkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," R~ddlespergsr 'aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
2. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance adopting
rate schedules for electrical services.
Mayor Stewart left the meeting.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that the Council had
asked staff to look at possibilities of lowering the residential
rate from the 4.4% increase and do so by reducing the overall
revenue increase. A .25% revenue increase had been programmed in.
Staff had gotten this down to an increase of .02%; approximately
368
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 26, 1985
Page Four
$17~,000 had been taken out of the revenue of the utility and staff
would make cuts in the system to accomplish this redmction. This
cut brought the overall increase to residential service to 3.66% and
would leave the other services as they were proposed at the November
19 meeting. These proposed rates would bring the 10.2% overall
utility rate of return down to 9.75% and established the residential
rate of return on investment at 4.59% which was not quite enough to
cover the 6% return to the general fund. Other rates of returns for
other classes of service were 14.89% for the commercial, 5.23% to
government and 15.4% to other services.
Nelson then reviewed what this increase would mean in cents per
kilowatt hour for the various residential customers comparing summer
and winter costs at the existing rate and the proposed rate.
Council Member McAdams asked how much in dollars increase per
residential bill had been previously projected.
Nelson responded approximately $60 per year per residential
customer, or $5 per month. This had been reduced to $2 to $3 per
month for customers using 10,00O kilowatt hours per month.
A presentation was then given regarding the comparative rates
between classes of customers.
Council Member Stephens stated that he did not feel the rate payers
should be overburdened.
Nelson reported that the rationale for the proposed rates was
partially based on the demand aspect. For example~ a commercial
customer could not curtail or reduce usage of air conditioning
during the summer and still attract customers; therefore~ the usage
for commercial customers remained relatively constant. A
residential customer could set their thermostat at a higher setting
or shut off unused portions of the house but the distribution system
(transformers, lines, etc.) had to be in place for the residential
customers to handle the peak or highest usage. The goal was to
recover the cost of the service to install the distribution system
and the commercial customers, due to a more constant usage~ should
pay st a lower per kilowatt hour rate.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that the Council had to depend
on the staff and the Public Utilities Board for these
recommendations and the Council could not set the rates.
Mayor Stewart joined the meeting.
Council Member McAdams asked if a commercial customer's monthly bill
for the same usage would go up or down with the new rates.
Nelson responded it would depend on how well they used their
capacity.
Mr. Roland Laney, Chairperson of the Public Utilities Board,
reported that the board was charged with trying to operate the city
utilities in a prudent manner. The proposed rates for commercial
customers would still generate $2,000,000 more than the residential
customers. The board had realized this would be controversial;
however, they felt the recommendation was as fair and equitable as
possible. The city utilities must be operated as a business and the
Public Utilities Board felt the proposed rates were Justified.
Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins asked if Mr. Laney could co~ent on the
philosophy which the citizens committee had used in recommending the
previous rates.
Mr. Laney responded stating that recommended rates were based on the
cost of service to each customer class.
369
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 26, 1985
Page Five
Council Me~%ber McAdams stated that this was not unlike the divesture
of the telephone system were long distance was separated from local
service and as a result, all of the phone bills increased. The
utility rates to industrial/cow~ercial customers must be appealing
or they would go to someone else and that, in turn, would eventually
make the residential rates prohibitive.
Council Member Alford expressed his appreciation to the staff for
the response to Council Me~ber McAdams and his request for new
information.
The Council recognized Mr. Zavetaky and allowed him to speak.
Mr. B. L. Zavatsky, Administrative Vice President of Morrison
Milling, distributed information to the Council. He further stated
that his company furnished approximately 160 jobs in Denton and used
1% of the power for the city. The consumer price index had gone up
176% since the company had been in business and over the last 10
years, the utility rates had increased 1250%. His company was here
to stay in Denton; however, if they were looking for a new location
now, they would not come to Denton because of the utility rates.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-240
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDED RATE SCHEDULES FOR ELECTRICAL
B~N¥IC~S; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN ErFECTIYE DATE OF DECEMBER 1, 1985
Riddlesperger motion, Hopkins second to adopt the rate ordinance as
proposed. 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 Members Stephens
and Chew casting the "nay" votes.
3. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance providing
for a penalty charge for the late payment of utility bills.
Bob Nelson, Director Of Utilities, reported that this item had been
previously discussed. Some years ago, the late payment charge had
been repealed; however, this was not working out as well aa staff
would like. The Public Utilities Board and the staff were
recom~ending the penalty be reinstated. Utility bills were due when
rendered and customers had 25 days in which to make the payment. If
payment was not made, a 5% penalty would be charged. The revenue
from the 5% penalty would be charged back to the appropriate
customer class. This penalty would not apply to a contested bill.
Council Member McAdams stated that due to the increased rates which
had ]ust be approved, she would prefer not to reinstate the penalty
charge at this time and instead, try a more vigorous collection
system for delinquent accounts.
Mayor Stewart stated that he thought the penalty charge was
originally repealed because it was against the law.
Nelson responded that the Public Utilities Commission had stated
that a penalty could not be charged for regulated utilities. The
City of Denton utility system was not a regulated utility. The
Public Utilities Board and staff had recommended repealing the
penalty and seeing what would happen. What had happened was that
the city was getting further and further behind in collection bills.
Mayor Stewart stated that there were several large customers who
were consistently 60 days past due in paying their bills. All of
the citizens were being hurt by this practice.
Council Member Riddlesperger stated that all of the rate payers were
being penalized by those who did not pay the bills promptly.
370
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of November 26, 1985
Page Six
Council Member Alford stated that he would like to offer a
compromise. There ha~ been a lot of bad press recently regarding
utility bills but he was convinced that the Customer service
Division was working with citizens now in an attempt to rectify
these problems. He then asked if the Council would be willing to
delay this item for 3 months and then have it brought before them
again.
Alford motion, Chew second to table the penalty charge ordinance for
3 months. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins stated that, in the next month, he would like
to see the methodology used in collecting bills. He also wanted to
know how these customers got so far behind in their payments and a
list of all customers who were in arrears.
Debts Drayovitch, City Attorney, reported that this info~mation was
public record aha could be presented to the Council.
4. 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 meetin was adjourned.
CITY S~CR~TAR¥
1477g
371
City Council Minutes
December 3, 1985
The Council convened into the Work Session at 6:00 p.m. in the Civil
Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Alford
Acting City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
1. The Council held a discussion of concerns, changes, and/or
revisions to the proposed draft of the "Selection Guidelines for
Council-Appointed Positions."
Betty McKean, Assistant City Manager, reported that the draft had
been distributed to the Council at the November 19 meeting. The
guidelines had been prepared in response to a request by Council.
Staff was prepared to make any changes to the draft which the
Council wanted.
Council ~%ember Riddlesperger stated that he had read the document
and felt it was very thorough.
Mayor Pro. Tem Hopkins stated that he would hate to see this put in
ordinance form as it would lose its flexibility.
McKean responaed that the purpose of the document was to provide
guidelines only.
Council Member McAdams stated that she questioned the assumption
that a search firm would be used to select the City Manager and all
options should be left open.
Consensus of the Council was to make the following change on page 2:
"For the City Manager's ~)osition, the staff will make a
recommendation to the Council after evaluating current market
conditions and the aYailability of recruitment resources."
Council Member McAdame questioned the statement regarding the
selection of interview questions from the list of possible questions
furnished by the Personnel/E~i~loyee Relations Department.
Consensus of the Council was to make the following change on page 3,
item B.2.a.:
"Select the interview questions (deleting "from the list of possible
questions")."
Council Me~ber ]%cAdams stated that page 7 of the guidelines offered
a differe~t selection proces~ for the City Attorney position from
the City '~anager position. The option for using a search firm was
not presented. Also, recruitment for the Municipal Judge was always
done on a local level due to the nature of the position.
Mayor Stewart stated that the Deputy Judge positions should be
removed from the guidelines as they were recommended by the Judge to
the Council.
Council Member Stephens stated that he felt that perhaps the Council
should hays input into the selection of Deputy Judges.
Mayor Stewart responded that the City Charter stated that the
Council selected the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal
Judge. If the Council selected Deputy Judges, why not Assistant
City Atto£r&eys?
Council Member McAdams stated that an additional page could be added
to state that the Judge would bring recommendations for Deputy
Judges before the Council prior to appointment.
372
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Two
2. The Council held a discussion of an ordinance providing for
the prevention and abatement of litter on public streets.
Bill Angelo, Assistant to the Director of Public Works, reported
that this item had been previously discussed. Staff had received
several complaints on unsightly appearances near construction
sites. This ordinance would require the contractor to clean up the
area. If this was not done, the City would do the clean up and
charge the full charge of the service plus a fee to the contractor.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if there was not already an ordinance in
effect.
Acting City Manager Rick Svehla reported yes, but there was no
penalty clause. This meant the City had to take the contractor to
court to accomplish the clean up.
Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins stated that he agreed that the litter should
be cleaned up but it would be difficult to determine who was
responsible. The contractor might feel the litter had been caused
by a subcontractor on the job.
Svehla replied that the ordinance would hold the contractor liable
and staff felt this would encourage the contractor to sea that all
subcontractors cleaned up their own litter.
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 convened into the Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the
council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Stewart; Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins; Council Members
Alford, Chew, McAdams, Riddlesperger and Alford
Acting City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
ABSENT: None
The Council considered the emergency agenda addendum item.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
ordinance No. 85-239 authorizing the issuance of City of Denton
General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1985, levying the tax and
payment thereof and approving and authorizing instru~ents and
proceedings relative thereto.
Frank Medanich, First Southwest Company, reported t~at an error had
been made on the call feature of the refunding ordinance approved on
November 26. This was an amendatory ordinance which would, among
other things, restructure the escrow account.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-241
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 85-239 AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING
BONDS, SERI~S 1985, LEYYING THE TAX AND PAYMENT THEREOF AND
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS
RELATIVE THERETO.
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins 'aye,' Stephens "aye," Alford
Riddlesperger "aye,' Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "eye." Motion
carried unanimously.
Mayor Stewart left the meeting.
373
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of DeceiVer 3, 1985
Page Three
2. Consent Agenda
Riddlespex~er motion, Chew second to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. Motion carried umanimouely.
Consent Agenda:
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid I 9383 - Aerial photography maps
2. Bid I 9540 - Demolition and clearing of lots t4
3. Bid t 9547 - Tree trimming
4. Bid t 9549 Lease purchase financing
5.Purchase Order 70665 to Southwestern Electric in
the amouflt of $11,069.00
B. PZats and Replat8~
1. Approval Of final replat of the Southridge
Village Shopping Center Addition, Lots 1, 2 and
3. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval.)
2. Approval of preliminary and final replats of the
Owslsy ;a~k Addition, Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block A.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval.)
3. Approval of preliminary plat of the Southern
Hills Addition. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval.)
C. P~o Rata and Pm~ticipation Agreements:
l. Approval of a proposed pro rata agreement with
Summit Addition, David Grotenhuis, owner, and/or
his assi~l~B, for a new water line. (The Public
Utilities Board recommends approval.)
2. App£eval of a proposed pro rata agreement with
J.B. A~ition, owner~, Fred Evans and
Jim Leverett and/or their assigns, for a new
water lime. (The Public Utilities Board
~ecommendB approval.)
3. Approval of a proposed pro rata agreement with
J.B. Addition, owners, Fred Evans and
Jim LeYerett and/or their assigns, for a new
sewer line. (The Public Utilities Board
recommends approval.)
4. Approval of a proposed water main cost
participation agreement between the City of
Denton a~d David Grotenhuis. (The Public
Utilities Board recommends approval.)
1. The Council considered approval of the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of November 5, 1985.
Chew motion, McAdI~s second to approve the Minutes as presented.
Motion ca~rie~ unanimously.
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Burke Enqines~in~ requesting a change in zoning from the
agricultu~al (A) district to the planned development (PD)
374
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Four
classification on a 22.7 acre tract located approximately 1,000 feet
west of Mockingbird Lane and approximately 1,000 feet south of
Audrs Lane. The property is further described as a tract in the
M.E.P. & P.R.R. Company Surveys, Abstracts 1473 and 1479. If
approved, the planned development will permit the development of
single family detached lots with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square
feet. Z-1775
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.
Denise Spivey, Urban Planner, reported that this was a request for a
change from the agricultural classification to a planned development
with 7,000 square foot lots. There had been 8 reply forms mailed
with 0 returned in favor and 1 in opposition. This was a low
intensity area, a designation used for primarily residential and
housing areas. The original request had been for 6,400 square feet
lots. Intensity studies showed the proposal would slightly exceed
the intensity by approximately 1%. The Planning and Zoning
Com~iselon had upgraded the proposed to 7,000 square feet lots. The
petition had been approved by the P&Z by a vote of 5 to 0 with
conditions attached.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing on the petition of
Oltman and Associates requesting an amendment of an existing planned
development (PD-22) on a 30.3 acre tract located on the south side
of Ryan Road approximately 2,580 feet east of FN 2181 (Teasley
Lane). The property is further described as the mite of the Lake
Forest Village Retirement Center. If approved, the amendment will
permit the relocation of an approved addition to the current
residential structure and the relocation of a parking lot. Z-1778
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rod Moore, representing Oltmsn and Associates for Lake Forest,
spoke in favor and asked the Council for favorable consideration.
There was a concern regarding the time frame of construction. A
plat must be filed with the city for approval and the property had
never been platted. Mr. Moore asked if it would bs possible to
receive a foundation permit prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins reminded Mr. Moore that the public hearing was
regarding zoning only.
Mr. Moore stated that the Good Samaritan Society had retained an
architect but the design had been too expensive to implement.
Oltman and Associates had redesigned the plans and the building
site. This would require the relocation of the parking lot. They
were, therefore, requesting this amendment to an existing planned
development.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
Denise 8pivey, Urban Planner, reported that 4 reply forms had been
mailed with O returned. The Planning and Zoning Commission and
council had approved an amendment to the original planned
development; however, due to cost overruns, these changes were no
longer viable. The Planning and Zoning commission recommended
approval of this amendment by a vote of 7 to 0 as it did not affect
the intensity.
375
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Five
Council Ma~ber Stephens asked staff to respond to the request for a
foundation permit which Mr. Moore had mentioned.
Spivey replied that the Building Inspector was prohibited from
issuing permits until plats had bean approved.
Stephens ~otion, Chew second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing on the request of
the City of Denton for annexation of 136.588 acres beginning
approximately 500 feet east of the center line of U.S. Highway 377
and south of Brush Creek Road, and being part of the George M.
Daugherty Survey, Abstract 351 A-11.
The Mayor Pro Tam opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor Pro Tam closed the public hearing.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the request. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Stewart joined the meeting.
D. The Council held a public hearing on the request 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 A-13.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Chew motion, Riddlesperger second to approve the request. Motion
carried unanimously.
· . The Council held a public hearing on the request of
R. O. McDonnell for annexation of approximately 34.68 acres situated
in the M. Forest Survey, Abstract 417, and beginning approximately
250 feet south of and per~endicular to the center line of FM 426,
approximately 2,000 feet east of Mayhill Road A-14.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Hopkins motion, Chew second to approve the request. Motion carried
unanimousXy.
F. The Council held a public hearing on the request of
the City of Denton for annexation of approximately 42.35 acres
situated in the S. Suimar Survey, Abstract 514, and beginning
approximately 500 feet north of and perpendicular to the center line
of U.~. Highway 380 and west of Maach Branch Road A-15.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
376
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Six
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
McAdams motion, Chew second to approve the request. Motion carried
unanimously.
G. The Council held a public hearing on the request of '
~ammett & Mash, Inc. and the City of Denton for annexation of
approximately 150 acres situated in the D. Hough Survey, Abstract
848, and beginnzng west of Mayhill Road, approximately 4,000 feet
north of 1-35 A-17.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Stephens motion, Chew second to approve the request. Motion carried
unanimously.
R. The Council held a public hearing on the request of
Redditch Investment Corporation for annexation of approximately
60.38 acres situated in the G. Walker Survey, Abstract 1330, and
beginning ad~acent and east of Edwards Road approximately 1,000 feet
east of Mayhill Road A-18.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closeG the public hearing.
McAdams motion, Bopkins second to approve the request. Motion
carried unanimously.
I. The Council held a public hearing on an ordinance
amending the Zoning Ordinance, Appendix B, Article 7M of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, TeXas, by requiring a special use
permit to operate a temporary concrete or asphalt hatching plant in
certain zoning districts; providing a penalty therefor and declaring
an effectzve date.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that there was a gap in the zoning ordinance. This ordinance would
allow for temporary concrete hatching plants on site during
construction.
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending the Zoning Ordinance, Appendix B, Article 7M Of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, by requiring a special use
permit to operate a temporary concrete or asphalt hatching plant in
certain zoning districts; providing a penalty therefor and declaring
an effective date.
377
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Seven
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-242
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, APPENDIX B,
ARTICLE 7N OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
T~XAS, BY REQUIRING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A
TEMPORARY CONCRETE OR ASPHALT BATCHING PLANT IN CERTAIN
~ONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING A PENALTY THEREFOR AND
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, Riddlesperger second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote~ McAdams "ayes" Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"ayes" Riddlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye.'
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Ordinances
A. The Council coneide£ed adoption of an ordinance
accepting com~etitiYe bids and providing for the award of contracts
for the p~rchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-243
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT~ SUPPLIES
OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR TaE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THBREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motionr Hopkins second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McA~ams 'aye,' HopkiRe 'aye," Stephens "aye," Alford 'aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye,' Chew "aye,' and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting co~petitlYe bids and providing for the award of contracts
for public works or improve~ents.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-244
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRA~fS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS:
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Riddlesperger motion, NcAdama second to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote, MoAdame 'aye," Hopkins "aye,' Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew 'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Notion 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
provisions of state law ezempting such purchases from requirements
of competitive bids.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-245
AN ORDIN~CE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
EMERGENCY PURCHASF~ OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
~ERVICES IN ACCORDA~E WITH T~E PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
E~EMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN ~FFECTIVE DATE.
378
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Eight
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.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance and
service plan annexing approximately 91.3 acres being part of the
B.B.B. & C.R.R. Survey, Abstract 142, and located north of FM 1173,
south of Barthold Road, west of 1-35N, and east of Masch Branch Road
and the GC & SF Railroad A-24.
The following ordinance was premented:
NO. 85-246
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 91.3
ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE BBB a CRR
SURVEY, ABSTRACT 141~ DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; CLASSIFYING TEE
SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND DECLARING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motion, McAOams second to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Stephens stated that Council had talked about
trimming some property from the original annexation parcel.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Com~munity Development, reported
that the Barthold property had been deleted from the annexation.
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 concerning the
request of Miller of Texas for voluntary annexation of 801.705 acres
situated in the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Survey, Abstract 1470; the
E.F. Anderson Survey, Abstract 16; the E.A. Orr Survey, Abstract
983; the G.W. Anderson Survey, Abstract 12; the M.E.P. & P.R.R.
Survey, Abstract 1502; and the T & P Survey, Abstract 1302, Denton
County, Texas; being part of a tract known as the Golden Hoof Ranch
and beginning south of U.S. Highway 380, east of FM 156, and west of
Egan Road, for the purpose of determining whether to begin the
annexation process A-32.
Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Community Development, reported
that this particular annexation had been discussed in a previous
work session. Staff was recommending the first public hearing be
held on December 17 and the second public hearing on January 7.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-247
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC
HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AS
DESCRIBED HEREIN BY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF
SUCH PUBLIC HEARINGS.
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.
379
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Nine
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving a contract for the City's participation in the coat of
installing oversize water line facilities and authorizing the Mayor
to execute the contract.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was part of
the master plan for a water line down Lillian Miller Parkway.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-248
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY'S
PARTICIPATION IN T~E 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, McAdama second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdame "aye," Bopkine "ayes" Stephens "ayes" Alford "aye,'
Riddlesperger 'aye,' Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting the parking of vehicles on the south side of West Oak
Street from its intersection with Williams Street to its
intersection with Carroll Boulevard.
Acting City Manager Rick SYehla reported that the Citizens Traffic
Safety Support Commission had met on this issue and reco~ended
approval. The street was adjacent to the Lawyers Title building.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-249
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF WEST OAK STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH
WILLIAMS STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH CARROLL BOULEVARD;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO
EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, Chew second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdama 'aye,' Hopkins 'aye~" Stephens "aye," Alford 'aye,"
Riddleeperger "aye," Chew #aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
regulating parking along the driveway at the end of Austin Street
and in the parking lot of the Municipal Building parking lot west of
the Municipal Building at 215 East McKinney.
Acting City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the Citizens Traffic
Safety Support Com~ission had reviewed this item and recommended
approval. This was the parking lot located between City Hall and
the Post Office.
The following orOinance was presented:
NO. 85-250
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING PARKING ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AT THE
END OF AUSTIN STREET AND IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE
MUNICIPAL BUILDING PARKING LOT WEST OF THE MUNICIPAL
BUILDING AT 215 EAST MCKINNEY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSEt PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED
DOLLARS FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
380
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Ten
Hopkins motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll call
vote, McAdams 'aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "ayes" A1ford "aye,"
Riddlesperger "aye,' Chew "ayes" and Mayor Stewart 'aye." Motion
carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting the parking of vehicles on a portion of Austin Street.
Acting City Manager Rick Svehla reported that the Citizens Traffic
Safety Support Co~miseion had reviewed this item and recommended
approval.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-251
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING TEE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON A
PORTION OF AUSTIN STREET; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED
TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PON VIOLATIONS THEREOP; AND DECLARING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Stephens motion, McAdams second to adopt the ordinance. On roll
call vote, McAdams "aye," Hopkins "aye,' Stephens "ayes" Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger 'aye," Chew 'aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
J. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
amending Section 25-6.1 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Denton, Texas providing for the average billing of utility services
for certain classes of utility service customers.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that there was an
average billing ordinance in effect for residential customers but
did not extend to other classes of customers. Staff had been asked
to extend the average billing service to the religious and
government class customers and this ordinance would accomplish that.
The following ordinance was presented:
NO. 85-252
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-6.1 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; PRO~;IDING FOR THE
AVERAGE BILLING OF UTILITY SERVICES ~OR CERTAIN CLASSES dP
UTILITY SERVICE CUSTOMERS; 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.
5. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
nominating members to Place 6 and Place 8 on the North Texas Higher
Education Authority, Inc. Board of Directors.
Acting City Manager Rick Svehla reported that it was time to
nominate or reappoint members for this board of directors.
The following resolution was presented:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the term of office for Place 8 on the Board of
Directors of the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.,
expired September 30, 1985; and
381
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Eleven
WNEREAS, on September 25, 1985, the Board of Directors of
the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. created a Place 9
to said Board; NOW, THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TRE CITY OF DENTON, THAT:
SECTION I.
Mr. Michael Grandey has been reappointed to Place 8 on the
Board of Directors of the North Texas Higher Education Authority,
Inc. for the October 1, 1985 through September 30, 1987.term.
SECT gN II.
Mr. James Brock hae been appointed to Place 9 on the Board
of Directors of the North Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc. for
the October 1, 1985 through September 30, 1987 term; and
SECTION III.
This Resolution shall become effective from and after its
date of passage.
PASSED ARD APPROVED this the 3tO day of DecaYer, 1985.
RICHARD' O. ST~#ART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE, ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF D~NTON,
APPROVED ~%B TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXA~
BY:
Hopkins ~otion, McA(lama seoon~ that the resolution be app~oYed. On
roll call yore, McAdams "aye,' Bopkins "aye," Stephens 'aye," Alford
"aye," Rlddlesperger 'aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
~. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the Mayor to ezacute a Pipe Line License Agreement with
the Atchison, To~eka and Santa Fe Railroad Company.
Bob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that this was a routine
pipeline license agreement to put in a sewer line on 380 nea~ the
Selwyn Sc%hool. The cost to the city would be ~400.
The following resolution was presented:
R.E SOLU T I ON
BE IT RE~OLVED BY THE CITY C~UNCIL OF TSE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS!
~Tha Mayor is here~y authorized and directed to execute on
behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, a ~ipe Line License Agreement
dated October 4, 1985, between the City of Denton and the Atchison,
Topeka, & Santa Fe Railroad Company, relating to the construction,
reconstruction, use, maintenance, ~epair and installation of one ten
inch (10') in ~iamete~ and one hundred fifty feet (150') in length
sanitary sewer line at Mile Post 105+4132.0" Denton County, Texas.
382
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Twelve
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 3rd day of December, 1985.
~ICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON,TEXAS
ATTEST:
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO'LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYO¥ITCH, 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 "ayes" Alford
"aye," Riddlesperger "aye," Chew 'aye, · and Mayor Stewart 'aye.'
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing a contract of employment with the City Attorney.
Debts Drayovitch, City Attorney, reported that this resolution had
been prepared at the instruction of the Mayor.
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 February 5, 1985 the City Council of the City
of Denton appointed Debra Adami Drayovitch, City Attorney of the
City of Denton, Texas; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to renew the appointment of
said City Attorney; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON:
.S, ECTI ON Z.
The City Council of the City of Denton hereby engages the
employment services of' Debts Adami Drayovitch as City Attorney of
the City of Denton, Texas, to perform the functions 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.
S~.CTION II.
The City Council agrees to pay Debts Adami Drayovitch for
her services an annual base salary of ~51,880.00 payable in
installments at the same time as other employees of the City are
paid and ~108.00 per month car allowance.
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
383
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1965
Page Thirteen
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 her 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 she shall deem appropriate during said
normal office hours; provided, however, the City Attorney shall
devote her 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 Counoil hereby agrees to budget and pay the travel
and subsistence eKpenses 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 Conferences of the Municipal Law Officers, City Attorney's
Association, the Legal Conference of the American Public Power
Association, and such other national, regional, state or local
governmental groups and co~lttess 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 her
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 her
continuation and full participation, including the holding of
responsible offices in national, regional, state and local
associations and organizations necessary and desirable for her
continued professional participation, growth and advancement, and
for the gOOd of the City of Denton.
SECTION V.
Before voluntarily resigning her position,
Debts Adami Drayovitch, agrees to give the City Council at least
thirty (S0) days notice in writing of her intention to resign,
stating the reasons therefore.
In the event of her involuntary separation as
City Atto.may, she shall be entitled to receive a lump sum payment
equal to sixty (60) days aggregate salary; provided, however, that
in the event of her termination because of her conviction for any
offense involving moral tu£pitude or any illegal act involving
personal gain to her, 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 her
discharge or dismissal by the city council or her resignation
following a reduction in s&lary or other financial benefits of the
City Attorney in a greater percentage than an applicable
across-the-board ~eduction for all City employees or in the event
the City refuses following a written notice to comply with any other
provisions bene£iti~g the City Attorney herein or the City Attorney
resigns, follo¥ing a suggestion, whether formal or informal, by the
City Counoil that she resign, then, in that event, the City Attorney
may at her option be deemed to be 'terminated" at the date of such
reduction o= such refusal to comply within the meaning and context
of the herein severance pay provision.
384
City of Denton City Counoil Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Fourteen
~ECTION VI.
All provisions of the City Charter, City Code, and Rulee
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 ss they now exist or hereafter may be amended, shall
apply to the City Attorney as they 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.
SECTION VII.
This agreement shall be effective for a period of one year
from October l, 1985.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 3rd day of December, 1985.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ATTEST=
CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF D~NTON, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DE~RA ADAMI DRAYOVITCR, CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
Etephens motion, Chew second that the resolution be approved. On
roll call vote, McAdams "aye," Eopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Alford
"aye," Ri~dlesperger "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayor Stewart 'aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
The Council considered approval of a contract to purchaee
land for an electric substation from Mayhill Road Realty Company
(Paige Road Substation.)
Eob Nelson, Director of Utilities, reported that staff was
requesting tentative approval from the Council to purchase this
property. An electric substation was needed in southeast Denton and
an ordinance for the purchase would come before Council at s later
date. The property had been appraised at ~111,065.
Hopkine motion, Chew second to approve the contract to purchase land
for an electric substation. Motion carried unanimously.
7. There was no official action on Executive Session items of
legal matters, real estate, personnel and board appointments.
8. The following items of New Business were suggested:
a. Council Member McAdams asked for a staff report on the
possibility of citizens registering their pete at City Hall when
they paid their utility bills.
b. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked regarding the status of a
previously requested study of the street lights.
385
city of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of December 3, 1985
Page Fifteen
c. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins also asked for a report by category
(not name) of delinquent utility accounts and requested to receive
the reports on a regular ba$~.
d. Council Membe= Stsp~ens stated that he would like to see
the names on the utility accounts which were 60 to 90 days
delinquent.
e. Mayor Stewart asked for a report on the zoning of the areas
adjacent to the municipal airport.
f. Council Member Stephens asked staff to check with the
Sighway Department regarding the two bridges on Masch Branch Road.
Acting City Manager Rick Svehla responded to Council Member Stephens
by reporting that staff had been in contact with the Highway
Department on this issue. The Highway Department was in process of
completing an environmental impact study on the area.
9. The Council reconvened inte the Executive Session to
discuss legal ~atters, real estate, personnel and board
appointments. No official action was taken.
with no further items of business, the meeting was adjourned.
0039o
386
City Council #inures
Meeting ot December l?, 19B5
The Council convened talc the Work Session at 6:00 p.m, in tbs Civil
Defense Room.
P~KNT: Mayor 8tewa£t~ Mayo£ EEO Tom Hopkins; Council
Chew. McAda~s. and
Acting City Manager; C~ty Attozney and City Beczetaty
ABBBNT: Council ~mbe~s Allo~d a~ ~tephens
The Council consideced the eaec9enc~ agenda ad~e~u~
1, T~e Council bela a discussion o[ the Itnal ¢epoCt o~ the
Blue Ribbon Co~ttee on Flow Memorial Hospital.
MS. James Kttl~nqswo=th introduced ~he Blue ~tbbon Co~ttae
holpital assets to the 501 (c)(3) co=po~ation. ~e eo~ttea now
was =ecom~e~inga complete ttanelec ol the assets ol Flow ~uoc~al
Hospital to the OotpotAt~on. A~eo called tot was a community
board attuctute am~ ~ull eetv~be ~nagement conttaot. The co~ttee
wam ae~in~ the council to take t~ actions: (l) appt0ve ct the
concepts ct the Blue Ribbon Co~ttee teco~en~at~on~ and (2)
~mpowet t~e City Attozne~ and Flow ~otial ~sp~ta~ Board o~
D~teotots to ptocee~ with preparation ct the legal agtQements,
ooa~unctioa w~th the County Co~ise~onetm. to set t~e gOl (c)(~)
corporation tn motion.
Mt. ~ennett Kitk, Cap,taX Fox,lion 8ubco~ttee
tepotte~ that the best plan was to ttanetet t~e assets o~ the City
a~ county to the foundation. This ~uld give the co~potation
a~ the authot&ty to tun the hospital a~ WOUl~ also teleame the
C~ty a~ County ~tom l~abllity. Flow would dedicate ~% ct the net
zevemue tot the cate o~
Mt. Ken Neon. ~ememt ~ubco~ittee C~itpetmon. repotted that
h~m g~oup had loo~ed at p~oposals a~ studies ~one by the pcevioum
tal~ force. He ~u~the~ stated t~t the City Council and
C0~ts~ione='s Couct should be g~ven c=ed~t ~o~ ~ealiz~ng the
should be a 501 (c)(3) co¢po¢,=ton, the¢e should be a board
adv~8oc8 to ~ece~ve c~t~zen ~npu~. a~ the~e should be an actual
board ct t~ustees ~h legal
Council ~embez Stephens Joined the aee~ng.
ptoteaaion~l ~ma~ement should be brought
t~t they lelt the~e ~hould be a cleat cut accangement gcc indigent
aa~ ~s the H~lt-Button act, Th~ was the 9hitoaov~y which the
co~tee ~anted to keep.
Dz. Don Holt. I~et~tut~onal Development 8ubco~ittee
repotted that they had looked at lutuze health cate needs
teeo~nded an ezvanded tole ct the toundation to ~ve a
pecson in c~tge o~ the foundation. This petmon ~uld be an idea
~eE~o~ and in c~tge of tatting ~u~e. ~ant mo~e~ were
available. Amothec ~dea cons~de=ed was to ~o~ an imsu=ance plan.
This was being looXed at locally a~ would include lazge a~d small
employers.
Mc. Ktlltngswo~th asXed ~ot direction ~tom the Council.
~yo= Stewart stated that th~s wa~ a sensible aVp~oac~ which would
~eeV Vol~tic~ out ol the
387
City ct Denton City Council Minutes
Meettmg o~ Deceube£ 17.
Page Two
ME. Killingewo£th stated that the Blue Bibbon Couittee had done its
best wo~k amd Celt the basic conoepti and ideas WsEe sound. They
adv~8o~y a~ t~u~tee boa~dg.
Council ~b~ ~tdd~e~pezqez ze~ponded no; ~t~ could not be
an~d ~ bu~ ~at~ t~t to ~u~u~e ~e~a~ ~dvl~ and
assets a~ ~lt ~ve 8o~ acne[detaChol, Th~8 wou~d be a c~eau
bzea~. TBS lewl ~oz t~tge~t oa~e ~ad been set at
other
Council ~ubet RL~d~ampetgeE stated that this was the legal language
cate cos~e weEe oveE 3%, the pl~en~ Wou~d be settled in cou~.
Tho Council ~etu~ned ~o ~he ~ogutaE wo~ 8esolon a~enda.
T~e Council tece~v~ an update on the ~tt~t[ve Action
P~an.
been updlted a~ p~ovtded ~ Couno~ approval and discussion.
Council ~be~ Ch~ te~t ~o
The Coun~ le~t ~ ~e~la~ ageada
included tn ~eetble a~xatten o[ 396~g7 aczee being ga¢~ of ~he I.
Coy ~u¢~ey, ~be~act 3J ~. ~¢leaoa 8uCvey. ~batcact 93; 8. ~u¢leson
(pzopo~ed extension o~ city ~u~ts 3 1/2 u~le~ alon~ 1-35N).
David E~l~sou, 8enact Ftan~z, ~epo~ted t~at ~C chA annexation
~as adJum~e~ to be ~00 ~ee~ ~tde ~t would only affect
and abou~ ~he ga~ a~unt ~o~ ~ single [au~y Eestdenee. The 750
annexation asea, I~ a d~Ls~on vas ~eaobed p[~o~ ~o January 7,
t~ete ~u~d ~ tt~ to adjust the Cteld notes a~ ceadvezt~ee the
Council ~be~ ~lEo~d Jotn~ the ~et~ng.
The coune~t ~etuzned to the ~e~a~ a~e~a o~de~.
388
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
#eeting o~ Dece~be~ l?,
Page ~h~ee
2. The Council oonetdeced status o~ Land Use Planning
Committee.
deil ~eyet. Dttecto~ ol Planning and Couunity Develol~ent.
t~t stall would like to ad~ ~e~aentatives, i~el. t~ tollowt~
cities to t~e ~an~ Use Planning Co~ittse: Co~tnt~. A~gyle.
~o~e,. ~tcko~y C~e~k an~ Seeger.
the comities. ~otton ca~ied u~n~uously.
4. T~e Council convened trite ~ ~xlcuttve Ges~ion to d~scus~
legal matters, ~eal estate, pe~sonnel and boa~d
oi~iciat action was
T~ Council convened into t~e Regula~ Ne~ttng at 7:00
Council Chambers.
~: ~yo~ Stewart; ~yo~ P~o Te~ Hopkins; Council
~: None
The Council considered the emergency agenda addendum itel.
The Counct~ considered approval o~ t~e ~1
BlUe Ribbon Comities and en~o~se~t el the concepts con,lined
~. dales ~tlltngawotth stated t~t the ~nal ~epo~t was the ~esul.t
ct Vot~ done beginning tn September, T~e ItEst ~
reviewing options. The comities ~d c~en ~ ~u-pcotit oo~unitF
bese~ ootpotetton concept. Standards ~ been tevt~. It was
recovered t~t there by a ttanSte~ el a~sets ~tch would be
co~ptete and irrevocable. T~ete would be al au&o~us hosed
ttui~oos and a iull service ~naqe~nt oontEaot
trite. Institutional development issues would
rotation to long tetu needs ici Fto~. T~e Blue ltb~n Co~tttee
attempted to produce a iotwat~ locate9 Eeoo~atton.
coutttee had held lon~ deliberations and [el& reEF
th~s ~as t~e best solution to the cutteut hospital p~obleu. Tho
co~ittee Was asking ~o~ a ~tton to accept the co~cl~ts
tn t~ te~ott a~d ~o~ authot~zatio8 to proceed; a~tho~izat~on to
~et legal counsel to dtaw dec,onto ~ch ~uld e~ble
pEQOOe8 to proceed,
Rlddleepecget mottos, Hopkins second to acce~t the eolce~t8 and to
authorize the p~epatation o~ t~e aeoessaty leal ~oc~nts to
paoceed. ~tton ca,tied unanimously.
The Council ~etu~ued to t~e regular agenda
1. The Council considered approval oi t~
· ~lat Nesting el ~ovembet 1~. t~S5; the ~pactal Called
~ovembet 2~, 19~5; and the Regula~ ~ettng od December ~, 1~85.
R~ddlelpetge~ motion, Chew second to approve
presented. ~tion cackled unau~uely.
2, Consent Agenda
Consent ~g~nda Ste~s 2,A.$ and 2.A,~ ~e ~e~oved i~o~
the txoegtion cE t~e~ 2.~.8 a~ 2.A.~. ~ton cad,ted u~ut~ously.
389
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o4 DeoaBbet 17, 1915
Page Fou£
Consent &ge~da~
Bide and PutCbale O~dets:
2, Bid # 9543 - Loader b&ckhos
3. Bid # 9565 - Re,use t£uck
4, 8id # 9646 - doll-off ttuok
5, ~id # 9545 - ~istttbution
6. Bid # 9552 - ~ddition to Italneotth panel symtem
7. B~ ~ g5~3 - ~e~:~a~/~tne body
E~D ~Y
SZ~: e. aid ~ 95&~ - ~e¢ ~tuahing tzuek
S~AZZ: 9. Uta ~ ~5S6 - Ra~io uainte~nce
~O. 8~ ~ 9559 - U~e~oun~ ~u~ng unit
~l. Bid ~ 9564 - Mooden transmission poles
~2. Rid e 9565 - Rno~osu~es and
Put~hiee CEriSE ~ 7~109 to I~ in the auoun~ of
~39,034,~
an~L Mtntenauoe o~ Utility Billing System
~te~ Re~o~d8 System in the amount oC 818,~00.
(The ~ta Processing ~visoty Board =ecomn~s
B. Prate ,n~ Re,lacs:
t. ApptovaX cC p~ett~ina~y and Ci~a~ teplats cc the
Moods4 ~=ee Subdivision, Block 4. (~e Planning
2. ~p[oval ct ~nal replat of the Sun Valle~
~ttto~, ~o~ 14, Block A. (The Planning and
3. ~bltc hazings
A~enda ~oR 3.B. Wan ~ved ~o~aEd ~n the agenda o~de~.
B. The Council ~td a public heating on the petition oK
Tom D. Joliet, J~. :~ueltt~ an a~endme~t to a planned development
(~D-i~) on a ~.: acZe ~zac~ located at ~e southeast cozuez
Coope~ CZeeW ~ad and ~ia~o ~oad. The pzo~eztM ta ~u~thez deecztbed
a~ the Sa~at~ Xteen ~laa~ ei~e. The a~m~ ~C the planned
deveiop~mt ~tll ~zmit ~ comet~uc~tou o~ an addition to au
existing vate~ouee, t~ c~ettuction o~ a loading doaX, and au
addition to an ezlltiM boiler/still loom facility. Z-1776
The ~yot ope~ the ~btie heating.
Mc. Tom JeEte~, /ep=elentt~g Safety Klean, ipo~e in favor stating
t~t hi~ ct~eut vas ttyi~ to build a s~ll o~ice building and
expana~oa o~ the~E existing Eac~lity. The Council ~d pzevtou81y
appzoved i~u8t~a~ deve~o~ent ~ndg ~oc th~s pzoJect. ~t ~d
390
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ December iT. 1985
Page Five
subsequently been discovered that this zoning wa8 a planned develop-
ment and the proposed expansion had to be brought befo£e the
Planning amd Zoning CoMMission. A problem exist[ag with the tiue
f£ame, lndust£ial development bond pro]acts mull be built within
uonths and 2 months of tbs time had already lapsed. There were no
traffic o~ utility problems at the site.
No one spoke in opposition,
The Mayo~ closed the public hearing.
Denise 8pive¥. U~ban Planner. reported that 4 ~eply fozm~ had been
mailed with 1 returned in favor and 0 in opposition. The Council
had app£oved the industrial development bonds [or the prelect and
the use was compatible with existing laud uses, The Planning and
conditions.
Stephens motion. Hopkins second to approve the petition. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Council then returned to the regular agenda order.
~ A. The Council held a public hearing on the petition o~
Qeorge Hopkins, representing Tom Touts, ~aquesting a change in
zoning from the single family (SF-16) to the planned development
(PD) classification on 3,173 acres located east of Convey Street.
wast o~ Lillian Miller Parkway, and south of 1-35. The property is
moze fully desc£ibed as lots 6, 7, and 8, block 1o o~ the J.
PEkin Add~tion. If the planned ~evelopment is approved, the
development of office buildings will be pe£mi~ed.
The I~¥or opened the public hearing.
Mr. ~eozge Hopkins, representing H~. Tom Touts and Mr. Cauble. spoke
in favor and p~esented an a~ea map of the sur~ou~ing land uses. An
independent firm had been hired to couplets a iiaffic impact study
of the a£ea.
results had shown that the expected t~affic generated by this
development would be 75 vehicles in the morning and ~0 vehicles in
the evening which was very minimal for this general area. His
had looked at the traffic on Lilltan Miller Parkway at the 1-35
interchange. One could expect approxi~tel¥ 22,000 vehicles pe£
at this particular interchange with a decrease in vehicles further
south. His firm felt the traffic from this develov4aent could be
accoMModated at an acceptable level of service. The office
development would generate lass than ~% of the total t£a~lic if the
entice area was developed. The stats report stated that the area
wan already over the acceptable traffic density; ho~eVa£o hie firm
felt this was based on the ~oderate t£aftic &zen deetg~ation. The
ehagge businese in the area generated more t~affio than would the
proposed otlice development. This area had developed into a high
intensity area and was a regtowal retail area, ~t~ich was
Mr. Qeorge Hopkins stated that the Provident 8ask located on 6 acres
on Lillian Miller Drive and. 1-35 was the ~irnt coMMercial zoning uae
in the area. ~haze was la acres owned by Dunning Development which
was zoned as general retail. In 1982. Mr. Touts and M~. Cauble had
requested ~ene£al retail zoning ice that~ pzopezt¥ on the west side
of ~Llli&n Miller. Stats had recomaa~Aed to ~equest office zoning
ami to resubutt the petition. The property was zoned single family
(SF-I&) at that time. The petitioners were led to believe that a
planned developm, nt fo£ office uue weuld receive favorable
comsidezatton at a late£ date. On this basis, I~. ~outs and
Caubie had paid thei¢ portion for the paving of Eillian Miller
391
city o~ Deutou City council Minutes
Meeting o~ Decembe£ 17, lgS~
Page Six
P&tkway and to£ the exteu~on o~ utilities. Ho action had been
taken on the oEtgtnal Eequeat toe zoning, & new petition was tot
pl&unad devtloMaent to£ office use was subuittsd and
~ecommend~d t~ 2-$to~y bu~4ing8 on t~e east and t~o ~-8to~y
bu~d~ngs on t~ ~gt. gout o~ the adJaotnt p~opecty o~e~s had
obJecttonl a~ ~eve~a~ ~l~e ~n ~avo~ o~ t~e petition. Th~, ~ou~d
a suitable burSaE ~o~ the single [emily a~ea a~ the high use
commercial ~h~ch ~aa tn place. Uttl~tLe~ ~e~e in place on the
west. Tho t:aC~tc density Wis exceeded only becaule the a:ea wag
use. H~$ clients would add 2 lanai o~ the east o~ h[ll~an Mille~
Pa~kway and exte~ t~ wato~ l~ne.
M~. M~tc~ell ~:na~, 2~18 Stoneg~e. spoke ~n opposition stating
Mt. ~opki~ ~d 8tared t~at t~e Wes a need [o~ oE~ce bu~d~ngt
this a~ea. ~. ~cnec had obtained a t~etLng o~ the o~Lae space
available at t~ t~me and the~e was p~e~ent~y 17~,000 square ~eet
~o~ o[~ce upset which had been ~s~ued, would b=[ng the total auount
o~ o~tce apace ~tch woul~ be available In Denton to
e~the~ cu~enC~y draftable, zoned ~o~ o~ce, o~ tn the
Mt. BOb N~odtn, 2240 6renegade, .poke In oppo~tt[on stating t~t the
bao~-up 02 tta[~ic om ~Llltam M~llet and l-~5. Aczoss [~oa th~e
p~opoeed 9la~ed ~evelopue~ was an entrance and exit to South~dge
V~llage. Co,ay S~Eeet ~at no~ a dedica~ed street and once
P=ov~dent Ban~ ~td not ~ve a ~u~b out on the sou~h east
~hetc 9=o~=~F. Pt=haps t~ ~e ~n ~avo= o[ th~s petition because
they tnte~ed to d~cect t~tt t=a~c ~nto th~s lot and t~en out.
~ o~tee development ~uld add appcox~te~y 8~7 ve~tcte t~lps
day ~ht~e s~nglo tautly ~uld on~y add approximately 200.
M~. ~. ~. Rtcue, J~., 707 R~d~ectest Drive, w~shed to
~yot stowact asked Mc. Eeoue ~, a8 a membe~ o~ the Planning and
the co~ton.
M~. Eoeu~ Eel~o~ed yes.
~yor St~a~t eoasuZted vtth the City Attoc~ey a~ st. Ced that tbs
attocuey ~elt ~. Iscue wag out cC o~dec and s~ould not be
be~oze t~o
MC. Escuo Eespo~ed t~t ~e ~d asked ~o~ a cul[ng on t~e ~s8ue
p~o~ to t~ ~t~ a~ ~d been ~n~o~ed by M~. Moye~ o~ the gta~
t~t t~e~e ~ul~ ~ot be a eou~l~ot.
l~ve within t~e notl~t~tton a~ea o~ the zoning change a~,
thete[o~e, ~utd ~t bi pt~b~ted fto~ voting on th[8 petition at
t~e Planing ~ Zo~L~ Co,Legion. However, spea~ng at the public
hea~ng ~eEa ~ city Council, gave the appeatance t~t
was tepc6~ut~ t~ Plan~tng an~ Zoning Co~tsaLon.
Co~o~l ~g ~ilg ll~t ~o ~ettng.
~s. a. $. Eseue, Jr, spoke tn opposition statin~ that the Intensity
on 6~ll~an M~llet ~uld be tncteame~. People needed home8 and wou~d
not want to loo~ at a 2-1tory o~[tce butld~ng adjacent to theft
ptopetty.
392
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting ol December 1~, 1985
Page ~even
Ms. Margaret Pletcher. 6l~ Ridgecrest, spoke in opposition
there had been senseless destruction of trees resulting from
development. The£e were beautiful residential areas in Denton &n~
she did not wish to see the trees reuoved. The alta plan for this
particular petition shoved that the only trees Which Would be saved
were around the periphery of the property. Heplanting of trees
should be required and the destruction should be stopped.
Council Member Mcadams Joined the meeting.
Mr. Oeorge Christy, 2416 Southridge, spoke in oppomition stating
that the Council should not be deceived by the label but £ather look
at the pack&ge. I~ this petition were approved it Would amount to
overturning the whole basic o~ zoning and cast doubts on the entire
area. If the property were currently zoned co~e~oialo the idea of
· buffer zone would be app£opriate but Who would puroheze property
in an area where single family (SF-16) had been rezoned to
commercial. The City Council and Planning and Zoning Co~alesion had
app~ove~ a plan ~o~ this a~ea two Fee~s a~o. Il the petition ~e~e
applied, the Council ~uld not be 1e~i~ c~adence to any el
gutuze actions.
Dc. Roland Vela, 729 Rtdgec~eat. spo~e tn oppolitton ~tattng t~t
~ho~e phc built thei= homes ~n tktl a~ea did ~o because el the
~tuzal beauty. Deed ~est=~ct~ons were in place to ~tntain
ehacactez o~ the neighborhood. Red,dents had invested ~eh moneF
a~ love into the~= he,es and had been belo=e ~ny City Counc~ll to
dete~ this neighborhood and had been co~pzoaiae~. DZ. Vela
stated that he ielt a deception was bein~ brought be~o~e the
Council. O[~ce zoning had been p=oatsed on ~ dozes tn =his
but not th~s ~ ac:ee. The Denton ~velopaent ~ide called lo= the
Cit~ to t~y to 9~eserve the ~tuzal beauty cE Sou~h=idqe and
entice a~ea. He ~id not bu~ a home in th~a pa~t o~ to~ to be
euz~ou~ed by c~ercial development, apact~nte a~ t~a~ic
problems. The red,dents we~e not against ~cogcels. but ~athec
wanted to p=eso:ve their ne~qhbozhood. CiVics space might be needed
but not ~n this a~ea a~ the:e ~Eo other locations more suitable.
the t~a[lic congestion wag a real ~zoblom. He tolt t~e
developers ~ad single family uses tn aind and not to strip
the lewes a~ concrete ove~ the land. ~ding ~o the ~a~fic burden
wal not in ~he best intecelt8 o~ anyone.
Mrs. Joe 8kilee, 1407 Ridgecteat, spoke in opvo~t'~on listing
bec husband ~d been the develope~ og 8outbc~dge and ~d chosen
looat~on because cE the tree8 a~ beauty of the aces. 8be hoped
t~t it would not be cu~ned by having the t=ee~ 'e~ do~.
neighborhood and surrounding aces was of great interest to
· he had recently moved to Denton and due to the t=ai~ie cong,st~on,
~t now too~ he= longer to get to ~K that ~t ~d ~n Houston.
The ~Yo~ allowe~ the pet~t~one= 5 minutes to~ rebuttal.
area was pzotected a~ cut-oE~ ~=om go~h=idge. The t~eea ~uld be
le~t around the periphery. In response to the ~tate~te regarding
the a~unt et oi~ioe space in Denton, much was combined with
o~tce/wa=ehouse a~ so~ was stt~l und'e= construction. ~ did not
beli~e t~t traffic would be a problem. Office u~e was generally
=egazded as a bu~e~ between code=rial and single Eam~ly.
~uld be l~t=le act~vt~ aa~oc[atea with an o~tce building
working hours and would not dtstuzb the zeeidente. 8ingle
awa=e t~at ~he pzopeztM was zoned single ~amily (6~-~%) at ~he
o~ the pu~chaae.
Mc. Hopkins ~esponded yes.
393
City of l~nton City Council ~tnutes
Page Bight
The J~yor closed the public
CeCile C&rlOn. O£bin Planner. £eported that in t981 the Planning and
Zoning Contusion had recommended denial of a petition io~ olltoe
use, I zoning change ha6 beau £equested on 4 separate oacastons for
presentation ~o the Ptinnl~ ant Zoning co~tsiton. ~here ve~e 62
~ett~g I~ stiff ~4 not ba~ an opportunity co study it. Tbs
~hich ~am t~t no p~rking be ~tlo~ea on f~ont yard 8et-ba~k8.
Council ~uber ~c~aus stated t~t she regretted to hear ~. Hopkins
speak o~ dt~c~ston~ a~ conversation8 ~htch ~d taken p~ace between
the owners, s~,li a~ oC~t8, other entities could not
oo~it~nts io~ t~e City Counc~t, Dea~tn~ with verbal assurances
was as&lng lot trouble. ~e ttaittc in this area was cuttent1y a
problem ~ioh ~utd increase w~en the Provident Bank was
at lull
Counctt ~bet ~tddlespetget stated that he wSmhed the developer had
~de peace with t~e people tn the area. In regard to zoning
c~nqes, &~e C~u~cit too&ed to the netphbots lot theft opinions.
particular areas so thtt ~en people bought property, they ~new what
the zoutn~ Was. Ii the ~tttton Wets approved, tt ~ould mean
tutthet entreatment tale an existing tesident~al area and that
been ~o~ ~t ~or the a~ea to ~euatn residential. The Skaqgs
~elt the ~ve o~ co,atrial uses into residential areas should be
stopped. Aa tm any othet established netghbothood, the plan lot the
atea should be
Acting City ~get R~ck ~vehta sta~ed that he Would like to
to several el ~. H~WtnS'e counts. The developers had been
apptoacheA a~ ~d agreed to donate tt~ht-o~-way an~ ~ay lot a
9ott$ou ~i the ~avtmg on 6ttltam Millet Pathway. Att zomtn~ c~n~ea
must gO thresh &he p~ope~ o~nnels. 8tail ~ad advised ~.
and/et his ctt~ts t~t a t~UeSt ici a planned development on
particular parcel ~uld have a better chance el approval due to the
inet t~ s~eetttc co~tt~oas could be attached to the petition.
Chew ~otten, H~pkins seeo~ te de~y Z-~772.
~ayot St~att stated t~t one of the dost i~pottant aspects et the
quality et tits tn ~to~ ~aa to ~tntatn the character el the
net~hbot~oods. ~ ~tmo questioned curb cuts on attettat attests.
~yot PtO ~e~ ~ktus e~ated that ~e believed a compromise had been
wet,ed est ~m access ~d been needed lot 5out~tit~e. This
oomptouisl t~cludad ~ep~ ~e wast a~de o~ ~tlltan ~ltlet as
~estdonttal. This eli[ce butldtn~ should be on the east ~tde.
Council ~bet Ch~ stated 2~t httltan M~llet Pathway g~outd be the
dividing
Notion ~= den~ Z-t~72 oa~tet u~nl~ously.
~. T~ C~u~tl ~lld a pubtto hea~tng on ~e ~etttton
tamely (By-TI d~itttct to the ptanned devetopuent (PD)
ctamettt~Cton on a ~.1 acre tract located on the south side et U.S.
~t~hway Il0 Eaa~, app~oxt~tely 250 ieee ~e~t et Red~ood ~t~eet.
The ptopeet~ t8 ~u~thsc ~egctibed as a tract tn t~e J.D.
6utvey, Abstract 627. I~ appcoved, the planned devetoD~nt
permit the co~t~uctton el a two 8to~y 34,800 squace foot
building. Z-t777
394
City o~ Denton City Counci[
Meeting o~ DeceBbec LT. 1985
The ~yo~ opened the public hea£ing.
Mc. PEezton Cu~y spoke in ~avo~ stating this t~is p£ope~ty vas
o~aed by his ps,ants.
all o~ the a~ea [o the noE[h was zoned I[ng[e ~au[ly (S~-lO) and
aEea ~o ~he sou~h wan zone4 8[n~le ~au~ly (SP-7), The ~ope~y
been purchased because o~ the ~u~al atmosphere ~t a ~ed ~oz c~nge
a~p~oae~ed by ~eve~ope~s ove~ the yea~e a~ believed ~ ch~s
~eti~s ~d been o~ganiaed a~d hel~. The developers ~e~e going
lure al ~ny t~ees as pols[ble and ~d agreed to co.tEnet a 6 Eoot
e~[o~t had been ~de co alleY[ate no[se p~oblau8. Co~c[al o~
a~ec[ ~het~ p~ope~[y values but ,[udtee ~d s~o~ [~ ~evelopu~t
~U[a mol ~ave a ~e[~[uen[a[ e~ec[. ~y conce~ about bet~g able
~ce talle~ than the building. Also t~e~e Would mot be a
Mc. Reset aaE~ett, consultant, spoke im ~avo~ stating that a site
plan had been ~eveloped and am exteme~n o~ lan~oeap~ng ~n included
[~ees being o~ a 2-g[oEy size. T~e deve[ope~ was Czy~ug ~o save
~ [zees as possible. TheEe Woul~ be 30 ~ee~ set-hacks
ge~ated by an o~tee building ~uld ~t~ t~zou~ t~
sees. ~lso, an o[[ice building ~outi ~ vacant attez 5:00 p.a. a~
~o~ P~o Tea Hopkins elated t~t single Easily (8F-7) zoning
cuzzen[ ~n place and asked ~. aa~et[ tt lbs o[lioe uae ~ae
oaly devetopBent concept ~e could see.
~. Baeze[t zeapouded that due to the oomli~u~a[iou ct the
only t o~ 2 ho~s could be cometzuc[~ on [~te at~e.
~yo~ P~o Ten Hopkins 8ta~ed ~hat ~h[8 ~ope~ty co~l~ be coubt~
Vtt~ the ~act to the 8curb and develope~ a8 a ~ole. I~ only
po~tto~ ve~e developed. [t would close o~E aeces8 ~o ~he
pzopecty.
Mi. Cazolyn ~8h~ zesponded t~t appzoxt~tely 379 ~eet
~zom~age oa ~ghvay 3so ~uxd be le~.
He. Jamice Collvins. 20~ 8oy~. spoke ~n o~poai~iom ,~a~ag ~
~elt this o~iee bu[ldtmg would towe~ p~o~e~ty ritual and eould not
be ~e to appea~ to be zestdenttal. I~ developed ~o~ ofiloe use
~ld also tmczeaae the t~afEtc and ~uld ~ose am aidttio~l ~za~d
to c~ildzen. It would z~ove t~ extsttn~ noise buli~ peovtded
t~e tzeee and ~uld czeate litter, d~at~e a~ c~
The~e ~as no need to p~ocuze la~ tn a zestdential a=ea ioz an
oltiee building. Othe= office apace tn t~ azea had not be utiliz~
so ~ ~tld ~o~e tn thei~ neighborhood.
395
C~ty o~ Denton city council
i(eattng of Dece~ba¢ l?,
~aga
Kc. Jameet Collvtae, 2011 Boyd, spoke in opposition stating that the
neighbochood Mae united agetnet tha petition, Thece Wets mo ~unde
currently in the budget to elLutnate d£ainage pcobloue caused by the
developuAnt aM no d~atmage eylteu was ~n place. #stet would have
to be ~uluteted eouowheEe. The£e were only 2 attests shown on
Rap and 't~ Highway 380 ~ze widened to 6 lanes, the£e would be
tca~ic problem, e. ~he Pt&ming art~. Zoning Co~ieelon ha~ voted to
deny the ~etit~on amd the ~tgbbo~hood vamted tbs petition demtea.
M:. Don ~¢L~ht egoXe ~n op~t~on stating t~at bls ~omceCn wag
school e~eu~8 ~n ~e even~. 8~noe ~en, ~ ~a~ been a
place ~o~ u~ee~zable8 w~cb ~ resulted in lt~ez on ~ha lo~ as
building ~u~ need ~o be ~tt l~gh~od ~o avoid a e~uila¢ e~tua~on.
he enjoyed ~he peace and qute~ an~ [e~ ~ht= ~evetopuen~ vou~
tnc~east~ a~ an o~ce butldtmg would only add to ~he t~a~tc
p~ob~eu.
~. Joe ~oze, 1505 C~ee~, I~e ~n opposition 8taring c~ his back
yard would ~l ~he o~tee ~tld~ p~ope~ty. ~ny d~at~ge ove~Clov
~uld be ~ ~ hit
~ncon ~veto~t ~t~e stated iuppo¢~ et ot~t netghbotboode. The
Guide ~a~ ~en e~ablto~d in an effort to keep ~nton attractive.
~. C~l~lOl ~id, 1502 ~zeen~od, spoke in opposition stating
~ha~ t~e ,~Eet~ ~d been scowled to be widened but ~ad not.
deve~op~ ~d o~ly aggravate an ez~st~ng pEoble~. He Was
opposed ~e 8po~ I~tug ~ot th~s o~tice
~. June ~dd~otou, 1804 Ceeek. ,po~e tn opposition sca~ng ~ha~ the
puzchase~ a ho~ ~ t~ ~e~hbo~hood 7 ~onths ago but would not have
moved to, t~te a~ea t~ ~ ~d ~ an o~[ce bu~ld~ng was ~o be
The ~yo~ og~e~ t~ pe~Ae~ez 5 ~tnu~es ~oz rebuttal.
did not ~ to g~ ~Eou~ ~he ~t~hbothood not d~d tha dcainave.
aeCenttos e~eu a~ d~teau ~ck Would be needed but could be
su~Cable~uge ~et the pcope;ty oeu~4 not be
The ~yog ~1o8~ ~ho public
Deniee SprYly, Vcban ~tannez, ceported that t3 ~epty ~orua had been
~t~ed ~t~ 2 retucuod tn ~avor &~ v reCu=ned tn o~poetttou, some
the 200 ~mmt ~ttttoa~on acid. The tenet vii located ~n a
standac~ M~ed on exts~t~ zom~. The Denton Development Guide
lime,ed o~gtoe use ~o 4 ~eo concentrations tn a low ~GCeme~Cy a~ea
an~ t~ete cuctemtly ~ge 3 accel o~ o~Lce uae ~n the area. ~ the
addit[o~l o~tee butldt~ was developed, ~t wou~d violate the A
396
City o~ Denton City Council Ntnutee
Page Eleven
be ~tom colleotot st£eets et l&tget. Acceee to this development
would be Item Highway 380: however, gt&~ could not cay that no
semitic wo~ld eve¢ be ~unneled thzough t~e neighbozhood, The site
plea ~ad several positive ~e&tu£ee, The set-backs of 30 ~ee~ we¢e
geaezous aa~ mote ~a ~equt¢ea. ~ o[ ~e ~zee8 om the p¢opez~y
~u~a be zeCatned, s~a~[ ~d vo~Ked vt~h
4eaig~ el t~e site plan but a~ no tt~ w~a the deveto~ issu~ed
approval by the ~tanntng and Zont~ Co~,ston o~ ~he City Council.
Council Membe~ Mc~aus s~a~e~ t~a~ ~hts was a l~lble ~tghbo~hood
a~ ~ developuen~ ofleted no,binS ~o accrue ~o ~e ueigbboEe.
~a~s uo~toa. Chew second ~o ~euy Z-1779.
Council ~ube~ S~ep~en8 e~a~e8 ~be pzoposed 6evetop~m~ would change
~ ~u~e o~ ~he ex~e~ng
Council ~eube~ Almond 8~a~ed ~ Mz. an~ M~s. ~Ezy veze goo~
people a~ ~e was 8uze ~a~ ~ey did mo~ envision ~ega O~obleu8.
~ion ~o deny caczie~ unanimously,
~D, The Council held a public hea~tng oonce~ntn~
~eques~ o~ Ntllez el Texas fo~ volun~azM annexa~tom el S01.705 aczes
~decson Survey. Aba~ac~ ~6: ~e E.A. Oct Survey, ~bstzac~ 9831
~,U. ~de~aon Sucvey. Abat~ao~ t2: ~he M.R.P. & P.~.R. Survey,
lbs~a~ 15021 and ~be T & P Survey. Abs~cao~ 1302, Den~on countF.
~gtnmtng aou~h o~ u.S. Btghvay 380. eae~ o~
·gam Roat. A-32.
T~ ~yoz opened ~e public ~eaztng.
tnloz~ton ~o add. T~e mex~ action wout~ be ~he hol~tmg el ~he
~. Gerald Mt~cbett epoke ~n opposition e~attng ~t his land vae
oontt~ous amd would tike tot ~he Council ~o zeques~ a pzettmtnazM
develop~en~ pzoposal Dztoz ~o ammexa~toa.
~yot 8~eva~t suggested ~ha~ ~bose tu~e~es~ea tn ~he devetopueu~
iepe~ o~ ~he property couP6 a~ten~ ~he ~tauntng a~ Zoning
co~tsston meetings.
C~ew notion, Hopkins second ~o proceed wtt~ ~e annexation process.
~tton carried unanimously.
~R. ~e Council held a public beaird0 om an o~di~e
a~ndtag l~icle 3.07(A) si C~ptet I el A~ticto III
el tie Code el Ordt~nces el the ct~y el ~nton, Te~8 ~elattng to
developments; pcovtdtng ¢o~ a peplUM tn
T~a ~yoz opened ~he public
~yot Plo Tea HopkSns aeked ~ov this otdi~nce dtileted
~lttsom responded it provided mote precise tankage.
Mo erie apo~e in opposi~ton.
The ~Mo~ closed t~e public
397
Ctty o1~ Denton Ctty Counctl i~tnutee
~eettng o~ Decmabe,' 17, lg85
Page ~elVe
~. The Cou~l oomside¢ed adoption
TEe ~oll~ag o~moe wac
NO. 85-253
~TX~ IIZ ~ ~P~Z ~ OF T~ ~DE OF ORD~N~CES OF
1~ B~ C~S~CTI~
~ ~TI~ ~; ~ PH~DI~ FOH ~ EFFECTI~ DATE.
Gtephen~ ~o~o~, ~a~ ~e~o~ to adopt ~he
~all vote, ~Ma~I "aye," ~pKins "aye," Stephens "aye," ~l~ord
"aye," R~d4tle~g~e¢ "aye.a C~ "aye," amd ~yo¢
Mo~on carried u~ni~ously.
~F. Tbs Council ~ld a publtc hea~ing on au o~dtnance
a~ndLng C~pt~ 2 o~ The C~e o~ O~dLnance~ o~ the C~ty o~ Denton.
Texa~ by a4di~ a new A~t~cle V to p~ovide ~o~ 9~ocedu~ee fo~ the
sale o~ o~ty-~ed ~eal p~o~e=~y; pzov~d~ng ~or a
clause; a~ pZov~d~ ~ an e~ec~ive aa~e.
The ~yo= o~d ~he public
been need~ ~e~ a ~ong ~tae tn ozdez to establish p~oceduzee.
NO one epo~e tn o~oet~ton.
The ~yOE elo~ t~ ~ub~c ~a~tng.
1. T~e Cou~i considered adoption o~ an o~dt~nce
a~i~ C~p~e~ 2 o~ T~ C~e o~ O~dt~ncea o~ the City of ~nton.
Texa~ by ~ a ae~ ~¢t~te V to p~ov~de ~0~ 9~ocedu~e~ ~o~ the
clause: a~ ~E~dL~ to~ aB ef~ec~ive date.
T~e ~oll~tug oe~ace ~ae
~. 85-254
,~ ~O~ ~l~ ~EH 2 OF ~ CODE OF OED[N~CES
P~I~ F~ P~G ~H ~ GAL~ OF CI~-~ED REAL
P~ ~ PH~IDT~ FOR ~ 9~B I L
"aye," ~tddLel~geE ,aye," Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yo~ ~tewa~t "aye."
ao~ton caz~ted
~G. The Coumcit l~td a publtc heaztng om an ozdinance
aBe~tmg~zttele Zt o~ ~tx B-Zontn~ o~ ~he Code o~ Ozd~mamcee
o~ the ,CL~y eg ~m~on, ~ae by ~atstng t~ ~xL~B ~tne to
St,ooo.~ toz vtotatie~ ol ~ Zomtng Oz~tnance: pzovt~ing
,eve~abttt~y clause a~ deeta~tn~ an eftecttve date.
The ~o~ ope~d ~he ~ubl~e hea~ng.
Davtd Elttson. Gemto~ Planet, ~po~e tn tavot etattng that the
~he aaou~ o~ It.O00,O0
398
city o/: Denton City Council ~t. nutee
i~attt'tg ot[ Dace,aba,' 1-?. 1.9115
Page Tht£Ceen
~o on~ epoke in opposition.
The [layo~ closed the public
1. The Council conetdor adoption o~ an ordinance
curding &£t~cle 29 o~ Appendix B-~n~ng o~ ~be C~e
o~ ~be c~ty o[ Denton, Texa~ by Ea~tng the ~xt~u~ ~ne ~o
~t,000.00 ~o~ vio~attons o~ ~he Zoning O~dt~nOe~ p~v~ding a
The ~ol~o~[ng o~d~nance ~ae
~ O~D~N~ ~I~ ~TI~ 29 OF ~P~IX B-ZONING OF
~ COD~ OF O~IN~5 'OF, T~ CI~ ~
~I5I~ T~ ~I~ FINE ~ ~,000 FOE VI~ATI~ OF
Z~ING ORDIN~; PROVID~ A 8B~IL~ C~USE
~Oa~ action, Kt~oCd second to ado~t ~he o~d~nce. On
aa~t~ unanimous ly.
4.
TBe Council moved ~tem 4.J Iceland ~ ~he a~enda o~deE,
J. The Counc~t coneide~e~ adoption
a~oving a c~nqe tn zoning ~o~ the ag~tcuttu~a~ (&)
cl~881~tcatton to the p~anued developuent (rD) ~let~tct on a 27.29
The ~o~lo~tn~ o~di~nce ~as
NO. 85-256
~ ORDIN~C~ ~DING T~ Z~ING ~ Of ~ C[~ ~ D~,
OF L~ L~A~D AT ~ 60~6T ~
~B~ON ~, AS ~RE P~TI~Y ~l~ ~BIN,
PROVIDE FOR ~ ~G~ IN l~I~ C~IFI~TI~
D~B IGNATI~ ~ P~D DE~~ "PD~ DI~I~
C~8~IFICATI~ ~ U6R NSI~TI~ P~I~ ~OR ~ PENAL~
~ PROVIDI~ ~R ~ RP~CTI~
~pktns motion. Chew second to adop~ ~e oEdi~nce.
vote, MO~a~l "aye," Hopkins "aye." Stephens "nay."
Rtidl~e~ge~ "nay," Chew "aye," an~ ~yoc ~t
The Counct~ cetu~ned to ~he ~e~ac age~a
A, Tho Council oonutdec~ adoption ct au ordinance
~og the pure.se cE ~tetials, equi~nt, eupplies o~ services,
The iolloving o~di~noe vas presented:
399
C~,~, o~ Denton C$.ty Counct~
MeetS. rig oe ]:)ecl,abe,' ~7,
Page Fourteen
~O.
~ O~I~ ~I~ ~ETITI~ BIDS ~ ~DI~ A
~T~CT FO~ ~ P~SE OF ~TEH~AtS, EQUI~, 5UPPtlE5
OR 8~VI~; ~ID~NG FO~ T~ EXP~E OF
~FORR; ~ PR~IDI~ FOR ~ RFFE~ DA~.
Chew motion, ~ddle~pe~ge= eeeond to adopt ~e o~dtnance. On
'aye," Hiddleepe=ge= ~aye, s Chew "aye," and ~yo~ Stewart "aye.
~t~on ca, tied ~ant~ouely.
B. T~e Council considered a~optton off an ordinance
9=ov~d~ng Zo= the expe~u~e o~ ~unds [o~ pu=c~ees oE
b~da.
The ~o~l~tn~ o=d~nee waa
NO.
~ ~N~ P~DI~ PO~ T~ ~XP~RR O~ F~ FOR
~~ P~SB~ OF ~IALS, EQUI~NT, SUPPLIES OR
~VK~ IN ~C~CE NI~ ~ PH~IS~5 OF 5TA~ LAW
E~I~ SUCH P~ZE5 FH~ ~EQUI~NT~ OF C~ETITI~
BIDS~ ~ P~DING FOH ~ EFFECT~ D~.
Mc~am~ ~t~on, Chew ~eco~ to adopt the o=d[nance. On ~o~1
vote, ~a~l "lye," Hop~8 "aye," Btephen, "aye, .t Al~ord "aye,
H[ddle~pet~et "aye," Chew aaye," a~d ~yot Btewa~t "aye."
carried
C. The Council considered adoption o[ an o=d~nce
amending C~9~e= 2t o~ the Code o~ O~dtnances to p=ov~de ~o~ the
prevention and abatement o~ litter upon public ~tteets; providing
~o~ a ~Ht~ pe~t~ o~ two hu~=ed do[[a=~ ($200.00) ~o=
v~olat~on~ theteo~.
NO. 8%-259
~ O~ OF ~ Ct~ OF DENON, TE~S ~ND~NG
21 ~ ~ ~DE OF ~DIN~CKS TO P~OVIDE FOH T~
~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ P~LTC ~THEET8~ PH~ZDTN~ FOH
~ ~. ~AL~ OF ~ ~KED ~LLAH5 FOR V~OLATION5
'~IOF~ P~OV~DI~ PO~ A 8E~B~L~ C~U~E: ~ PHOVTDZNG
Fei ~ ~ECT[~ ~.
ac~a~s ~tton, thee ~eco~ to adopt the otd[~nce. On to~ ca~l
R~ddleapet~e~ 'a~e." Chew "aye," and ~yot 5tewatt "aye.'
carried u~u~l~.
D. ~e Council coneideted adoption o[ an otdtnance and
apptox~t*l~ 500 ~eet east o~ the centecltne o[ U.S. H[ghWa~ 377
The foLl~tng o~dt~noe w~l 9resented:
NO. 55-
~ ORDIN~ ~KIN~ ~ T~CT OF ~ CeNT I~UOUZ
~G OF L~D LYZ~ ~ BET~ ST~TED ~N ~ CO~ OF
~, 8TA~ OF ~K~ ~D BK~NG P~T OF ~ GEORGE
4OO
City o~ DeExton City Council M~nutnn
Keettng oK DecoBbet 17.
DAUG~RTY 8~Y. ABS~T NO. 351, D~N ~,
CLA~6IFYIN~ ~ S~ AS ~RI~L~L "A" DIS~I~ PROPERS;
~ D~C~IN~ ~ RFFECTI~ ~,
8~ephens uo~on, Chew 8eoo~ ~o ado9~ ~e o=d~nanoo. On ~oll
VO~e. ~all "lye," Ho~k~n8 "aye," 8~ep~e~l "aye." Al~o=d "aye,
Ri~leepe~ge~ "l~e, . C~ew "aye.. a~ ~yo~ ~ewar~ "aye."
ca~ unan~lou8 ly.
E, T~e Council considered a~op~on o~ i~ o=d~nce and
beginning 3~0 ~ee~ eou~h o~ and pezpend[cula= ~o ~e cen~e=l[me
U.~. Highway 3~0 a~ eaa~ o~ Qeeal~ng Road A-i~.
The ~ollow~ng o=dinance was pzeeented:
NO.
~ O~IN~CE ~EXIN~ A ~T OF ~ C~I~
~J~ TO ~ C~ OF D~TON. ~; BRX~ A~ ~T
T~T OR P~ OF ~ COMSXnTIN~ OF APPROXX~TS~Y 93.67
~RE8 OF ~ ~IN~ ~ BR~N~ S~TUA~D XN ~ ~
D~N. STATE OF TR~8 ~ BB~NG P~T ~ ~ M. POHRRGT
SURLY, ~ST~CT NO, 417, D~ C~, ~ C~n8~FY~
DEC~I~ ~ EFFECT~ DATE.
Council Mambo= ~l~o=d le~ ~he mee~ng.
~am8 uo~on, Hopkins 8eoond ~o a~op~ ~e o~d~nanee. Ou ~oll
vo~e, Mo~ama "aye," Hopkins "aye." S~ep~an8 "aye," R~ddleepe~ge~
~aye,' C~ew "aye.' a~ ~yor S~ewa~t "aye." Mo~on
U~n~BQUSIy.
eezvtee p~an ~m8tttuttng amGexa~ioG o~ appzoztM~ely 34,68
situated In ~e M. For~egt Survey, Abg~eo~ 417, a~ beg~nnt~
appcox~ute~y 250 ~ee~ eout~ o~ ,nd pe~pe~tcu~a~ ~o ~ ceucez~ine
o~ ~ 426, appcoE~uately 2,000 ~eet east o~ ~yhill Road A-lt.
· ~e ~o~ow~ng o~a~nance wee p~esentea:
~. 85-
~ ORDIN~ ~XIN~ A ~T OF ~ C~IGU~8
~T OR PA~L OF L~ ~GIGT~K ~ ~XX~Y 34.60
ACRRS OF ~ ~Y~ ~ B~IMG SX~A~D IN ~ ~
DRN~N. ~TATE OF ~S ~ BRX~ P~T ~ ~ M.
~Y. ~CT ~. 417. ~N~N CO~. ~8~
T~ ~ AS ~RICUL~L "A" D~S~T PROPK~ ~
DEC~I~ ~ EFF~TX~
~im8 mo~on, Chew second ~o Ido9~ ~he o=d~oe. O~ ~oll ca~l
vo~e, Mc~am8 "aye." Hopkins NaMe," 8~ep~en8 "aye." Rtd~leepe=ge=
"aye,t' C~Gv "aye, Il l~ ~yOC SCewaz~ "aye." ~C~om ci~ed
u~u~mou8 ly.
G. The Counc~ cona~de~ed adoption o~ an oEd~nce
aezv~ee plan ins~i~ut~n~ annexation o~ appzoxi~ely 42.35 ~cce8
situated ~n the 9. Kuize= Sucvey, Abs~zac~ 514, and beginn~ug
app~ozi~te~M 500 ~eet no~th ot e~ ~pe~iculac to t~ oentec~ne
o~ U,~. Highway 380 and went o~ ~sc~ Branch Road A-15.
The ~ollowing o=d~nee was pzesented:
401
C~ty o~ Doato~ CLty Couna~ K4nutes
Meeting o~ Deoe~be~ 17, ~985
NO. 95-
D~ 8TA~ OF ~ ~ BRING P~T OF ~
call vo~e, ~a~ "aye," ~opkin8 "aye," 6~ephenl "aye." "aye,"
a~adlespecgez "aye, . C~ uaye," end ~yo= S~ewaz~ "aye." Mo~on
ca=z~ea u~ani~ Xy.
H. T~e Council ~ns~deEed adoption o~ an o=dinance and
aecvice plan Lna~L~uCing anuexa~ion o~ appcoxLua~elM 150 accee
ei~ua=e~ ~n ~he D. Hough 8uzvey, kbe~zac= 646, a~ beginning wee~ of
hyh~ll ~oaa, appzoxi~ely 4.000 ~eet no~h of I-~5 A-iV.
NO. 85-
~ O~Cg ~XING A TRA~ OF h~ ~I~UOUS ~D
~ TO ~ CX~ OF ~. ~8~ BEIN~ ALL T~T LOT,
~ OR PHiL ~ ~D CON~ISTIM~ OF APPROX~LY 150
~s o? ~ LYZ~ ~ BEING ~ITUATED IN TH~ CO~ OF
~. 8T~. OF ~ ~ BEING P~T OF ~ D. ~UGH
6~Y. ~T~T ~. 646. ~ ~TY. ~5: ~IFY~NG
~ B~ ~ A~L~L "A" D~TH~ PROPERTY ~ ~D
vo~e. ~a~8 "aye." Hopki~ "aye." 6=ephen8 "aye."
"aye," Chew "aye," a~d ~yo= G~ewaE ~ "aye." MO~LO~
T. T~e Council ~o~g[de~ed a~op~on of an o~inance and
8ezv~ce p~an ~ae~ut~ng au~za~iom o~ app~ox~ely 60.38 acres
e~ua~e~ ~m ~he 9. YanKeE Survey, ~bg~rac~ 1330, and
a~Jacen~ an~ ea8~ oc ReWards Road app=oziu~ely 1.000 ~ee~ eaeC o~
The ~o~ing o~dL~nce was 9~elenCed:
~. ~-
O~XN~ ~XI~ A T~CT OF L~D ~XGUOU5
~ ~ ~ CI~ OF D~NTON. ~8~ BEIN~ ALL T~T LOT.
~T OR P~L ~ L~ ~NSIST[NG OF &PPROK~LY 60.38
~ OF ~ LYT~ ~ B~ GT~&~D ~N T~ CO,TV OF
~, 6TA~ OF '~6 ~ B~TNG P~T OF T~ G.
G~Y. ~8~ ~. 1330, DEaN ~.
C~S~FY~ ~ S~ ~ ~RTCU~T~L "A" DI~ICT PROPERTY:
Hopk~n~ ~on. ~au~ le~o~ to adop~ the ocdinauee. On roll oall
vo~e. ~a~B "aye." HopkL~e "aye." Stephens "aye." H~ddleepergec
"aye," Choy "&ye," a~ ~yO~ 8tewa~ "aye." ~[o~
U~G~EOUl ~y ·
The Couu.~ ~o~s~de~e~ adoption o~ an
deicc~t~ou o~ ~be ptogecty thereby ~ezonodJ and p~ov~d~ng
David Ell~gOn, 6on~o~ P~aamez, zepo=~ed ~= ~is o=d~nance was
cequ~ce~ Co eoc~eet the f~eld notes on Z-~759.
402
City ot~ Denton City Council Minute8
t~eeting o1: December 17.
Page Seventeen
The ~otlo~mg oCdtnamce ~as
NO.
~ ORD~N~ ~ING OBDI~8 NO. ~-160
~E~D LEaL D~SCRIP~Z~ ~ T~ PROP~ ~RRBY
8tep~ens motion, Chew second to adopt t~e ot~nanoe,
vote, KeAdam8 "aye," Ho~tna "aye,' 8:ep~ena "aye,"
"aye," Chew "aye," and ~yot stewart "aye."
u~t~us ~y.
The Counct~ conltdete~ adoption o:
vece 5 ease~n~s, eo~ o~ vMc~ ~ate~ bae~ ~o t~e ~930'8.
them.
No.
~ OBD~N~CE ~NZNG ~ V~AT~ ~TAIN UT~LI~
DATE.
"aye. Il ~OW "aye." i~ ~yot Stewa:t "lye." ~tto~
u~ntloul ly.
K. T~e Council considered adoption
aeeepttug the pcoposal oi Ackwttg~t-solton Insutanoe Co.any ~ot
~ttet and ~chtnety tnsutance.
Jo~n ~G=ane. Otteotot of Finance. repotted =~ this was a
cetesuance ol the cu~ten~ policy. The~e we~e lois e~uges 8uah
the deductible :or tee turbines had been reduced.
The ~ol~owtng ocdt~nce vas presents&:
~ ORDIN~CE ~CRPTIN~ ~ PROPOS~ OF
INBU~ C~ FOH BOI~H ~ ~I~HY XMS~
~T~HIZIN~ ~ EKPE~I~RE ~ ~S ~.
"aye," Chew "aye," a~a ~yoz St~att "aye,"
5. Resolutions
A. Constae~ ap~covat ol & resolution approving yeat-e~
John ~tane. Dtte~toc o~ Finance. te~otted that
house~eeving item,
T~o following ordinance was cesotutton was
4O3
City o~ ~nton City Counc~ M~nutes
Meeting o( ~ceube~ 17, 1985
~he bu~ge~ &dJus~nts. a8 indic&~ed on ~Ehibi~ A. at~ached
he£eto a~ included by ~e~aEence he£ein, ~o£ the ~tscal yea£ 1984-85
a~e he£eb¥, in all things, appzoved and £att~ied.
P~6R~ /d~D ~PROV~D this the 1?th day o~ ~cembe£o 1985.
HICH~HD O. sTEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, T~XAS
&TT~fT:
CITY OF D~NTON.
CITY OF ~,
~ams ~o~, Chew ~eco~ ~ ~he remolu~ion be approved. O~
=0~1 cal~ VO~e, MO~a~ "aye," Hopkins "aye," S~ephe~G "aye."
Bi~leape~ge~ "aye," C~ev ,aye," an~ ~yo~ ~ewa~ .aye.. ~ion
caz~e~
B. The Council comaidezed appzoval o~ a zesolution
1. Iaenti~ica~ion Cards 102.12
2. Employee ~ei ~a~e Acce,~ Ca,de 102.13
3, Pzoblel Solving
6. ~a~h In FaB~iM Leave 111.06
Ka~h~yn Uezey, Dicecto~ o~ Pezaonnel, ~epo~ed ~ia was the same
~otioy on leave ~OZ d~ in the ~au~l~ was a new one In that tt ~d
been exp~n~ed to include
The Coll~ing celolution wac pcelenCed:
~ ~ OBUT t ON
~B~, the Director o~ the Peceonnel/Emp~oyee Relations
regarding ~p~oyee rules a~ ~egulation8 lot the Council'~
cone~dezatioU; a~
,~, ~he C~ty ~unc~l de~i~ee to adopt ~uch policies
he=eo~ a=e he~eb~ adopted a~ o~g~c~al policies cE the
~nton, Texas:
4O4
City of Denton City Council ~inutee
Nesting of December 17, 1985
Page Ntneteem
lO2.12 Identificatio~ Cards
102.13 EBployee Fuel/Gate ~cceaa Ca~de
11~.02 P~oble~ 5olvl~g
108.07 D£ess Code/Pecsonal ~ppea~ance
108.10 Sexual Harassment
111.06 Death in Family Leave
SECTION II,
The ~ocegotng policies ace attached he£eco and emde a part
heceo! and shall be ~iled in the o~icial reoozd8 w~h the City
The E~ployee Rules and Regulations of 197& adopted by
Reeolu~ion gE the City Council on Februa£y 1, 1977, a~e hereby
rescinded to the extent they conflict with the ~ocegoing policies
and with any administrative pcocedu£ee and directives issued umder
adopted.
SECTION IV.
This Resolution shall beconm effective ~aedi&tel¥ upon ica
passage and approval.
P~86ED ~ APPROVED chis the 17th dam of Deco,bec, 1985.
CIT~ OF DEMTOMo T~X~
&TTF~ T:
CH~t~OTTE &LLE~. CITY S~CRRT~¥
CITY OF DEMTO~. TEXAS
~PRO~D AS ~ LEGAL FO~:
~vkin, motion. Stevhmn~ mecond ~hat %he
moll call vo~e. ~ams "aye." HoUdini "aye."
cad,ted unanimously.
C. The council con~de~ ~p~oval o~ a ~eeolu~on
rea[~i~mtng ~ha goals o~ the Plua Cna Program.
~len Jaspece. Ada~miatra~ive Asetaca~ ~o~
cepozCed that chis ~teu ~d pcev~oualy been be~oce ~he CouncL1.
T~ce had been ~enewed [nteceet a~
Program and the Public Utilities Board
~z~hwh~le to b~ing ~t bacX be~oze the Council ~o~ a
~yo~ P~o Tea Hopkins ae~ed ho~ much money had been collected ~o~
t~e project du~ng ~he ~a~t
Jaepe~a cespo~ed app~ox~tely I10.000.
John ~G~a~e. Dtgec~oc of Fiance. reported tha~ adverCtee~n~ ~u~d
be do~ to remind cit~zen~ o~ the p~og~al
405
City o~ Denton City Council ~tnu~es
Page T~en~y
The ~ollo~tng relolution was ~cesented:
Denton ~ tn ~be ~a=~ p¢ovtd~ needed energy aaatstauce celta~
~a~8, ~he obJee~vee o~ "Plua One" pzog~am aze bald
high esteem by Khe ~blie Utilities 8oazd and City Council.
· E IT ~E~D ~ ~ ~CXL O~ ~ CITY O~ D~, ~5, ~T:
Tbs City Council ~oee heceby rea~i~a a~ pledge its
canaled o~it~nt to the ~lu, One" pEog~a~ ~o provide cbact~able
ene~g~ al~s2ance ~elte~ ~o City o~ Denton ceetdent~ who uee~
es~abti8~ et~gtbil~y ¢equ~euen~a.
~e C~ty C~unotl does pledge ~s support to the devetopnent
o[ new a~ innovative ~zog~a~ ~e~igned ~o provide energy
,P~S~ ~ ~PP~D th~ ~TCb day o~ December, 1985,
RICharD O, GT~(A~T, ~I~yOH
CITY OF D&~I~, TEX~B
~TT~ST:
CITY OF ~. ~
BV:
appcoved. O~ co~t call vote, ~a~s 'aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens
"aye," Etddles~e~ge~ "aye," Chew ,,aye," and ~yoz Stewart
octon caccte unantzoue y.
D. The Council conaidezed appzoval o~ a ~eeolution
Cocpocatton in oonuection ~th t~ relocation o~ certain
a~ ~actt~tea.
Acting C~t~ ~gec Ric~ Gve~la cepocted t~at the ce~olut~on would
authoztze ~mt ~o ~tht ~ ?tpeline Co~pozat~on. Once this ~ae
aooo~pttl~, p~ans could pcooee~ ~oc ~he extension o[ Loop
BI G OhU T I ON
~W, Qn ~B~y 2S, ~978, the C~y oC Denton entered
Loop Ho. 28~ ~col the ~ce~ent nocth tecm~nu~ cE U.5. Highway 380,
notch an~ ve~t ~o lntec~a~e Highway 35: and
406
City et D~nton C~ty Council Minutes
~eettng of Decembec 17. 1985
Page T~enty-One
T~anspo~at~on has approved a eont~ac~ between ~h~ ~a8 P~pe~ne
Cozpoza~on and Gull ~ntezstate Eng~neeztng Company ~n ~he amount oC
857.492.28 ~o~ Gulf to pe~o~ engineering consulting services ~n
esthetes: and
~B~AS. t~e Texas Department o~ H~gh~y8 a~ Public
TEn,spoliation has agreed to ~e[ubu~se the C~ty o~ Denton ~0 percent
o~ ~ Delht/Gu~[ contract co8~ a~te~ t~e Ctty has paid ~h~t8 cost
8RCTION ~.
That the C~ty hnage~ ts hereby authocizod. ~n acco~aanue
with the C~ty'8 coat,act with the State Depact~ut o[ Highways and
Public Ttanspo=tation [o~ the extension o~ Highly ~. toop 288. to
u~e pa~ont to Det~i ~as Pipeline Co~ponatton ~o~ tts actua~ coa~s
[ncu=ced undec its cont=act w~th gull Interstate Rng~nee~tng Company
fo= engineecing consulttng services in an a~unt not to exceed
857.492.28. the actua~ cost8 to be gu~itted, deten~tned a~ pard to
De,hi a~ the woc~ p=ogte~se8 u~on receipt by the C~ty o~ invo[cot
SECTI~ l~
That th~s Resolution shall beco~ e~ect~ve t~d~ately
upon ~ts ~aseage and approval.
PA65ED ~ APPR~D t~is the 17Ch day o~ ~oembec. 1985.
HXCHAKD O, STEMAHT, MAYOR
CiTY OF DENTON. T~AS
ATTEST:
CF~/~LOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON. T~XA8
· PP~VED &8 TO LEGAL FORM:
DRB~AADAMx DHAYOVITCH. CITY ATTOHNEY
C~TY OF DENTON, T~XAS
Mc~dams motion, Chew second that the £esolution be approved. On
2oll call vote. MoAdams "aye., Hopkins "aye." Stephens ,aye.u
Riddlespemge~ "aye." Chew "aye." amd MEMOS Stewa£t "aye.' Motion
ca=~ied unaniaouslF.
6. Theme was no of Eictal action on Executive 6essXon items o~
legal ~atteme. meat estate, pemsonnel and boamd appointu~nte.
7. The ~ollowing items o~ NeW Business were suggested by
Council Maube£8 ~om [utu=e agendas:
a. Council Membe£ Stephens stated that ~e had ~eoeived a
communication fmom the Htsto£ie Land.ack Co~ission teen,ding a
407
c~y o~ Denton C~ty ¢oun~t~ ~inutes
~ta~e~ aa ~he JAnu&~y 7 agenda ~or ~iscuss~on,
b. Counoil ~mbe£ Stephens £equested the City ktto£~ey to
prepare a Yr~tten statement regarding the ruling that ~£. Eecue wa~
out sE or,er during the ~ublte hearing duztng this Council meeting.
c. Council ~amher ~t~dlseper~ez £equested the City &tierney
research o£~inances Crom other ctt~ei vhich limit/pcohtbit s~o~tng
tm publ~O p~aee~ a~ to pte~t a draft o~dtnan~e Co~ Denton.
oCCteial action val taken.
~th no gu~the~ [te~a o~ business, the mee~n~ was adJouzned.
4 0 8 city inuto,
Janua£y 7o
hlnnee Room.
Al~o£d, McAdaus, and
Acting C~ty Manager, City Atto£nay and City Ssc£eta~y
~BSEMT: Council ~ube~8 Che~ a~ Stephens
The Council ~ecetved a ~epo~t on la~ a~o~ttons noa~ the
~nton ~untctpal
and Ve~e ~de ava~e nE the Airport ~ght zoning ~est~ict~ona.
~y~E V~o Ten Hopkins asked about the a~ea t~d~ately along Tom
~yO~ SteWart 8tiled that the~e was a pol~y oG ~e~o~d t~t
a~ea nea~ the At~po~t was to be zoned lee light t~ult:ial
ptauned deve~op~nt
Carson ~epor~ed t~t the Denton ~velov~n~ ~u~de ~es~gna~ed t~G ae
~zcial u8e8.
ago t~t residential ugel were mot wanted ~n t~e ieee.
Cazson zeupo~ed t~at the e~ o~ cu~lattve zoning ~uld ta~e
o~ any p~oble~s with tea~dential uses.
~yoE P~o Ten Hopkins 8tared t~t he wes concez~d about the
~lt o~ the Loop 288 co~[do~ and genial t~a~l~e~a~ion
~uld be apv:op~ate.
counsel ~ube~ Chew Joined the meeting.
nC 2he loop loc a~p~ox[matoly 20
Aoting C~ty hnage~ Ric~ 9veh~a ~epo~ed ~ha~ due~ug the
sevoEa~ months, ~he County T~anspoE~a~ton Plan ~u~d be Envied.
The Counc[~ u~ght wan~ ~o loo~ at this ~8sue ~n con,uneaten w~th the
Counc~ Meube~ R~ddlespe~geE asked ~ega~d~n~ the Itatus o~
Svehla ~epo:ted t~t the City wes att11 ~ng with Delhi
a~ the State Highway ~pa~t~nt on ~ney ~te~l. A shock ~d
cut fo= the plan a~ st/if expected to ziceive the plan ~n one to
two uont~. The ~lan wag to get u~e=way with the pEoJect due~ng
the guue~.
Lan~E~ Co~is8~on.
Eequegted ~o be placed on the agenda by Council ~ubeE
409
Meeting o~ ~a~ua£y ?,
~yoz PEo Teu tiopktns s~ated ~at he thought the Council had agzeed
to ~ave a wo£~s~op session on th~ issue a~ ~d directed ataEE to
ozde~ ~B~o~t~n ~oa ~he Cit~ o~ ~ustin ze~azdtnq ~a
H~sto~toal ~ cotillon ~ 8~a~ed ~ ~e co,leaden ~uld
~et~y ~Kean. ~te~an~ City ~nage~. ~epo~ed t~t Steve
D~ecto~ o~ PaE~8 a~ R~Oa~o~. ~a~ ~o~tmg on th~s pa~ttcula~
issue.
Couuoilt~m~ ~te~a~ s~te~ t~t ~e would like to aee thl~ item
¢e~ezred ~o ~ Hte~ozieal ~a~ Co~tseion.
~o ~ Co~ctl. ~ Council could, at t~t tt~. ze~e~ the issue to
Zoning ~o~geton should ~evtev any p~opode~ o~dtnance
~resen~a~ton to the Cl~y Council.
Cecile CaEdon. UE~n Pla~o~. ~e~o~ad t~ac ~Ca[~ ~d cequeated and
~ecetved ,tx cE seven similac ocdl~noe8 ~con o~he~ ct~tea.
Council ~ec C~ I~ated chat ~e vould l~ke Ccc ita~ to pcepa~e a
su~zy el the othe~ ott~ee' ozdt~nces.
~yog P~O TOm Kop~t~ sCat~ that this tntoc~t~on, done in c~rt
'~ocu, v0uld ~
~de a geeo~n~a~ou at ~ pzeeentat~on to Council.
Council ~bec ~au~ .~atod ~ ~igh~ not be appcopciate at this
point, bu~ Eat~ec ~oc t~ Cou~e~l to cevtev a~l o~ the vacious
ordnances ~E~ and ~n give dtcectton to
ac~iom Was taken.
T~e Council ~u eouvenod tn~o the Requlaz Meeting a~ V:O0
t2e Cou~Lt C~eza.
P~8~= ~yoc S~agt; ~yoc Poe Ten ~p~tns; Council ~ubeca
Al~ocd. C~w. ~. a~ R~dd~eepecgar
cucn~uro) be c~ved ~col t~ Consent ~ge~a.
Hc~aue' ~ttou, Chew seco~ ~o appzove t~e Consent Agemda with t~e
exceptiOn o~ t~eu 1.~.1. ~ton caccied u~n~uouely.
Coun~t,~l~z 8~ep~us Jot~d ~ ~et~ng.
Council ~be~ C~e~ a~a~ t~ ~e would li~e [cz ~z. ~ze~ll
explain ~he ~e=e~cel t~ ~he ~o bids. T~e b~ that ~aa being
o~a~ed. ~e o~e~ ~.~00 ~lq~ t~n t~e lowee~ b~d amd ~an~e~ the
410
City n~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting ot January 7, 1986
Page T~ee
John Marshall. Po=chasing Agent. =sVo~ted thst the bid being
=eco~mended was highs= than the othe£ bid, but the [easons in= the
decision we£e stated in a meao=andum tn the agenda back-up
· ate=ial. O£dina£tly, two bids would not be combined to ~a~e one.
This pa£ttcula£ case was that Business Essentials bad bid the Aspect
line o~ ~urnitu~e io£ the c~ai£s, while Aspects had bid the panel
lu=nitu=e. All el these items we=e not p=oduced by one
Consequently, both had combined thet~ bids to make a complete bid.
Council Member Chew stated that he had a p=oblem With the
me~ ~tch stated that ~his was =he iou~th tine ~hese p=oducts had
been bid. The itzst time, only one bid was =eceived Eoz lus~ ~he
panels. The second time, the bide we=e =elected because ~hey ~e
no~ compatible with the panel syste~. Chew t~en asked how the~ ~=e
not compatible with ~he elbe= panel~.
~hall stated t~t ~he bid ~d specified a system 2hat connected
t~e panels d~=ec~l~ to,elbe=, one to anothe=. T~e ~oae~ont panel
a~a=ea consisted o~ panels and po~t~. The peat had ~o be locat,~
bet~n the panels to connect t~em. The City had ~pec~cally a~ked
in= a panel-to-panel syete~. The panel-to-pos~ sysce~ was
conatde=ed as an al~e=~te bid. but did no~ meet
Council ~mbe= Chew stated ~t ~e did no~ see $7,000 wo=~h
dille=ence.
~zs~tl stated that he believed the drill=emus could be seen
~ved aeveZat t~mee and put into vaz~oua con~gu=a2ions and alwa~
gave a good a~pea=ance. 5nme cE the ~Me~e~ in ~e
purchase oi addttto~l panels. The bid had al~o a~ed ~o~ the cost
the o~e~s we=e 20~ to ~Ot, depending on the tt,~
Counsel Me~ber Step~ens asked how ~ny co~panies could ~e ~he
=~a~ s~a[E wanted.
~e~tl ~eeponded several di~e~ent co~pan~as did and ~d bid at
ot~e= t~mee; however, this had been b~d ac ~ny ~[~ t~t the~ d~d
no~ bid. The combination bid was a beets= bid ~n the last t~.
~ounc[1 ~mbe~ Stephens elated t~ he had alwaFa thought that a
~cat wa~ load
~=e~ll =eaponded that Roeemont ~ad ae~=al di~e=ent ~dele
g=oupa oE panel systems. The ones that the CitM was bidding had the
toad on the panel ttaelE. T~e ap~t~icat~on had always been [o~ a
panel-to-panel, not a panel-to-poet a~etem due ~o the [lexibititM
zeaz~an~ement o~ cubicle a=eae.
Council ~abez Mc~ame stated abe ap9=eciated the Esot that ~7,000
~as a lot cE moneM, but =~e Council ~hould loo~ at ~he ~unctton
the aMetem. She fel~ ~lex~bil[t~ wee vital ~o~ lonq-zan~e use.
~ama motion to accept the bid. ~tion died ~o= lacX o~ a
Chew motion, 6~ephene second to accept the low bid.
Council Membe= Chew stated that he ~elt the bid had been ~itten
~tt a specific syate~.
panel-to-post syateu on the It=st bid, but ~en they unde=stood
411
City o~ Denton City Counoi! Minutes
1deering of Januacy ?, 1986
Page FOUr
bidde£s could h&vo done tho eame, and 8he ~elt tt wee eho£tsighted
to be put in the position of having to pu£oh~se uo~e panels when
~ea~angetents were done in the futu£e.
Mayo£ Stewa£t ,crated that ~leziblltty wa8 the key and tha~ future
expansion must be planned fo=.
t~ it did not ueet the spec. it ebould not be constde=ed.
Council Kembez NoAdaue asked fo£ the City &tto£ney.s opinion on
whethe£ o~ not the bid uet the specification.
Deb~d Dreyovitch. City &tto~ney, EspouSed that an examination of the
panel eFete~ Eevealed that, th£oughout the documents desc£ibtng the
panels, the poets wo£e £e~e£=ed to aa connecto£s. The£e was no
doubt in he£ at~d t~at when the City staff bid the p£o~ect, they did
not caEe what the post was called, they wanted panels which intel-
looked. The specificatioms were w~itteu with this in mind, and
the£e were a uumbeE o( e, anu(actu~e£s who did manu(actu£e panels with
inte£1oc~ng connecto£e es that the panAle did conuect di£ectl¥ to
each ot~e£. A consultant, Who had been used th£oBghout the £enova-
Sion pzo)ect, was alee og the opinion that the Rosemont sye~em, aa
bid. was a post-to-panel system end not panel-to-panel.
Council M~uber Stephens stated that he had checWed into the panel-to-
panel altd panel-to-post systems. He had discove£ed that a post was
8oletht~ w~ch wag load bea~ing. All o( the panel-to-panel systems
had a glide (ced et the bottom fo~ support. If theze was a hinge,
no matts£ what the shape, and no poet which p£ovided the euppo£t, kt
seemed to him that this vould be panel-to-panel.
~ouncil ,Momb8£ MeAdams elated that staff was pzobabl¥ not intezestad
in uho£e the support was, only the connection and being able to
inte~chengo the panels and use them in a variety of manners. The
poet was. a connecto£, and it was the type of connacto~ which was
Actin'g City Managoc Rick 8vehla ~epo=ted that the Roeemont system
had mo=e connections in Joining two panels togathe£ than the£e we£a
in the other system. 9ta~ felt the£e would be modi~ioatione to the
was the ~eet.
Council Mombec Hiddleepe£ge: called the question.
Vote on the so~lon to accept the low bid ~ailed by a vote of 5 to 2
with CoU~tl V~o~becs McAdams. Hopkins. ~l~o£d, Riddlespe~ge£ and
~¥o~ Stewart casting the ,,nay,, votes.
McAdams motion, RiddleepezgeE second to appcove the bid as
p£esented. Motion to appears ca~£ied 5 to 2 with Council Mombe£s
Stephens' and Chew casting t~uo "nay' votes.
&. Bide and Purchase Orde£e:
1. Bid #~551 - Modulac Puznitu£e
2. ~td #~$~ - ~adio Maintenance
L Bid #955? - C,I.P. Utilities/Section B
t 4. Bid Og~5O - 27', #ate£ Line hovering
412
city o~ Denton City Council Minutes
I(ee~ing o~ Janua£y 7, ~986
Page Five
5. Bid #955¢ - Seve~ Flushing T£uck
6. Bid #9561 - T£UC~ Bed and Bodiel
7. Bid #9562 - B~ush TEuok Body
8. Bid #9563 - T£uc~ Cab/ Chassis
10. Bid #9569 500
ll. Purchase O£der #71235 to General Blect£~c in the
a~ount o~ $58.450.00
12. Purchase O~der #71236 to Leeds and No~th£up in the
amount o~ $1S,955.O0
13. Pucchase O~der #71¢60 to FJ~CO ling. Co~po~atton
the amount o~
14. Pu~c~ae O~de~ ~7~50~ ~o I.T.T. Cou~e~ In the
a~unt o[ $33,723,00
~s. Pu~c~aee Ozde~ ~91653 to So~8t ~le~t~c Ln the
amount o~ 815,000,0o
8. Plats and Replat8:
1. AppEoval o~ p~eliui~y ze~la~ o~ t~e College
couutBston ~eoo~e~8 approval.)
~d[tion, Lots ~ 5, Block ~, (The
Zoning Co~is~ton zec0~nde
3, Appzoval o~ prelinina~y plat o[ the Love ~ddition,
Lots 1 and 2, Block A. {The Pl&nning an~ Zoning
Coamtssion ~ecoa~ends
4. Approval o~ pceli~tnac¥ plat og the Young
Subdivision, Lots 1 a~d 2, Bleak A. (The Planning and
Zoning Com~ission zeco~ends
C. Change O~de~8
varec t~eatuent ~lant, G~d ~9635, L~ t~e a~oun~
o~ 8~5,928.20.
~to Rata Agreement
~. Approval o~ a pEopoeed pto Eats agzee~nt with
SSD ~d[t~on. o~e~m Ric~td B. Cug~m and
Catolyu S. Cumin a~/ot the~ Resigns tot a new
wate~
2. Public Heatings
~ A. Z-1779. Petition o~ ~ilte~ o~ Texas. lnc.
p~an~ed developuent (PD) zoning o~ 703.37~ acce8 gceeen~ly zoned
ag~iau~tu~at (A). T~e p~o~e~y ~s deuocibed ae begi~tng
appzox~mate!y 600 tee~ south o[ U.S. Htghvay 380 a~ ex,ending
appzox~te~y ~,800 ~eet south og ~ 426 (East ~Kt~ey
The pzope~ty ~o ~uE~he~ degcztbod as being a ~ao~ ~n ~he M.
Su~v8y, AbBtzact ~17, and the M. ~ha~ 8uzvoy, Ab8tEact 330.
the planned development is approved, the ~OllOVing land uses v~ll be
413
city oc Denton City Council
]~eettng of January 7, 1986
Page Gix
cluster Housing 282 dwelling units On la.70 ac£ss
Multt-f&tily - 537 unite on 22.37 ac£es with a density
c) o~ice - 8.70 ac£ee.
D) General Retail - 17.94 acres.
I~Alti-fautly - 395 u~itl on 16.05 ac£ee with a density
o~ 24 unite per acre.
y) C%uster HoUsing - 137 ~welling units on 11.47 ac£ee
With a density o~ 12 unite per acre.
Coaaunity Yacilitiee - ~3.39 aczee.
8i~Xe ~auily (~0) 137 units on 10,000 square ~oot
lots on 39.~0 areas wi~h a density o~ ~.S units per
I) 8i~te Family (10) 24~ unite on 10,000 ,~uate ~oot
lots o~ 71.01 acres ~tth a density o: 1.5 units pet
density o~ 1~ units pe~ ac~e.
K) ~fce - 7.70
L) Paz~ - e.40
M) General Retail 22.52 acres.
N) ~t~i-Camily 5.~3 units on 107.8~ acres with a
density cE 50 units ~ez ac~e.
density of ~ un~te pez acze.
p) Co.unity Facilities 9.21 ac~ee.
Q) 8ingle Fll~ly - 331 un~8 on 7000 8qua[e ~oot lots on
Neig~bo~hoo~ Service - 4.40 aczes.
5) ~mgle Fa~l~ - 2~5 unit~ on 7000 equa=a ~oot lots on
T) CrusOe= ~USt~g - ~84 unite om 22.9~ ac=es with a
denei~y o~ 8 ~t~g pez ae~e.
U) Cluster Housing - 297 unite on 24.72 ac=es with a
dentt~y o~ 13 unttf pe~ acre.
V) Cluste= ~uetng - %4~ un~=8 om 30.28 aeze~ with a
dens~ty o~ 1~ units pe= ac=e.
M) Cluete= Housing - 24~ unt%~ on 30.18 ac=es with a
The ~yoE opened ~he public hea~ng.
pre,anted co~ep~ual 9la~e o~ the proposed development, with one o~
the pla~e bei~ ~o= t~e 703 acres involved ~n this petition.
~d begun b~ing the p=epez=~ ~ yea~, ago and ~zhtn~ w[~ the
City appzoxt~elY one year ago to detez~ine the highest and best
use ~c~ ~td ~ ~ually bene[tctal. ~ the pzo~ect was
~o ~ave ~he highest quali~F subdivigtom which could be dave%aped
t~e co, litton o~ La~e ~y ROberts, wa~ ~e primacy initial study.
The en2~e la~e bed ~ad been ~opo~zap~call~ cRa~te~ and
~he~e ~teed level o~ ~a~e 2e~ville would be a~ ~ta i~pact
o~ this
ad~otn~ tho 9~oposed devetop~nt was Iho~ on ohm plat.
KitleE of ~a~ ~d b~n vo~King toget~e~ wit~ the Corp~
Engtnee~ tn developLng a plan ~or cec~eatto~l a~ea8. ~t that
time. WoEking wit~ i~a~{, tt was also discovered w~t Denton ~elt to
be a 9Ei~F n~ ~ioh ~s to relieve the congelt~on, on ~0p_288
amd build a pEtu~y, uJo~ a~tezy that would connect Untve~st~y
the
~o Int/z~tato 35. T~iy ~ce advised by the City Ita~E ~t
[~cst p~e~eceuee vas to ~ ~o the ~outhecn-uost existing overpass.
which was t~ Co~i~t~'~ ~u=~edtction. The eecon~ choice was to qo
t~e ~ ~o=ea exit. ~n thta was be~oze the Planning and
414
City of Denton City Council Minutes
~ettnq of Janua£y ?, 1986
Page Seven
buyin~ the additional pcopecties. &~tec P&~ approval0 an additional
460 acce8 to the south had been pucchased as we~l na 60 ac~es to the
sooth by Univeceity nou~evacd. The C~ty and Milled o~ Texas agreed
that the most impoctant th~ng ~hich could occuc would be the
const£uctton o~ ~bi8 ~ajoc highway, To ~0 ~h~8, ~he ~ght-of-w~y
which M~ec contco~e~ totalled 33,000 ~nei~ 8qu&ce feet o~ toad.
~mclud~ng ~be ~Joc b~dge8 which Vou~d have ~o b~ bu~t, ~he ~ol~
to be built io~ th~e s~x-lane tho~oughtaze that ~uld ~zose the lake
(when the ~evel was za~8o4). To do tb~m would take units ~n o~doz
Co Justify ~be p~oJec~ ecomom~ca~ly.
they could. They had tzied to accomplish this a~, ~n addition to
am~ Cbs p~e~mg o~ ~he zend. ~hey ~ou~d agree ~o g~ve ~o so~ool
~h ippzox~ely ~645,000. The
poss~bXe. Xu o~e~ to acco~LLs~ th~l, M~XeE ~d aXSO g~ven an
up a 0250,000 Scant. Th~e would be used as 8~ ~y to get
~uCecata~e 35 and Un~vecsity. Tbs deveXopec8 ~d agceed ~o voc~
vtt~ at~e~ ~n aecuc~ng t~t8 cig~t-o~-uay.
agceeuentg wou~d hOC be vo~ke~ ou~ voluu~ac~ly. T~e~e vas
aDPEOELma~e~y 2.900 ~em~ which ~u~d have ~0 bt aeaeeae~ a~ bu~c
~0 go a~ong w~h M~lec's 33,000 Cee~
~uld be completed. The o~c con~iCio~, as se~ ~oc~ in ~he
~eviaed l~s~ v~ch he had been oiven. Mete
~n pc~uc~p~e. He alto vim~e~ to
a~equa~e ~ol~e ~o emsu~e ~he ~ig~ea~
~E~ ~o~e was ~a~aine~, and M~llaz ~ad agzee~ ~o pay hie ~ee, a~ong
solved a ~ot o~ ~uton,8 p~obleue
ledge u JocL~y o~ pcopecty a~ bui~dtng, vtt~n t~e CtCy vim tax
~he ga~ t.~e, they would ~elieve ~nst~y ~equtEe~n~8 ~Aa~ wou~ be
~ac~ Ln the Eutuce, ~cause t~ C~ty ~uld be ~Eo ~ balance. The
bala~e ~uld be ~one eit~ uni~e
eo~tcuct a coed oE th~8 ~gn~ude.
~t ~ va~ a Vtce-Pcemident and pc~no~p~e ~n the ~t~m og ~8~ze,
test ~ouz o~ C~ve yea~s, ~. ~oode ~s beam beZo~e ~he City Cou~tl
a ~c o~ ~econt cases. He b~lievod t~t him ~cm u~ecmtood
the CzaCC~c st~uacion tn Deacon.
belteve~ co be a good Mocking celaCiomehtp
fizu ~d been weak,nO on c~ts parctcu~a~ aC~dy foe appcoxi~te~y
ana~c ~he~z questions, a~ Co ~o the analye~e ~coa C~ CiW's petrie
cC vt~ ac the expense cC M~l~ec cC Texas.. Uoz~g wtt~ h~m was
descended ~n thetc tepo~t. H~8 ~m had taken t~ pce~iod 700
415
City o~ ~nton City Conncil ~inutas
Meeting o~ January 7, 1986
uaJo~ £O&dways o~ )icKtnney and the new a£te~ial and Unlve£eity and
the new a~te~ial and distributed that t~a~tc th£oughout the site
and back along Unive£stt¥ and IqcKtnney. ~t the time that they we£e
conducting the study, they could not commit o£ guamantee to the City.
as they =ouXd at this meeting, that the oommectXon to Imtezstate
would ~ butl~ it the beginmtag el the pmolect aa opposed to the
e~. T~Otm task Was to 8~ ~ow much el t~ts pmoposed zoning could
be butt~ a~ ~t i~move~mte could be ~e both om- a~ o~-stte
~o accolade t~ tEar,to un~tl a conneotton with Intezsta~e 35 was
~eze ~ztggeze~ by a certain a~un~ o~ ~evalopmen~. ~Y alzeady be
place ~aY ~n a~vance o~ t~ a~ual pla~ng a~ ~evelopuem~ o~
mended ~o be ~e at Loo~ 288 and Univezsity. a~ ~oop 288 amd
~Ktnmey ~n oz~ez Co~ only abou~ 8 ~/2t o~ ~he ~eve~opue,~ ~o be
~eve~op~. T~ ~a ~ha e~l~ zeco~enda~om am~ ~he zepoz~ was
~o~aula, ~o~ biee~ om spe~Cia ~zac~ developing, bu~ on ~ha ~o~al
constzuotioa o~ a ~vo-lane coadvay f~om Univezeity ~o ~Xtmney voul~
improved ~o a ~ouc-lane divided stzeet tm oz~ez ~o buLld
~tely 50% o~ ~he p~opoeea development. Mhan appzox~tely
~o be ~n pla~e ~o tcco~da~e ~he ~za~c. ~ ~h~8 po~n~, much o~
Loop 281 wouX~ be zel~eved by ~e zou~es (wh~cheve~ one - ~
oz gou~h {ou~e ~Lch ~e ~o bo coma~zuc~ed, possibly both.) The
zegionaX ~ a~ t~t t~ts aEea woul~ no~ only dzain o~ access
be~n~ hzoug~t to bea~ b~ develovaent i~o~ Loop 288 all the ~ay
the la~. The ca.oily a~lyst8 ~o~ the various inte~oection8 was
based on ~he ad~t~to~l develo~nt, no~ Just ~etz p~oJect.
~ho~e ~pEove~a tn the development aa ~2 was p~opoeed to the
Cou~ct~ a~ ~tt tl~. T~e~e was ~he advantage now Chat Mtllec
[n~tially ~a~he~ ~han ~a~e~. T~ planned deve~op~nt ag p~oposed
~a~tc qene~a~e~ both on-site and
D~, 8~1 ~Xee, eeono~e~, apo~ tn ~avoz s~a~n9 ~hat he ~d been
the County and ~he So,eel District. ~ wanted to addzess seve~al
~e~ueu ~which ~ come up e~beeq~nt to his ~itton ~epo~t ~htch
been p~eeea~e6 to t~ Planning a~ Zoning Couission. A question
v~ch would be ~lov~ng into t~ City p~o~ ~o the completion of amy
con~t~tion. ~ ~d go~e ~h~ouqh ~he exercise o~ ~zy~ng to ~lace a
dollaz va~ue on ~t ~Lo~ o~ income to the General Funds ~[ the
City. Thl~ calculation vas done assumingmo completed
va~ue,. In doing ~his, ~ had ~E~ed very closely ~h ~he ~nton
County Tax ~pp~a~eal D~ltElet a~ ~d u8ed p~ocedu~es aa outlined
M~. Joe Roge~l a~ h~8 I~[, had evaluated the ~ope~y and gone
t~zoug~ ~he exercise of identifying ta~ ~ate8 and even
p~ovis~ons ~oz ~and ~tch ~ad agztcultu~al exemption pz~o~ to
would be a eolveEston to a now 9~ope~tY use. The [tgu~eg p~elented
p~opeEt~ value. T~e big E8venue impact on ~he vacant p~opo~xy would
beg~ tn ~987 a~te~ tho~ Zoni~ c~nge, The ~oll-bick
416
City of Denton City Council #inures
Nesting o~ January 7, LPB6
Page ~ine
under agricultural use. The liguree I~ad been ep£ead out to egg2.
In ~ts earlier analysis, he had used t989 ac an initial completion
date tot SOUR oi the properties. This analysis had been extended to
1992 on the proviso that some el tho properties ~ould not be
completed until :hen. Rs an economist and a resident el the area,
he wanted to emphasize not only tho revenue impacts that ~ould be
stemming iron this type of deveto~ent, but also the Job
~st of his career had been devote& to anatyziug Jobs and
eraa~ton co~a tnto ~e City. a~ ~ one tectsto~ ~o ~ on
· he basis o~ his cat~utattons o~ the Jobs and ~uy .o~ ~he ot~ez
~evenue t~pac~s, came Iron the State of ~ezag tnput/outpu~ ~et
~tch was developed by t~e Texas Mater Resources ~at~. T~ts
aycle of the oo~untty and, as that ferried through, beea~ money
other ~eople,s pocket8 t~tough cons~et expenditure patterns.
wide- spread in this pattieula~ instance. I St. OOO,000,~0 increase
tn construction around ~ntou ~uld generate thresher tho City and
the no,:hain metropolitan area apptozt~telg tS,000 Jobs, It
aisc increase presell trioDeS a~roe8 this area by several hundred
sillier doilies and increase tax ~evenues across the board by a
8ubstanttat ~gnttude. not Duty to the City aM t~ County, but Slid
to other areas in the su:tou~tng eo~ntties. T~ State of Texas
~uld also receive SOUR substan2tal Jobs, because other state
Suppliers Would be revolved tn supplying ~tettat8, etc. into a
pto~eet el thee ~gnttude. T~e iedetal govot~t would
beneltt by increased revenues DE ~143,000.O00 to t:e tax oysteR.
~Jor econo,to impact o~ this p~oJeCt trite the City o~ ~nton. He
did not ~ant to ove:loo~ :~e population change. T~e
population increase which was presented Was baled on an Retiree o~
~ult capacity. ~ ~el: this ~as the upper bou~ a~ might be
~eton Independent 5choo~ Dtatttc~. Re ~e~t t~at he had umed
conservatively high figure, on eat~tt~g t~e echoer entoll~nts
~tch ~outd be stewing from the ~ou~leted 9to~eet. in addtttona~
bi eo~tng tn turtng ~he atrial years el the ~oJlo~'8 ~evelop~n:.
T~8 beg uul~i-lamtly units ~utd not be coupte~ un~tl the late
tPgO*s. This would have the substauttat i~pac~ on ge~attng
so~ool gEo~h. This assured a nuube~ DE ~ht~8: one DC ~he
too lure ~t this was the case. There ~te teasoms to ~elieve t~at
tn the Watt Bt/eot Journal ~ad tatked about the ~Jor ~apact that
~as s~eptng across the country in trees el ta~ use tn residential
am tapact on school children a~ types el :aoilities, t~t ~ula
l~c the pzo~ectton on school enrollment perhaps substantially. Re
~ad also assured in his cateulatio~ t~t t~ese iacttities ~ete not
~ld aside :o~ adults only; in other ~tds. children ~uld be living
throughout the
t~t ~E. ~Kee ~elt the echoer poputatton vould come tate~ when the
~ult~-~autly portion was been0 develo~d.
O~. McKee reopened, yes: the ~tgh-~ise, uultt-/~utly.
Council ~ubet McRiaus asked ti ~e anticipated t~t thee wout~ mean
De. ~Kee tespo~ed that this vas also a question ~teh he had.
had used those dwelling units to drive his ~tgutee up Just aa a
8inqle-lamttg ~oue would. He ~ad uo~e doubt tn his ui~ t~t the
417
City of Denton City Council #inures
Page Ten
atudentl am a~le-~amtl¥ eemidentia~ housing would. But he did not
Counci~ ~bec ~a~ au~ tt Dc. MaKes was avace t~t the school
system ~oug~ t~t note sehoo~ aced vas needed, a~ she did not
Council ~u~ ~aRS c~8~o~, uses t~an vas donated.
cegac~t~ th~a ~8s~ ~c~ ~. Becna~e~n o~ ~e De~on I~e~ndent
Becnstet~, Dc. ~e a~ ~thez ~ianning ~ublc8 cE t~e DISD. an~ he
echoed ~ t~ ot~c ~c8 o~ t~t co~ttee; ~ ~d on~y cecent~y
DC. ~Eme ces~ed, ~: ~ u~ecstood Mc. 8ecuste~u ~d ~equested
additional se~ol sites. ~ ~d not heacd that the Supeztnte~eut
o~ Zc~ol8 ~d ~equ!mt~ t~ addLtio~l sites. ,-
counctt, ~ez ~ et-died t~t she did ~ot ~eel Mr.
So~ool 8u~ute~nt.
Dc. ~e 8ttto~ C~t ail hi could may vas t~t, at t~e
Dc. Mo~Oe did ~t c~mt t~ ~ditio~l 8ite~.
Counc~t ~ ~a~ stated that she was interested in the oveEa~t
one $~de t~ ~o u~n~se8 on another, batanced ~heu oC~ a~ oa~ up
v~th a .~et. It see~ ~t, hece, the Counc[~ vas lOO~ing at the
gcoll and t~ce va~ ~otbi~ to alloy ~ec to detecu~ne t~ met
vas a dual-leevLco~ ac~. ~&i Dc. ~Kee baling h~8 ~cel on the
entice .4~el~mt got~ Vi~h ~nton uti~itie8 cathie than Texas
Pewee I~ Light. It 8o, ~t ~a8 the
counctl~ ~c ~aul into4 t~t this vas absolute con)struts
TP&L also ~d a ~cane~ile to me~vo this aced.
Mc. Netuon. ~ laid out C~I numbec o~ dwelt~ng units, the posSesSed
Counc[t Membmc ~a~ ~tated that thece uae aZso a cost associated
· us~eotI d~ go t~ dua~-ieKv~oe question. Thece vets ~
e~soe~e~ t~ ~ C~y.~uld e~ve these people. ~he ~evenues ~o
the City ~e ucc ~t genuses a~ the costs associated to the City
was no~ pcovtd~. ~ ~uLd l~ke to ~vo a~l cC the
418
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o[ January 7. 1986
Page Eleven
because it was entirely possible that in some o~ tho &Es&e, the cost
would outweigh the gain altogether, and when the net result was
determined, the City would bare a net coat. Somebody, likely the
citizens of Denton. would have to pay this coot.
Dr. #cEos responded that Mr. Low &ndetton and loge£ Barrett had
specifically reque8ted him to epemd his time ¥0rXiug with the City
planning staff in attempting to provide answers to the guestions
staf~ had prior to submittal to the Planning and Zoning Co-mission.
He began working around the fi£et ot second week o~ Novembe£, and
P&Z heating wa8 on December ?. He had spent hi8 time working with
the planning eta~, the planning committee, the Acting City
MAuaget,s oK~ice, the ~inance officer, Fire Department, Personnel.
etc., including M~. Nelson's utility department, attempting to
provide the answers t~at he eould in the given time,tame. To hie
knowledge, he answered all the questions which wets presented to him
Ce~tainly, this was not a true cost benefit study; he w&e the ~itst
to state that. There was not time nog was there info~metion ~mioh
he requested presented through the City, to generate all the data
which was necessa£¥ to generate a true cost benefit study.
Council Member McAdane stated that she ~olt thio tnfo~metion Was
p&£t si what the Council would need. ~ they were going to have the
BignEss at all. they would need the other hal~. She also looked at
the ~umbet8 regarding )obs. She would conoede t~at this type o~
massive consttuotioa would oettainly provide a number st Jobs.
Howeve£. this wee shott-te£m and t~ you looked at ~fl~it was going to
sustain this eve= the next ~i~ty years, then oho would question
Whether the numbe£ o~ Jobs p£ovided would toke ~&Ee of even the
population generated, Another sceni£~o would b4 that the people who
moved into the development would be competing ~o£ existing Jobs in
Denton. It 8eeue~ that this was not necessarily a net ~t~ure
either. Thio could conceivably c&uee higher unemployment Eatha£
than eEcese Jobs.
Dr. Yokes responded that the Job ~igures. in part, Wets genes&ted
through the consttuction activity. A newspaper ~d quoted that, aa
the construction industry goes, so goes the national e~onony. He
~elt this wee t~ue not only ~ot t~ mattonal level, but also the
local level. When there was a high level o; construction act'ivity
in an area. even oyez a substantial number o{ ye*ts, there oettainly
was a positive impact on the looal economy. Cons~zuotion would
eometinee go away ~tom the a£ea. Mt~at would be le~t behind in this
~evelopnent would be 2,43¢ Jobs within the [ecil~t¥ itself (office
build~ng8, gene£al retail and other commercial ventures.) I~ that
entity was the single employer. Which it would ~ot be. it would
become the second largest e~ployer in the City o~ Denton. It would
be the only p£ivate sector employer o~ the top ~ou£ or five
eeaploye£e in Denton. He ~elt another economic aspect ~hteh Should
mot be overlooked was the ovet-tel~&noe at t~e present time on the
publt~ sector employer. In hi8 n~nd. this economic could benefit
from mote private sector Jobs.
Council Membe£ i4~JUlame stated that tt the Council loo~ed at the fact
that these wece the jobs which wore being generated, once the
development process itself was completed, they we£e then looking at
what eke tell might be a negative, and the Council should be aware
of that.
Dc. 14~Kee stated that he was not sure he unde£stood. Wes
#e. ~Adame meaning that the constKUOtion workers who ca~ tn to
work the project would stay after the construction was ~inished and
~come unemployed?
Council Membec Mc&dame £eplied, no; the population projection
~iqutes were an additional 20,000 ~eople, and s~e VaS tal~tng about
Yhe£e these people might potential~y work. Dz. ~ee £oeponded
that, given the esttmeted sale values that we£e posted for the
419
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ Januacy 7. 198&
~&ge Twelve
impzovememts, he did not believe that anyone need be conce£ned about
the une~loyuent o~ thole pezaous vho would pu£chase $20O,OOO homes
oz $150.OQ0 eomdo~in~ume. ~e had not conside£ed thai in his
anallMtt.
~tch va~ tgo~ a n~bez et dtC(e~ent departments, ~Gcludtmg
~epemd~ 8ohool ~iet~ie~ a~ o~e~s. ~e
t~e~e au~ ~hen, ~n ~c~Lng v~h the plann~n~
hoped ~e collect ~ze data ~n ~ actually did zeee~ve.
when dt~ Dz. ~Xee a~h ~o~ ~.
t~ee dayI at~ez ~ vel bEo~ht tn on the
Council ~mbe~ Grey,emi then a~kod vha~ pa~tioulac invocation was
D~. ~oXee zea~ed ~ha~ he vas ho~in~ ~o be able to ge~ ~nto moms
oC ~ha ae~t~ e~ build ouC o~ meade and latnteunce, police
vas ab~ ~o get Chte invocation ove~ the ~e~ephcne: hoveve~, they
~uo~Xed~. none ~ these ~e zecetved ~n tine to be o~ nee ~n the
analysi8.
counctt ~z 'stephem, io~ed ~ D~. McKee ~d
tm~o~u~iom tn Hoveube~ a~ ~d ~ Met ~eceived ~he
D~. ~Kee ~eeponded ~ t~ ~nCo~on did no~ co~ tn p~Lo~ to
the meeting vith c~e Placing a~ Zontn~ Co~ism~ou.
council ~Bbe~ 8tep~e~l asked t~ Dc. ~ee ~ad amked again Co~ the
~n~oc~tton.
beSeEm the ~Z,.
co~c~l, kibes 8Ce~8 liked, K~ov~g ~e was going to be beCoze the
D~. ~Kme c~ed C~t ~ vas not asked by the people vho ve~e
~eta~LGg ~l selvages CO ~e~t~ue voc~mg v~th t~e C~ty ~n doing
that.
Mm. Roge~ ~t~ett, Metteplex Engineering. spoke ~n ~avoc Ita~ng
that h~$ teem ~d been ~etat~d as ~e planners Cpc this pzo3ect and
~ v=y pteai,d ,o ~ ,.n oppo,tunttM to rock on a p,oJect o[
~gntcude a~ beueCtt to t~e City o[ ~ntou. This vas a mixed
use deveto~nC ~teh wa~ h~ghly d~vezme Coz a paccel og thee size
amd eo~i~attou. These ~e come ~e~tF-t~ee uses that wece on
~cope e=eat~=g a co~tde~ ~ype o~ tend u~e configuration ~ith the
42O
City o~ Denton City Council Ninutes
Meeting o~ Jauuacy 7. 1986
Page Thicteen
oog~unity within a couunity concept which would pzovite housing.
emplgyuent and comaeccial activity. The pactel ha~pened to tie
outside ~he o~tgi~t Denton Devel~aent Gutae,s e~udy bou~aetes.
~tng the planning pzocese, so~e detez~ina~tons ~ze ~de
as possible. They ha4 devised ~=ee basis study ao~. - .2 asses.
207 a~es, am~ t05 ac~o8 all ~aving a vl~le~y ol uso8
ha~om ~velop~n~ ~ut~e. ~roa ~he et~e a~lysts e~amdRota~
~viev, ~hey had ~zie~ ~o u~e~s~am4 ~he ~uzal beauty ol ~he
si~e due ~o ~he close p~oxtmt~y o~ ~he lake. T~ey ~a~ oonei~ezed
Co tloodtnv om occasion, bu~ vas s~ttl a beauC~tut aces ~o be
~tn~atne~ ~oc packs and o~en space no~ only Ccc C~t8
bu~ icc ~m~on as a co--miry a~ lacve. T~e tes~ ct Cae aces vas
icc ,~ctvaCe devetop~m~ Ccc pools, ~emnis oouc~s a~
~kevt~ develop~a~ ~d pcoposed a vecy sopEis~ioa~ a~unc ct
ta~seaptn~ on ~he ~oJect. ~ts vas possibly
ooapzehenstve la.scape plan ta ~he pta~ed develo~a~ Io~
~e Ct~y ~d seen up ~o ~his point. Vazious ~azoete had been
desi~na~ed along ~e pctmacy ~Jo~ accectal a~ C~e t~ioa~ed pubZi~
claCks-cC-way ~oc dii~ecen~ ~MPes cC soceeatag a~
buCtecs. Ncc only vas ~is aevelop~mc ~tmV crecy a~ceap~ ~o save
~he ~Cuce ~cees on ~e pcopecCM, bu~ uece axes ~Xt~ an
a~e~c tn cev~altzimV ~e aces by plaa~t~ oChec ~zees.
~acce~ ~hem ~e a slide pzesem~atton ol conceptual uo~ele cC ~e
pceposed clusCec ~oustm~ v~to~ ~ouli ~ icon 12 Co lO ~uetlinV uatce
pec aoce, ~e pcoposed sevem-s~ocy aces ~tch vas pcol~ed to be
cons~cucted last. This vas a conceptual look to s~v hey htghec
densities could be placed tn an e~Chettcatly ~l~et~g building
ele~n~ without ustn~ a lot o~ ~i~ ncaa. Pcovtd~ ~ce tennis
courts, pools an~ a~entties. T~ete ~as a t~e~us o~pottunity.
~z~ing with the Cotps ct Engt~eta. tn the northern ~ost patcel
Ai~e~ ~King some concep~ua~ layouts ~he Pac~e a~ ~eeeeaCion
~pactment. ~ts ~cu ~d be~n ~ut~ce ~lan~t~ tn Cae ~c~ ac~s,
· he~e was potential ice picnic aEeae. ~tu~e ~:atte, 'b~id~u,
~lamned devetop~nt deat~na~ei wheze t~ tlood eleva~ion would
enczoae~ upon ~hese azeas, Also a~o~ ~as ~e ~xt~ua pzobable
llood azea. The~e vas plenty ct lent available ioz usable
gec~eation a~ open space. The Coo~ez Czeek Paz~ ~t tn e~ceee ol
activity aces, thece vas t~e bes~ potential icc ~enntl, ca~uet~tl
a~ ~tetd epoc~s. T~ece vote not ~ny uCuce ~ceee tm ~ts aeon.
bu~ t~ ~opogcaphy vas gently co~x~ng a~ ~uXd ~ elsy ~o develop.
T~ lat~ pa~k vas ~eean Ccee~ vhtc~ vas ove~ ~00 4eces,
vo~tng with ~he City PacKs a~ Recreation Dep&ctu~C. ~s vas the
possible site ice the ~tzs~ ~ntom ~ntoipal ~otl COUEIe azea.
8umzy. he wanted ~o ~eeapttulate w~t t~e ~ahevtew development vas
alt about. Ftz8~. ~hece vas ~ issue o~ seal,icy
improvements. Thece vat an oppoc~uui~y ~o ac compce~sive plam~tn~
~o~ east ~nton, T~ey would be p~ovtdiug ~ou~ tti~ stations and
cce/C~nt plant. Also concecning wa~ec iup~ov~ts, Caeca was a
pcoposed 20-inch varec line cunning a~on~ t~e notCh/south
~loz ac~ecial. The co~pcehensive plannt~ o~ c~ ~coJect ~uld
actecta~ which Would be bui~ and connect ~uCece~ate
~u~cffe~ ~nvesttga~ioa vi~ C~e ~tto~ t~e~n4eGt school systat.
tats night be a vecy oonsecva~.tve froze. A~E ,8~
ICon ~ttbect Becnstetn, they could ~ a4di~g a~ addttio~l 8~00,000
tn savings to the ~nton indepe~out Ic~ol SYstem W the do~tton
el ~ese t~o sc~ot sties. They had ~Eted to place ~ school
cle~ to take b~t~vtlle a~ ~he 9a~K acmes. This v~8
t~poc~aut icc ~he c~tldcen a~ ,cae school ~te~ctcc. ~eze ~ce
~Joc open space and pack tup~ove~nt.. Not o~t~ ~l ~ck
421
C~ty o~ Den~o~ Ct~y ~ounc~l ~tnutes
Meeting o~ January ?, la86
Pegs FouEtaeu
on ~e =eg~o~ ;e~m. ~mm~, t~e c~y o~ Denton geueti~ revenue
~u~, ~ dote~n~ ~ ~. B~ll ~Kee, would ptababty be
vas ~e~:~y ~ ou~.
entity ~ t~ ~taty ~t to puze~aae the mite, build all
~mptove~ntg, actually ~on~ttuet all the bu~ldtng elements
vou~a be a ooope~,~ ~ute ~teh ~e vas sure ~uld be yolked out.
would be doing this ~EoJest, What would be the equate ~ootags ~n the
various' tytm8 o~ buildings, Such as the ap&£tusnts, singls-~amily
dwellings, etc.
Mt. Bat£ett tsapondad that thin had not been deXtneat~ tn the
planned develo~nt docu~t. On seve£al occasions, the planning
sta~[ had £ooomnd~ed that they did not ~d that Kind o~
~u~otsmttou, me ~at aa utaiu~ squats ~ootage ~ot dwelling units.
doCa~X8, up Co this potat. ~d not been needed.
Council MS~ab~ J~]t~La~ s~ted ~that she could understand why t~t
~he council ~8 loo~t~ a~ the p~oposal a~ ~ant~n~ ~o ~now, au a
~em~deu~ o~ ~nton, ~ th~m yam go~ng co loo~ lt~e, ~v ~uld one
att~ve lC ~ ~ox~Ce ~lt o~ mo~th~ug tC they d~8 not k~ hey
lazge it ~a? H~ ~uld t~ k~ it vii to be a 8200.000 house cc
a ~u~=~ a~mt~nt t~ t~ d~ not ~nov at ~h~, ~otnt ~eC~e~ tt wee
go~ng to ~ ~ mquaze lees o~ 1~,000 mquaze ~eet.
Ba£tett, telpo~de~, exactly; t~te-eas us pay anyone could answer the
Council~ ~tg~ n~ duEing tbs early plauu~n~ and coning stages.
~hsy"had oct up ~n ~t~Ltb t~ City ,~aC~ vas a let o~ controls
~tch all~ ~o[ a e~pteha~tve site ptan tevt~ ~ot each
~pOt~t~tXr. ~ MLle. et Texas began to devetop · particular
~so O~ cI~oE, ~siug.~, t~t ~Et~cu~a~ plat would ~ave to
through ~ ~ty ~ t~ zevt~t~ ~y one ~te t~e ~o~ agptoval.
~ete ~ ~ eh~tl ~ ~la~e8 Bet Up via the ~ding item
8taC~ ~ch ~uld al~w ~ Cou~c%l, as ~ll as ~he P~anninq and
Zoning ~i~l~ou, co t~ at eoue o~ ~he architectural
pcopoe~ ~e t~t de~nt
~u~d a~t~he cou~tt to ~oo~ a~ ~he p~oject amd see
vas a iMXXe=. ~uee t~n C~ ~ anticipated aud. ~haz~oze.
~c vat ~ot ~he tu~y ac~ ~tch ~y veze
t~e de~to~E or any o&~t aa to ~t a uin~ tequt~e~nt
I~ t~e C~Cy ~d a ~tt~laE eta~atd o~ Btn~u tequize~nt, t~ey
~uld ~ ab~,~ CaO~lo
cleat ,that t~ City 8~d ~t have those t~utteuents. He.vet.
loohimg at, t~ ~uld be
422
City of oenton City Council
Meeting of Janua£y 7, 1986
Page FiCteen
give thoee types o~ numbecs at this meeting, but. at tare tin
co~£ehenstve site plan £evie~ be~oze a single b~ilding could be
eCected om a site, the Council would ~ve an o~pozt~ait~ to Cevi~
~he equa¢e ~oo~agea.
a p~oJeot this la,ge, which wac being 4one by a ~ o~ people.
~ae ~t ~he Council would app¢ove so~hing ~tth a nuabe¢
a~tpulat~oma at~ached, a~ then tt began to be c~nged piece
~alked to ~. Be~ua~etn, the~e VAI ~he ~ssibtl~t~ cE t~ do~tion
o~ ~ae add~tional school land. given ~t t~a ~as a plammed
~p~ned, the Council was looh~ng at the~z ~ze~ aue~nt a~eady,
~. Ba~ett ata~ed ~t he m~ght ~ve misused ~he wozd, Theze ~d
al~yl been a eo~nt EEOU Mi~Lo~ cE Texas to ~nate t~ t~
sehool parcels to the oenton ~ndepe~en~ schoo~
two additional school
diecua~iona ~tR ~. ~e~natein, the dollaz ~i~e o~ $~A5,000
alt~ht~M too comeezva~ive. It ~u~$ be aU ad~itto~l ~00.000 cz eo
eavt~ to ~e dte~zict because o~ t~ do,item o~ t~ ~
~. BeEnlte~n. ~d said that two ~e not ca,oh ariel. While
gtg~ be calculated t~t thte vas 'a eavl~e om &~ese t~ 8ttem. a
total cost would exist om two ~te et~es Just to get ~te
~t. Betnste~n wanted to be in terms ct students. Th~a Was what she
had meant ~en she had spohe~ o~ pu&tt~ up the pl~ a~ minuses.
She suspected t~t ~en this was tallied out, the ec~ol site issue
~u~ come ou~ to be c~t ~athez t~n
~. h~ett zesponded ~Aat he ~s u~able ~o add,esi adequately
~o~al auoun~ o~ eos~ to the Deu~on scb~l sye~. T~y ~ce able.
~pe~ullM, to pEoJect moue o~ ~he 'beneE~8 Which REs available
D~. ~Kee ~d stated. He a~=o had beo~ involved ~u theme
Supecimteudemt og the ~ntoa in~e~e~ent puhli~ ae~ot8 cc the
School Boa~d eve~ ~ke it a EequtEe~nt o~ ~bt8 developo~, OE O~
Neze p~oposed, weze needed o~ ~equ[zed.
Council ~bez ~c~ame s~ated tha~, ~o~ t~ be~f~ o~ t~ee
tn ~ Council Cha~ez8, she ~uld ~e to read ~roa a le~te~
Januaey 2 on ~mton I~epen~en~ ~ool Dtet~ct let~ez~ead
stated "Based upon the ~epozt qenez~ted ~ DE. ~Kee. tt ts appazemt
e~e~n~a~y scboo~ ,~tes I~ ~ middle school . et~e."
commented c~t. at th~8 point, apparently M~, Becnetetn i18o tho~h~
w¢oto "The dove,opeC ~8 oEallF oo~od to 3 8i~eg ....
423
City o~ Denton City Council MXnutes
Heeling o~ Janue£y 7,
Page Sixteen
anoths~ school site tn the southern portion o~ the development.
During the whole p£ooese with the DIBD, they had constantly been
talking about 'the potential which they we£e developing south
Pecan ~eek as w~tl as the pEoJect which was being reviewed at
meeting. That was ~hat the three school sites we=e all about.
CouEwi~ M~be= MeAd&ms q~otod ~=om M~. Be~nste~n~s ~ette= "Th~8
he would t~y to find the D~s~[ct a Eou~th site. but th~8
tentative,.
Be~nst~tn. ~ey wl~e having anothe~ ~eld t~[p tn a ~ew days to
loo~ ove~ the~e 9a~tcula~ 9aEcel8 as well ae othe~ potential
M~. TaFlo~ Boyd, Gen~o~ V~ce-Vzes~dent ol ~n~y M~lle~ Company,
spoke tn ~avo= stating t~t he wa= the ~oint ventu=e ~naoe= ~o~ a
piece oe peope~ty which ~u~d connect the gEo~e~t~ee unde~
the 135 aa~e8 tn 1985 a~ ~d already planned to ~ke the connection
at the o~ a~ o~ camp ~o~ pu~poee~ cE giving access to
p~ope~ty. ~tle tn the p~oce~s of dedicating ~his land a~ setting
uR the needed tca~f~a pac~etece ~oc this u~te. t~ey began ~o
toe,ditto t~ e~oct with Millet o~ Texan. They were pleased to
wo~k w~h then. a~ he wanted to Say that =he connection would
happen. I~ would ben~Et~ them also to connect Un~ve~s[ty with
Interstate 35,
Council ~bez Riddleape~qe~ a~Xed lo: a tl$ei~aae on ~en the
comnect~om ~ld be
a~ .,the =atlzomd. The~e vii i~so i ~all~oad to be c=ossed, the
~T. They ~d be~n ~ktn~ W~th then aVV~ox~tely slx months a~o
a~v~ovod, a~ ~hey we~e t2 the g~oces8 el do~ng the Joint venture
with them, ~eh e~ated t~t they Vould ~ut u~ the c~o8s signals,
vcobably be e~leted ~thiu 60 to 90 days, depe~[ng on the C~ty o~
Con,nth. ~tte~ t~t. con~tzuction could begin.
~yo~ S~ewa~t asked t~ they we=e planning on this p~etty soon.
UoFd zeavond~, yet: they were ~n the middle el it at the vcelent
t~ae. ~Y ~e tn the Vzocess o~ do~mg this connection an~ay and
it blended pe~eatlF w~th the ba~eview p~oJect. ~he ~tght-o~-way
which ~hey ~=e do~nq would be ~wo sectton8 o~ 36 Eeet o~ pavement
develo~ a~ dt~e~ea~ ~iaes as t=a~ic wa=~anted. The ~t=st one
~uld ~ 36 ~aet ~ide. They ~elt they might need ~h~s at the
~ntt~al. g~ae ~oe any tcucks, etc. They were ~ight on the
lnteEstatl a~ u~ght need thtt type cE access. The ~oadway night
end up being slightly la~qe~ t~an tAe ~o~tlon ~o~
~oc P~o ~ HopPing ag~ed tE t~e ~ght-oE-wa~ would exceed [20
S~ady ~ho~eg a~ ~ntotstate 35 ~ute~gect~on. They ve~e currently
negotiat~ng to ~ume~le the p~opozty which Wa8 cU¢~ent~y owned by
John Mal~ez l~ ~otd Holigan. He and Mt. Walks= had leached a
verbal agzee~at a~ ~ze now into the contract phase on the
ac~e8. ~e ~1 being do~ in coocdinat~on with Mille~ o~ Texas on
ded~catL~ t~ t20 ~eet ~tght-oE-way and butld[n~ the ~ntt~al two
lanes as ~oon a8 tho C~y aVpzove~ ~ho building plans. ~ bo~
be put up fo~ th~s const~uction. I[ [o~ any ~eason they ve~e
424
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting oE Janua£y 7, 1986
Page Seventeen
in ~Aild[ng the £oadwa¥, the City would be able to enact the bond
and complete the thoroughfare. They ~elt this was a Stcong
to the pcoJecto because it put the enti~e co~ction between
~enton without having to c£ose aunio[palities. They were very
exit [o ihs south othe~ than the o=[g[nal one sho~.
~. Del Jazd[ns ceaponded, not ~nstead o~. but tn addition ~o.
~. nob ~[ll[a~s. 2707 ~a[1 Ridge. Ca~ollton, epees in ~avoz
Road. He u~ecstood that vtth c~ese 6ovelo~uents a~ ~
ex~ension8, ~oadvay, e~c., his taxes ~uld ciao, b~[ it ~8
~eeltng t~t hie p~o~e~ty values would ~[se ~a~ in elcee8 o[ ihs
0o8[ [o him.
he ~a8 in
Couneil ~mbec Mc~a~e asked Mc. Cau~ey ~he~e he
~. Cauley ~espo~ed that he lived ~n
~. ~udy O~l~es, a ~e~ident o[ the aces. spoke tn favo~ sta~ing
she ~as currently u~e~ contract ~h ~e ~llec C~pan~ to eell
ao~ land [o~ the ~u~po~e ol cena[~ucting t~ ~oaa. 6he a~ he~
huaband were alao p~epa~ed to donate some ~iq~t-o~-~aV ~o~
construction o~ t~e ~oad. ~oetly abe ~elt t~[ th[~
ccnteolled, planned develop~nt could do nothtnq but bene[[t the
City o~ Denton ae op~oaed to nu~eoua e~ll, acatte~ed a~eaa o~
uncontrolled developmant.
opposition orating that ~he was not ant[-q~o~h but it coul4 be
accompt[ehed [~ an o~gantzed ~nne~. S~ bel[e~ approval o~ a
pcoJect o~ this ~gn[tude with this ~ny g~ay aces8 would be
unwise. She was concerned that the Jobs w~tcb ~uld be
~uld only be ~ot t~e aho~t and ~ot t~e lo~ curt. She vel alto
concerned about the p~opoeed no,th/south a~te~ tn the context
~utu~e t~a[[~c [low. S~e [u~the~ state4 that ~he bel[ev~ t~t the
~uld la~ behind the develop~nt. TEe~a ~e a need to go
intentions wece good, but the planned develop~nt aa pce~nted
mci be ~eEined a~, aa ~eaented, was not good. The ~oJect should
be ze~e~ed bac~ to the Pla~[ng and Zoning Co~taaioa [o~ the
details to be worked out a~ teen b~ought bao~ be~o~e the City
Council.
M~. ~om Joslin, ~eaid[ng at the ~m[ezeectiou of ala~ a~
Eoa~, epo~e ia opposition stating t~t ~e lived directly to the
no,th, o~ the pzopoeed development. ~ then p~eeented a signed
~et[tion asking the Council to oveg-~ule t~e Pta~[~ a~
Ce~teeton's ~eco~e~at[on fo~ appeoval. The P&Z did not
the sta~[ ostentation ~egacSiug sevecal cE t~ seditions
this planme6 6avelopnent= i.e.. Itceetl, etc. T~e ~opoaal aa
pceeented ~uld ~zovtde inadequate tca~c contcole ~oc the[c aces.
T~e p~oJect ~d a ~ten[ial population o[ 2~,000 on ieee than 700
accee which ~e ~,e~t wan too dense. Alee, t~ce did ~t apple to be
enough a[ngle-Eamily dwellings in t~e p~opoaed plan. ~ woul4 alee
cbs ~utom Independent School D~ItC[oC would be o~iit by t~ n~ec
o~ students who ~uld be added to ire schools.
425
City cC D~n~on C[~y ~ouncil
Meeting o£ Januacy ?. [986
Page Eighteen
Kc. Mitchell Tucne~, 2110 Otenegate, spo~e in opposition stating
that he vas couce£ned that the Laker[aw development would a~Eect the
qualityroE li~a which vas now enjoyed tn Denton. He WaS not opposed
to g£ov~ch, but ~e~t this ~acticulac p~oJect was too dense a~ ~uld
co~un[ty Eec t~e uotcopl~. He hid ~ove~ co ~Eto~ eight yeats ago
would a~t tha~ quality. Ii the development vote oo~t~ucted, he
believed t~t the~e was tbs possibility t~t ~nCon could become
Just like loving, Plauo oc Acl[ngCon.
she believed t~ addt~[o~ ~puta~ton you,d advecse~y a~ee~
~. B~con L~cey, zemi~n~ o~ Toss,Up Il, spoke ~n oppomtt on
Stating t~t, tn bec hat,bacheS, c~an~e8 had been ~6e ~cou
oc[gt~l 9[~ as ~ho pcopecCteo developed. They uaw ~d Nolte
who lived tn ~Con ~ce ~cy ~octunate. The City vas going to SCOW
and ~[I pcelenCed a sgte~id oppoctuntty to see t~C the City g~ew
in a positive ~ec. ~ did ~ve sevecal concerns in ~elaC[on to
be approved until epeci[tea ~ega~d[~g t~e no,th/mouth a~te~y
agreed ~o in vetting.. He also did not ~eel that only e~ght aocee o~
pa~ [~ an~ [~ p~oBi8~ ~2~0,0oo seed money Eo~ g~antu ~uld be
adequate Eo~ a deve[og~t of [E[s size. The~e va~ alee a debate on
~e~he~ [~e ~u[d be ~, these, o~ ~ou~ school sites donated.
the pco~eal Wee apptove~ by the P&Z by a vote o[ 3 to 2. He
cecon, tdece4 pctoc Co a vote by the City Council.
The hyOc a~tMd at. Andecton [ive minutes ~ot ~ebutta~.
unmeet&Smites ~ieh WOES not elect[led ~d been addressed. He
tee [l~e o~ the school. ~[ no [i~, did any meube[i o~ ~e
dt8[~teC ~u~iom a tousle i[[e until he ~ecetved t~e ~et[e~
voutd ilk vii ~t, when you leered it theic develop~nt, you could
il~ Go mush ~cou a ~ovo~E. In th~ case, the C~ty vii
them to give %L totes o~ la~ Cot a six-lane thoroughfare with
~chool S~t~. ~ you leaked at the ~p to the no,th,
devilop~nt ~upc~l~ only ~/4 et the a~ea. The Denton
o~ theft 9to)etty ~ot a high io~ol. The School Dtstt~ct ~4 told
them t~t tout Coral Ittea would be ~eded tm the aces. N[th
the 1a~, th~ ~e do,ting ~/2 o~ C~e school 8~e8. In addition.
they ~d /9ceed to t~ thtcd site. This I~te would be located
a8 a ~o~e a~ ~he ~u~aet upo~ ~nCon could on~y be Celt ~en the
total boreal line pictuce wa8 a~lyzed. He w~ehed t~t Dc, ~Kee
426
city of ~enton city Council
Meeting o~ January 7. t986
Page Nineteen
8peci~ic&lly asked the City and asked Dc. McKee to ~tnd out how ~ny
~I~IVIE ~l ~ze vas ~ha~ s~a~ ~ come up vt~b 8~ ~eC~ a
bottou line o~ ove~ 85.000.000 ~ ezcee8 ze~nu~ afte~
~e o~ense8 v~cb bad been hEoug~t u~. ~he cot~ o~ tho Eoad
bEidge8, ~o~ge~ng ~he 82.700.000 ~o~ ~be ~aa~ E~g~-o~-vay
~ey would be do~mg, vou~d be ~u excess o~ 89.000,000. ~ ~he~e
vas 89.000,000 j~,~ ~ pave~a~ coe~e, i~ s~u~d ~ bo ~zd to see
~ ~heze ~u~ ~ve ~o be a ~o~ o~ ~s ~o PaY ~QE ~. ,0 one
~ e~udied ~ha~ ~e closely could co~ ~o any o~z coaolueion.
?~ occupi~ion ~ens~y ~n ~he btgb-~se ~e 4t~i~ ~o pzojec~.
units migh~ be buil~, and ~he density utgh~ be ~¢ej ~vevec. none
o~ ~hi8 woutd happen i~ the~e Wig no~ a ~ foe ~he units.
~zt~ pla~tng. ~he council woul~ have ~be z~gk~ ~o assess
8~ze uni~ voul~ be ~laced on ~he pzopo~y, l~ ~8 dt~iCUl~ ~oz
anyone ~o say vha~ would ~appen i~ ~he yea~ 2000 cz beyond.
vas ~novn vas ~at H~lte~ ~d to build ~ ~d ~, They
had ~o CO~ U~ V~t~ ~Uibe~a V~tCh ~u~d Justify ~he eol~
~oa~ay. W~th the highway ~n place. ~t was tbs ~t a~
people weze w~ll~ng and able to a~czd ~tch ~uld ult~utely
detezntne w~t type p~oduct would go onto the pzopezty. The
developez did not dictate the ~z~et; the comau~z die,ted
type o~ pzoduct t~ey would buy a~ uae. T~e Cereal could
appzeciate t~e couplexitie8 ~n t~yinq to envia~om e~ctly w~at ~uld
be developed on the la~ when looking a~ a p=oJect o~ this 8~ze.
~yo~ Bteva~ asked ~ Mtlle~ o~ Te~e i~te~ed to ute City o~
~e~on zesponded, yes; ~n reEKing vt~h M~. blaQn O~ ~he
e~a~, they ~d considezed a~tec~i~e ~xa~tn~ ~e~t Po~z
ht~. ~he co~ituent o~ a~le~ o~ Texas ~a v~t~ ~
~a~on.~ ~bey neve~ bu~t anything ~n the C~F, ~ley s~tl~ would
~ 2,000 ac~eg o~ ~amd hole. They ~ad an tn~ezes~ t~ the quality
o~ l~e tn ~nton, becaule ~he~ rely euece88 d~d not depe~ only om
~ht8 ~r~tcu~ar 700-acre development, bu~ alee v~ ~u~d ~ppen ~o
~ ~nt~e Z,0O0 ~es. ~hey ~ett ~hat, t~ t~y could
~¢mbnF with the C~ty ~tai[, ~t ~utd be a Vlu~ Io¢ both.
Counc~ Meube~ Mc~aus Grated t~a~, &a an alte¢~i~ ~y og ~oo~iflg
cost o~ those things, i~ the density in Z~ ~te pateel vas
~educed, pu~pa the addit~o~l school sites ~uld not be needed.
Ooa~ O~ eo~ cE the "give sways" and 8~tl pcovide an ieee
uny people could live With eo~v~at betteE ~n ~e deulity
Mai ~tng p~oposed.
~4e~on zespo~ed. ~hte vas e~c~ly ~iqht. They ~ agreed early
on ~ ~n a ~oJec~ o~ ~h~ e~ze, ~he key gac~o~ ~l tha~ it pay
~QZ ttsel~ a~ no~ be a burden 0m ~ City. In ~dE~8tng ~,
~y ~d devised a sophisticated ~o~a. The ~av tn~ast~ue~u~e
a~one ~o~ th~a p~oJeot would exceed 875,000,000. Mi~h a
9~oJec~ vo~ld be ~igh. Mttb ~t in uind, uoaz o~ t~i= data ~ied
existed, t~en eon8t~uct mo~e ~anos, T~ey ~uld pu~ ~ ~he scad
pzo~ theuselves. They ~d pzo~ec~ed the demst~y, bu~ i~ coutd
m~t ~ ~a~ ~bey were w~ong a~ ~ en~i~e h~gh d~t~y azea ~ould
~ d~zoned. TRe clus~ez cE ~ti-~a~ily houg~ Rlq~ be uae~ by
could_ ~ppen would~e tha~ the Cl~F o~ ~n~on ~uld ~ve the
~oad
Was built CE not,
~utd not mecesaacily be p~easta~. ~ wou~d depend on how ~c was
427
~aet~ng of Janua£y 7, 1986
P&~e T~enty
done. The£e c~£ent~y was & 50 unite pe£ &c~e, nnltt-eto£y
ask to have thee put do~n to ~-~to~ un[ts a~d ~ut ~0 un~t~ p$~
The ~et d~ctate~ ~t viii ~en. The~e ~e~e no ~a~anteee that
the¢e-~td act be e~a~"~de tn the ~lanned develov~nt and coon
the doe~nt ~uld ~t ze~tely ~eeeabte W~t the Council was
cone~deti~ at thta
pzeeent~ due ~e ~e ~ae~ t~t tt abutted the la~e
Council ~ubet Stephen~ ls~d t~ t~e entt~e 2,000 ao~es ~teh
~nde~to~ z~, yea: t~ze ~e appzoxt~te~y 1,200 ac~es
this pazeel a~ an addttio~t 800 acEea on the ~st side o~ Demton.
Tbs ~yO~ elo~d the public
~e~[ Me¢, ~tzecto¢ o~ Plaguing and Couuuntty ~velopment, ¢epozted
that 3 zesty ~oEu ~ee Mired w~th 0 zetuzmea. TWte wac am unusual
e~ctly ~t was got~ to be ~omm. ~t was also a
nighties, ~au~e, ~ It ~s ~ot done ~tgbt, the City was le~t with
~he e~ zeBul~ [ozevez. ~e 4evelopez rag asking ~o~ ~ch Boze than
t~e Denton ~velo~n~ ~tde alloyed tm ~e azeas o~ dens[tM/
tmte~l~y, but, t~ tuEn, t~y ~uld be giving tbs City It~eet8,
tupzove~t8 ~o ex,sting Eoads, pa~t, etc. I[ t~e Council W~shed
to accept tht~ pla~ed develop~nt, he ~ould ask t~t they also
adopt ~ ~ttou8 ag ~oco~ded by sta[~ ~htch went ta~ above
~n~oz~t~. a~' tn~oEuation Wag betn~ zeeetved late; ho~vez. ~e
d~d no2 ~eel t~t tbe~e ~e enough ~estEtetione. The Council
age~a bae~-~ ~eztal a~d' ~t the City vas pzetty
tn ~ ~e,'alt~, a~ ~ ~ouactl ~uld still have
petittoa, ~z aa~ed t~t t~ please ta~e alt o~ t~e
zeco~dat~oa~ om co~tt~e ~ieh ~aze vezM ~eatc~et~ve.
p~oposal di~ violate the ~velo~aent 9wide; ho~ve~, the
~td ~ a c~eeztede~ezt to ~X ~ith ata~E ~n t~t~ to ~k out
tzade-o$$~. ~t~ha~ ~e~ ~u~e~ted t~t t~a aa~ have been pushed
t~ou~h too ~aat. ~ot~t poa~ib~l[tM ~ae to table the zequeat
[uzt~ez ~eetgiettone could be ~z~ed out. Sta~ ~ad teethed an
dec,de ~ ~M ~an~ed ~ allo~ t~e dem~tt~ ~n ozdez to ~et the
~uazau~ee o~ ~Re e~zeeta. 5tag~ ~aa caught ~u t~e middle.
the~ loved to be able to plan t~ts ~ch p~ope~ty, t~ts was deputy.
~en ee~etety butts ~t, tt ~utd, ~u effect, doubts the
population og ~nto~. T~ts ~Mld ~ppen an~a~, acme ~hece in ~tme.
Council ~mbec ~iddlempec~z amkmd ig etagg ~d calculated ~o~ much
~tch ~y ~d. ~to~tly, a Cost,enlist development usrez paid
it8 o~ way. I~ t~ C~ty Eeal~ed a 85,000,000 asset due to this
develo~n[, w ~uld. im [usu, ~ve to build [[~e stations, police
depa~tMnta, squad earl, paEkg, etc. TEe~e Would be a 1250,000
dona[ion ~o~ paE~s a~ t~ la~, bu[ [~ Would cost 82.000,000 to
~3,000,000 [o butl~ it. The la~ wac tzue [o~ ~he school dilt~[ct.
The tax ta~a~ttoa ~oh ~8 generated vas Got niched
actual
Council ~bet C~e~ atat~ t~t he Eett all o~ th~s tMpe
~ae pe~t~nt to ~t~q a dec~sion. T~ete was no ~aM t~e
could ~ev~ th~ p~oJect Without all o[ the pertinent tn~o~at~on
a~d ~e aa intelligent doeis~on,
428
C~.ty o~ Denton City council Minutes
Meeting of~ January 7. ~986
P&~e ' Twenty-One
Council Meube¢ R~ddle~peCge£ statsd that he thought this p~oposel
bad been zushed a little.
Council Mm~be£ Stephens stated t~a~ Meye£ had ~e~tioned that the
~d stated that these would be 95,000,000 ~n exceag Eewe~es
the C~ty co~ts had been E~ed tn. .
~ye~ ~emponded t~t he did not agEee. I~ a fiancee[ analysis WaS
to be p=esented, 8oueone else 8~1d look at ~t Ilea the
~ide. He could not Shank o~ any o~ho= asea ~n, the courtesy ~oEo'
City ~uld ~ot be ~a~sing taxes eve=y yea=.
Council ~ubeE Stephens a8~ed ~ ano~e~ economic a~tys~u
show What t~e ~nozeasea ~n taxes ~uld ~ve to be to pay Eo= the
8eevtce8 to th[~ a~ea.
byeE zesponded t~t gta[~ wou~d ~ve to Know how ~ny additional
ea=s would be needed by the Ch~e~ sE Police, how ~ny people he
wou~d need Es= sta~[, etc. byez ~n a~a~ed ~ dt~ not want ~o be
taken v~ong. He [elt the develope~ wa8 s~nce~e, a~ th~s could be a
tzeue~ou8 asset to Denton, but "let'g not g~vo away t~e sloes."
~yu~ P~o Tea Hopk~n~ a~Xed how long it would ta~e gtA~ to get the
~a~a ~ogethez ~o~ a wo=k ~e8sion.
~ye= Eespon~ed t~t within a uont~, e~a~f could g,t~e= all o~ the
tnfo~tion.
~ushed situation, a~ he dt~ not see att o~ ~hl tnto~tton which
van~ed to absolutely tee do~ on payee so~ et ~he issues, ~ ~uLd
- ho d~d not Eeel the a8guup~to~ could be ~4e t~t ~1 o~ the
~es~dents oE the new ~evelo~nt would wo=k ,tn ~n~on. ~t
eould not be issued that the only tnCo~ to the Ci~y,~teh wou~d be
~o=~hcoutng ~=o~ this developuen~ w~ld be
~yeE state~ ~ha~ Counct~ a18o had, to =e~u~= ~ the aEe4 ~uld
deveto~ an~ay, and t~e C~y ueed~ to get t~e beet quality g=o~h
9oes~ble.
~yo~ P~o Tau Hopkins stated that ~he no=th/gouth eOEEidO= was voEy
tupo=~ant to the City a~ Eelt a wG=k ie8sto~ c0Utd Wo=k out 8Q~ o~
~ose 9¢obleus.
Council bube¢ Che~ asked tfa oont~nuattoa ~uld be in
Coun~ Me~be¢ Eid~tespecgec asked would it not be pCopec to ce~ec
this back ~o the Planning a~ Zoning Coutsliou. The vo~e
Planning a~ Zontng ~as 3 to 2. Beoauae o~ the ~t~a~ton on
pa~t, tt scald to btu that the 9~opet t~ing ~uld be to 8e~
b~o& to P~Z to week out t~e details a~ then to m~ke anothet
teco~endat~on to t~e Council, hopefultv w~&~ a ~ttet vote ~n
to 2.
~ye~ tep~ied he wanted to point out t~t t~e C~ty did not have any
eeonoltsts on
Council aeube~ Chew stated he ielt t~t. with the ~o~E
tn a week session, the Council could ~¢k t~¢ough ~is pEobleu.
429
C~ty o! '[)~nton C~t¥ Council 'lqtnutee
Heeling o~ ~anuaty 7. 1986
Page Tw~nty-T~
Meye£ zeeponded ~e ~a~ p~oble~ woutd exist. The sta[~ lt~ed the
a~ct ~ ,~wi~ one ~n ~ ~t% vt~h. ~ iti~[ ~d to d~l v~th
~e~c~bte. Thece vas no doubt ~ b~s utnd t~c M~et o~ Texas would
developeg~ ~he City vou~d ~t receive the no,th/south cozztdot.
Meyer ce~l~ t~ al,O, U~e~ ~1 oonEi~cat~on, thece would be a
· t~e plan, a~ any c~ ~uld ~ve to co~ to Council
~yot Gt~/tt ~tl~ t~t tbtl would be a safety valve because
~yet teethed c~a~ one o~ the race,ended co,Sirens vas ~ot a
cou~e~nsive,ot~e pla~ aM psat &p~ovat v~ch gave t~ council two
oppo~u~tel to appcove i~ aue~ment8.
tike ~e ~ ~tesae~ tn any a~tto~l intonation va8 the ~atks.
T~ete vie a to~ o~ talk about ~he ~eas~ng of Co~ps o~ Bng~ec8
poglible to d~lop ~aoi~ittes along the lake w~ch might pay
~he need et t~ ptoJee~d 20,000 population ~n ~be ~o9oaed
develo~n~ to~ ~tg~O~ed ~, T~ete ~eeued to be a
abottagO o~. Mt~bo~d ~Eku. It would apReat ~ha~ t~le living
Th~s gE~ e~ce ~u~ be .~od~ ned; t~e homes and not oyes by the
take ~ei a ty~ OC ~o~L pa~ vou~d exist. No very ~ch
~n[o~to~ z~gledt~ ~tg ~d was available, a~ a~unt o~eted
acreage, ~te~ 8~uld ~ d~teat~ ~o Cbt City by developers. The~e
~yot P=o ~em ~p~ua s~ated t~t a ,~udy o~ ~ha~ ~ssue would ~a~e
~nto e~t ~be Co,p8 la~ a~d ~t could be done with it.
~yet 8ta~d,,t~ ~ Cet~, ~bo deve~ope~ wag eineete ~n vamping to
but~d a quality envtEomn~. ~ybe a delay wag the beat th~ng.
Council ~ubeE ~ o~tod ~t 8be ce¢~a~nly was not t~y~ng ~o
oonttol~L~ ~aeCo~. T~ Council could 8ta~e W~C they vented;
~ve~, i~ ~e dev~lopec ~ot ~t-vay thtoug~ tho d~velopuent and
~t Ju~ ~ ~t sell, ~bo~ t~ C~ty had a problem. T~ Council
Council ~eu~¢ Ste~ns utat~ t~t ~t ~ad been said th~s
eve~yo~ wanted ~o have a ~qed growth. The questions ~z~ the
C~ty Cou~l veto not meant to bo ~nho~p[tabte. but ~hey ~e used
to peop~ ~oLl~tag the ~e. tt~s ~e~ develop~ut. S~nce th~s vas
"o~[ ~e vi~tu, ~t too~ a, ~t~4 ~o get use~ ~o i~. TheSe w&g on~y
uttt~tt~m. I~ an eeo~to a~ly8[8 ot ~upaet study vas to ~ done
~o~ a 8~y Oisoton, ~e ~u~d lt~e to have BOre [n~o~tton on the
The vaS~te~ tceatMnt ,plant ~m scheduled Eec upgrading ~n ~995;
430
c~ty o~ Denton city council Minutes
Meeting o~ January 7, 1986
Page T~enty-Thtee
approved. This would tie in with the study tb~t DE. Lltt~e~iald was
oo~x~uoting. It might a~eot what the cost o~ the so,vice would be
a~d what would be the source o[ ~unds.
~ant Texas Power and Light.
~e~e had he eeen the ove~e~e coet teeue add~eeeed. The
develope~ eouZd put the infrastructure ~n place on ~he~
T~e C~ty you,d have to connect to it; ~at ~u~d t~t colt?
t~me. ~he City you,d be ~e~mbu~ed ae people tied onto the
Hie concern ~a~ ~hat ~ould ~ve ~o be add~ to the ~atee
would this nancy co~ ~tom now? The City ~d been able to abeotb
Chtes coat due to piecemeal develo~nt ~n the Vast. Th~8 vas
eignt~icant g~o~th and sight p~eeent ~u~dtng
· ct~ng City ~ge~ Rick 8vehla ~epo~ted that he thought
i~poztant to undezsta~ that the~e ~ze peobl~l an~ sta~ ~d
attempted to add,ess them. It needed to be ~ept In e~one'e ~ind
~d a history o[ ~ving ptoble~ tn obtaining c~gbt-o~-vay
ageeeaen~a on b~tlding stzuotuzes. It ~as a d~tn~e plna
~&n~ to be sure that Council ~be¢ Stephens u~eEstood that
the City voul~ not be butld~ng out to the de~lo~nt ~o~ the~
~nect. Sta~i would be glad to ~u~n~eh a~d~tiona1
costs vets tneucced. Nocully, streets ~te designed ~ot a 20-yeac
~s talking about a 5- to ~O-yeat build out. In tecu o~ this type
o~ data, l~nt~ed data vas g~ven due to the ~act that not vecM
costa you,d be tnoucced ducimO ~e ~tcet ~0 Meaca.
~yec stated that he EaSt tt vas incumbent upon the ~evelopet to
provide this type et in, oration. 5tat~ ~ou~d a~lyze the data~
~Vet, ~ stat[ ~d to ~athet the intotaat~on, t~ ~ete dotng the
developet.s Job,
Oou~ Member ~tepben8 stated that he ~d previously been cetacEOuS
to o~te~zimg o~ utility limes - ~e&t[ng the pipe'Out to whete the
de~lopet ~uld tie on. The line wee go~ng t~ eventuelly serve
t~2 Just this ac~eaqe a~, t~ete~ote, any ove~e~zi~g ~uld bo ~one
n~, amd ho ~as ~e~ett~ng to the coat and t~e 8~u~ee cE ~u~8.
~othet point regarding the sewet line wit t~t. oven though the
develope~ built the line [to~ t~e~t property to ~he plant, the
capacity would be used up at the existing plant at a ~agte~
oonaocu which 8hout~ be addressed
Chew ~ton ~o~ continuance until the ~izet Council ~e~mq
Feb~uaEy ~o sta~[ could ga~hez the tn~o~u~ion ~ieh t~ Council
need~.
Counoi~ Meubec Rtddlenpetget stated t~t he ~ett thL8 Was a 8~ott
involved. ~ felt the P&Z should clea~ the pcopooal a~ te~ec
bac~ to the
~yot ~te~a~t stated that t~ ~Z ~d alteady tev~d the ptanue4
devalopuen~ and ~de thet~ teflo~ation to the Council. The
~bltc hea~n~ ~d a~zeady been hel~.
431
city c~ Dento~ City CQUnC~l
Meeting o~ January 7, ~986
Page T'~lnty-~our
Counc!l,MembsE Chew ask, ed Jq~ysr ti 30 days would be adequate.
developer ~ad a clock ticking on his money.
~eyer then stated tb~t the developez suggested that ~he Council
thet~ ~a up one way o~ ~he
Council'~e~ ~tep~ns a~ked, when?
~ye~ ~ee~o~ed
M~. A~e~ton ~equested to spea~ to t~e Council.
~yo~ 8~ewa~ at,ed tE t~ ~ubeze of the Council wished ~o
Council Membe~ Chew sta~ed ~t he wanted to be sure t~t the8 was
w~ ~. A~e~ton Was saying.
without tho t~iot~ttou the Connote wanted, M~. AnderSon wants4 them
to ~ake a decision.
add,aGe ~ 8tZe a~ paE~eula~ p~ob~euu which a p~oJect o~ this
Co,it ~e a~ ~e ~on~ a~ p~ov~de ~o~e and ~o~e co~t~n~ ~o~
w~teh the c~notl was asking to have ~eso~ved at th~8 uee~Lng had
made a eout~n~ o~ ~hte size and, tn e~ect, had capitulated on
8a~d t~t t~ ~d to ~VO this pazt[cula~ plan. This ~az W~t ~d
evolv~ out o~ all o~ ~ ueetingu. They thought they ~d an
that t~y veEe ~t bette~ ~epEeeented at this nesting ~o~ the C~ty
· ta~. The~e ~s ~ ~sguo which the council had bzouqht up which
to ~[u ~t the Couaetl ~Id lt~e to have a pEoJect o[ thts type.
when t~ coustdezed t~t thts was only one p~ee. In otheE
~e ,out~e~u ~oute 30 days or e~x mon~s ~rom now. T~ Counc~
Wanted ~o ~educe ~he ~ous~y, ~ha~ could be done on t~e southern
portion o~ ~he development. This whole p~oJect wag eitWez
wozk cz not ~X bai~ on Zhe de~tiee. Mille~ o~ Texas could no~
build a, 8~,O00,O00 ~oad wt~ho~ ~he unite and that would not o~nqe.
developMnt w~oh the Council ~d ~aced, an~ the~ wou~d like to have
cbs Council ~8 laying vii t~t they wanted everything spelled out
cecoue~attoam by sta~, and ag~eemen~u a~ u~e~s~a~LnO which ha~
been tal~ed abou~ at ~h~s meeting. He pe~8o~lly ~elt this was a
432
city o~' Denton City Council
Meeting o~ ~anna~y 7. ~g86
Page ~en~y-~ve
t~e~n6oua t~in~ ~o~ Denton. All t~e ~ opera ~aima~
4evelopment ~ce not oppome~ to oonce~t but weze zatbez ooncezned
t~at 8~ci~icm be t~e~ ~o~. T~t yam v~t t~e Cou~%l vas
(oz ~n tbke wa~t to ~e the ~nal deolaiom ia 30 4~, It ~ae not
t~t the Counctl 4i4 not ~pp~eciate the ~z~ ~ic~ ba~ been ~one
with 'the
~n4ezton ~eplke4 that this wee ~e~e be was con(ueo~. T~ey thought
t~ey ~d a~dzeaee4 all o( theme ,kmsues in t~ Last z~vtg~on o(
plan. Se(oze Coumctl weze apect(io co~t~on8 wbic~ ~eze 8peci(i-
ca~ly 4eaigne~ and dzawn to rte 4o~ w~t he (eli ~Ee t~e
~b~ob weze zatee4 bM the P~annimg a~ Country ~ve~o~ent
~paEtuent. He had o~ven the City ~t Mt~lez o~ ~as Could
w~t~. an~ be thought tbk8 in(oz~t%on nam ~n the a~ditto~l
co~itkon8.
~yoz 9tewazt ae~e~ M~. Andezton i~ he ~ou14 1Ave w~t~ the
zeco~e~a~ions which had been ~de.
c~it~on whtc~ 8ta~ ~ad add~, Rt~e~ ~d agreed ~o give ~n to
t~oee.
~o~ 5tenant stated that theze ~e~e a uu~be~ o~ ~eco~en~a~ona
~toh ~ad been ~e. T~ D~ee~oz o~ Plaa~t~ a~
co~tttons: could M~. Ande~ton ~ive v~h
~e~on Eesponde~, yea. On t~ ~t~et p~se, Mille~ o~ Texas
oo~en~s ~t ~hey ~ad to ~e ~v ou ~e addiEional 400
d~etop~ent. T~oM actually ~d boug~ ~l~. BveEyone, especially
~vtd R~lieou, ~d been told that they nee6~ ~O ~ iht8 ~ne
be~oEe the end o~ ~e yeaz because ~t vas v~n ~etE ~Lue va8
o~ t~[z contract. T~ey had aleeady delayed a~ c~ed ~ey and
~ they ~d t~e ~ssue~ ~egolved. Al ~a~ ae ~u~t ~
~am8 queen,oas ~acd~n~ ~he pac~. si~ation, .S~ D~u~n could
~zeae t~oee. ~1 o~ ~heae thtnoe ~ad been
Council ~mbec ~ame m~a~ed C~ ~e issues woce mo~ addceee~
~he ~ezia~s whtc~ the Cou~tl had. S~ also ~et~ t~ ~s a l~tle
bit ~n~ai~. M~. A~e~on spoke of ~ving ~ ~ ~his plan
involution a~ vas asking t~u ~oz a decision. The Cou~tt ~d a
~t~l~ look a~ ~, and he wa. as~g t~ Cou~il ~o gay Fee cz
Eight no~ because Millet si Te~e did ~t ~ve ~i~ to
~i~out loo~n~ ~u~he~ a~ hartco a~di~to~t an~e, a~ ~ould not
vote tn ~avo~ si t~e p~oposal. 8~ ~elt it eou~d be a positive
g~o would vote no.
A~eE~ou .~a~ed ~ha~ Ms. ~ams ~d ua~ t~ cleat ~. With
Couuet~ ~ube~ C~W stated i~ ~. ~oz~o~ p~elBu~ a vote at this
~t~, he would vote no due ~o a lac~ o~ i~o~M~ton, b was
gt~ and Ce~ ~hts deve~o~uen~ could be a ~ett~ve ~ht~ ~o~
~on but he coul~ no~ be p~eltu~ tnto ~king i dec~sion o~
Counc~ aeube~ S~ephen. e~a~ed ~ha~ ~e wanted ~o see t~e e~onou~c
a~lyela utt~ the ne~attve8 an~ poeittvea.
433
City o~ ~nton city Council M4. nutee
Meeting o~ Janu&ty 7,
very pos~Lvo ~ng, but ~y 4~d vent to t~e t~ole
a~ox~te~y one ~n~h, i~ ~t vas 8ouevhl~ 4~f~u~ ~o ge~ ~nto a
~nde~on ~8ked ~ ~n~o~t~on ~t w~s ~ha~ ~e Counc~ ~egu~ed
WhO ~ouL~ ~u~n~th ~t. ~ ~d ~ov~de4 ~n~o~t~on through ~he
Coune~ ,a set o~ f~e., a~ ~t ~e ~ae ~ea~ng was t~mt ~one o~
them ~=e accepting then o~ t~e~ ae~tt. He [e~t ~hat ~he c~y
they d~d mot gee~ tbe~e ~u~4 be a 85.o~,00o cas~ ~1~ plus when
the ~evolQ~at vas ooupXeted, show bkm why. They ~l~ imke~ be(o~e
(oz the C~y to pzov~de tbLe: kt van ~t ~s job to zua t~e City.
~yo~ PKo ~eu ~pktU atat~ t~t ~. X~eztoa vas exactly ~tgbt.
The Co~L~ dtd want the 8ta~ to 9u~ toge~e~ ~gutes ~o~
s:udy.
Coun~t~ ~e~ ~ gta~o4 t~ tho Counctl vas
~ncoue a~ not the
k~ez~oa e~a~ed ~ ~he ~tguzes ~ia ze~lec~ a~ o~ ~e expenses
~eh M~llez o~ Te~s ~d ~en ~ven by
Counet~ ~R~E ~&BI I~&tod ~hi~ I~O V~s so~y ~ M~. Ande~ton was
~t given. ~tM ~b he ,hou~4 ~ave ~4. v~t couuat~ vas
say~ng a~ ~l C~t they would Zike to have ~t begoce they ~de a
~ee~s~ou.
cou~t~ ~a~c Ut~6~t~-state4 t~t ~, ~ecton
nome o~t-~ ~o~'l q~ofl8 i~ ~s meeting. An ezanple vas the
coupXe~oa oC t~e coamec~on to ~mtezetate 35. nome o~ ~e counci~
ha4 any t~eat~on t~t t~J wag possible, although ~ ~d been
dtseua~d, T~ Cou~e~l. ~nted to have t~ed ~ovn ~t the~ were
been ~o~
~eeoue~&t~. Z~ t~e~ ~e agzeed ~o, ~t would t~e i~ do~. He
~elt pezso~lly t~at Ht~le~ ~d done a ~ood )ob. ~ybe
the Cereal uL~h~ aee~t ~t~ howve~. ~e ~e~ ~ ~he oond~ttons am
pe~so~L~ ~ W~ll~ to vo~e ~oz the pzoJect at ~his ~.
Cou~o~l. ~B~C ~E~ 8~lted t~ o~e o~ bec ~ob~e~ wis ~it ~he
vlanntmg a~ ZonLng couteston. The answers to t~e questions vh~e~
uig~t ~ b~ ae~ a~ ~t ~nt., were mtsst~. This vas .~t ~he
a4~-onur.
yea.
434
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Heating og January 7,
Page Twenty-Seven
Council Membe£ Me,dams stated that this did not anJv~c eoae et the
had been ~n place whe~ the 9~opo~al wa~ be~o~e ~ ~lanntnq and
to give h~m one.
pzo~uce the types o~ ~igu~es which weze being ask~ ~oc by the
Counsel.
Council ~mbez C~w stated he ~ett the ~ta[~ e~outd dzop o~he~
p~o]eetl and get this done.
enough th~ngl to ge~ tht~ p~oJect done.
~de~on sta~ed t~t he app~ea~ated the Counoit~s counts and,
~e~ could get the data tn 30 davs, he ~utd ~tke to ~ve the
beginning o~ the ~oJeat. ~ Kt~e~ o~ Tezae au~ t~ ~ta~ could
~ ~ paying. I~ they could be a~u~ed t~ t~ bo~t~ line costa
~oU the Cit~ you,d be ~eady tn 30 dayl, they Voutd be ~ppy to
acquiesce a~ wait until that t~.
Counct~ bubeE Choy stated that the meeting ~uld be on February
~pKtnm second to the motion ~oE eonttnua~e until ~b~ua~y 4,
t~on ~umt pc~ot to the P~anutn~ a~ Zoning CO~LSsiQ= ~ttng. Hey
much time wee g~ven the P~anntug a~, Zont~ ~tsston vtth
be~o~e
Cou~cL~ Member Step~en~ mtated t~t the P&Z membe~ probably ~aw the
~o~ ~he City o~ Denton. He d~d not think t~t a~e. eould loo~ at
~t was happening and not ~eel some excitement tn the plan. The
Counc~ nee~ed ~he t~ ~oz study ~o that ~hey cout~ ult~te~ do
~ was ~a~z ~oz evezyone comcezned.
t~lo, pet~p8 on the next Tuesday. He also ~nted to CompZtment the
developer. There ~d been no project vhic~ ~d ever bee= before the
Council ~b~c~ had the data a~ Input a~ this one ~d.
Vote on the uot~on to =ont~nue untie Febtuaty 4, t986' ~oted 6 to
~th ~yot 5t~att caet~ng the "nay" vote.
B. The Counct~ ~etd a public hea~ng conc~ninq the
~uest o~ ~tlle~ o~ Texas ~oc votunta~y annexation o~ 901.705 ac~e~
435
c4ty sC l~nton City Cauncl~ Minutes
~sting o~ ~anuaty 7. ~986
Page ~denty-ltght
s~tuat~ ~n ~e M.E.P. 6 P.R.R. Survey. ~bs~cic~ 1470;
G.N. ~eteo= 6utvey. A~t~Ct 12; the M.R.P. & P.R.R. Survey.
Xbtt;iet tS02; i~ the T i P Sutvey. Abstract ~302. ~ton County.
begtnn~g ~ o~ U.6, ~g~ 380. east o~ FK ~56, a~ vest
votunt~ty e~tion request by Kttle~ o~ Texas ~ot apptoxtmatety
~th the ~t~l aotto~ sedated ~ot ~teh 4. sti~ had not received
a zent~ /CO,eat eu~tt~L at thin true; h~evet. 8oue
dtavtn~ ~d been V~ovtd~. ~ IoUtng ~equest vas anticipated to be
8ubu~t~d tn the neat ~utuEe. Five ceply :etna ~d been uLled
one to,tied Gl ~avot a~ ~e in o~po~ittou.
No one ~Ke ta
The ~t elos~ t~ public heating.
Hop~tnt ~tion, Ch~ S~oud to continue With the a~noxatton
:et the ~:ehaee oc ~tettal8,, equipuent, supplies et 8e~vtcee.
The :o110ving ~l pzeseuted:
oEd~nee
~, 86-01
~ 8~I~ ~ ~IDI~ F~ ~ RXP~I~E Of
He,aug. ~t~, Rt~e~E g~o~ to adopt the o~dt~nce. On
"aye," ILdd2~petget "a~," Ch~ "aye." and ~yo~ Gtev/~ "aye."
~ B. . ~ ~t'l considered adQptton o~ an
~. 86-02
'~ '~Z~ ~1~ ~RTtTI~ BIDS ~ PROVID~ FOR
~ ~ ~ ~8 ~ P~LIC ~S OR I~R~TS;
~AdaM ~tio~, ~J~ ~o~ to adopt the o~dtnauce. On ~oll call
vote, ~ "aye, · ~.t~l "aye," Step~en~ "aye," ~l~ocd "aye,"
Rtddle~c "a~,' ~ '~ a~d ~yot S~evatt "aye." ~tton
eattt~[ e ~ '~ ~th Ceuuei't "~ecCh~ eaatt~g the "nay" vo~e.
~ C. ~e e~iI Oenetdeted adoption o: an ordinance
ptovidt~ ~ t~ e~tute ot CuRds ~ot euetgency purchases
~tetta~8, ~ut~Gt. ~u~ttee et Betvic~ tn accordance pith the
o~ cou~i~tva bide.
436
City o[ Denton city council Minutes
Meeting of January 7. 1986
Page'14eenty-Nine
The ~ollowing o£dinance was p~esentsd:
KO. 86-03
· I~ ORDIMi~ICE PROVIDIN~ FO~ THE ElP~I~ OF F~5 FOR
EX~TI~G ~U~ PURPLE5 FR~ R~UI~Z ~ ~TITI~
BIDSI ~ PR~IDIN~ FOR ~ ~FPECTI~ D~.
~a~ motion. Rtddtespez~e~ ssconi to ado~ ~he ozdtnance. Ou
"aye,"' Rtddleapetgez "aye." C~ev "aye," a~d ~yoz 8~OVAE~ "aye.
~tton carried unanfaously.
D. T~e Council considered adoption o~ an o~di~noo
app¢ovtng an euplo~enC a~¢eeuent ~t~en the City el Denton and
CL~y ~nage~.
~yo¢ 8tewaCt stated that be ~d placed this item on ~he age,s.
the dtCec~ion oi the Council. a cont¢act ~ad been emteEed into
~eeube¢ 30 with ~. lloyd ~¢¢elt. T~e ~Yo¢ ~e~ asEed tl
contCaot ag¢eeaent act all legal ~equt¢eue~te.
~bEa D~ayovt~ch. City Atto¢ney. zepoCted the cont¢aot was tn
~yo¢ P¢o Tea Hopkins stated ~t ~e believed ~e citizens oi Denton
~uld be veCy veil pleased wtt~ ~.
Council Meube~ Alio¢d stated t~t ~ny ct~ize~ ~ad ezpCassed thet¢
a~p~oval el t~e Council's selection.
T~e iotlowtng oCdt~nce was pCesented:
NO. 86-04
CITY OF DENON ~D ~ CI~ ~R; A~RIZI~ T~
~da~s motion, Che~ ssco~ to adopt t~e o~dt~nce. On ~oll
vote, No,ams "aye," Hopkins "aye," stephens "aye." AlloEd "aye,
R~ddlespecge~ "aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yo¢ 8tevat~ ~aya."
oa~ted u~nimo~ly,
E. Th~ Council conatdezed adoption o{ aa o~di~nce
service plan annexin~ app~oxt~tety 29~.97 ac~t8 being pa~t el the
l, Coy Survey, Abstract 212. J. Aye~8 Survey, Abstract 2.
M. Bu~teson Suzvey. Abstract 93. B. au~legon ~vey. AbotEact 249.
and t~e R. Johnson Survey. AbetzaOt 666. (Peopolo~ extension el
city limits 3 1/2 utica along 1-35N.)
~. 6lave Shutt. City Ma~ge~ of the City el Sange~. p~eaented a
tette~ f~ou the City oC Sange~ City Council as welt as a ~p of the
p¢oposed amne~tton pazcet which outlined tee etatutozy exttateczi-
~ve~al p~ope~ty owners who ~ould be, due to this a~eaation, tn the
ext~ata~zitoztat Juzisdtctton el ~ton ~e~e aekt~ te be placed
the Sanqez extzatetz~toztal lu~tsdietien. Also eho~ on the ~p
t~e c~eeW and the tcibuta~y to the ccee~ as ~elt as t~e bac~, cz
~ttb side, oi t~e p~ope~e8 ia question. ~ also presented
letters o~ petitioa ~tou these property o~e~s. FlOR aecto~ Road
~¢th these was amacked descent to Cleaz Ceeek, At the base
Cleat Cffeek at an el~atton suitable el g~avity ilov, 6ange~ had
oo-~-~tty which would be ~ost lt~ely be t~tall~ tn l%$&. This
lttt station would be capable el se=ring t~ do~slo~ ct this
=un~i~g no=th t=om Recto~ Road. ~ cE t~e pzo~e=t~ o~e tn the
437
C~ty o~ Denton City Counotl Minutes
#eet~ng o[ January 7. 1986
Page
a£ea wece severely split tn t¥o by the dt~¢e~ence o~ ext£atec-
~tto£[al Juztedtctton o¢ Denton amd 8ange£. Both pze~e£¢ed to be
wttAtn the Juztsdtct~on o~ SoAge~ because o~ the poesibtlit¥ that
Sange£ could p£ov~de utilities quicke£. One et the p£ope£tiee was
conside~tng lluaedtate development and would £equice the utility
se£vicee vee¥ quickly. Tlb8 othet ptopetty o~uets had mo~e o~ a
nostalg~O tmte£es~ tn Eeua~ntng tn the Sange~ ext~ate££ttoctal
Ju£tadtctton due ~o bavt~ been a pa~t o~ the co,unity ~o~
shutt zeeponded, mo. mot ~o~ally. One o~ the p~opeztie8 ~as
were completed l~ ~heme ~ezl ~cted to develop the p~ope~y, they
would ~ve ~o ~o~ v~ both cities. Bange~ vas tn the positron
pEovtde u~lttiee ~o ~e
Road aa a logteal ltne o~ ~e~catiou. ~e ~ould ttXe to see ~nton
p¢ovided t~ 5an~e¢ ceuld ~aceive pettt~on= [o~ annexa~o~ between
5~utt stated ~t ~he C~ty o~ Denton had expemded a contidezable
a~unt o~ t~ on t~8 am~xa~tou, and ~e undeEstood that t~eze was
pactioulaz a~xa~ton at this ~et~ng. Den~o~ could complete the
amnexa~ou a~ ~on n~o~a~a Vit~ 6angez.
MO. 86-05
~ ~ T~ Cl~ OF D~N, TE~5~ BEIH~ A~ ~T EOT,
~S ~ ~ LYI~ ~ BEIN~ 5TTUA~D TN ~ CO~ OF
~, 8T~ OF ~ ~ BET~ P~T OF ~ T. COY
~Y, ~5~T 93, B. B~RSON 5~Y. ~G~T 249
~ R. J~ 6~Y, AB8~ 666. DE~ON CO~,
C~8T~ T~ G~ AS ~RTCU~ "A" D~STRZ~ PROPERTY;
~ ~I~ ~ RFFECTI~ DATE.
HopXin8 ~C~on, ~amm 8eeon~ to annex a 500 geec s~c~p cachet than
the p~opo~ed 750 ~emt strip.
~b~a DZayov~tc~, C~ty ~C~oc~y, eta~ed ~ba~ ~hece was a
~n the C~e~ ~, ~ an a~exation o~t~nce was amended,
would ti~e 4/5 vote o~ ~he Council to appcove, a~ tt t~en had to be
publ~s~d ~t~ 8~ ,no~hO~ 30-day wa~t~nq Ve=~od would be
Hovktns. ~tlou. Rtddlo8peEge~ second to amend the Rotten to annex
~he 7~0 Zest ~tE~9 a~ 8~c~ed tn the o=d~nce. On roll call
vote. ~a~ "~y." Hopkins ,aye." 5tephene "~y." Al~ocd "aye,"
Rtddlel~ggec ~aye.n Ch~ "aye," a~ ~yoz 5~evlzt "aye,"
"~y" VO~.
F. The Coumctl cometdezed adoption og au ocdtnance amd
eecvtce plan a~xt~ a~ox~tetY 92.8 acze8 beq[nn~mg appcoxi-
ma~ely ,50~ ~eC ~zt~ og Highvay 77 and appcox~tely 1,050 ~eet
east o~ 1-35M a~ lying and betm~ pazt oC the ~. M~iCe 5ucvey,
~b8t~act 140~, the M. ~y SuEvey, ~b8tzac~ 807, and the ~. dohnmom
Sucvey, &betcaet 88~ ~-~t.
438
City o~ Denton City Council
#eeting o~ January 7. 1986
Page Thicty-One
The ~ollowing ocdinance wes p~eeented:
~. $6-06
S~, ~BST~CT ~. 1406, ~ ~. ~Y 8~. ~T~T ~09
PROPER~ ~ DEC,RING ~ ~PECTI~ DA~.
~ew ~ot~on. ~o~d ~econd to ado9~ ~he o=dinance. On =oll flail
VO~e, MoAdalg "aye," HOpRi~S "aye," 8~ophe~l "aye,
Riddleepetge~ "aye," Chew "aye,' a~ ~yo~ 8t~a~t "ayt." Motion
aa=~ted unanimous ~,
~. The Council constae~e~ adoption oE an o=d~nea and
uo~tMst co~ne~ og ~ 2164 (No,th ~cu~t) and 9eopos~ hoop 288 and
lying and being pa~t o~ the T. Toby Su=vey. AbotEict ~288 ~-29.
NO. 86-07
~T OR P~CE~ OF ~ C~8~5T~ Of AP~XI~Y 59.6
A~EG OF ~ LYI~ ~ BBI~ 8I~D
DENTON, 8TA~ OF TE~8 ~ B[I~ P~T
~UH~Y. ABB~ NO. 1288, D~
~ D~C~I~ ~ ~FFECTI~ Dl~.
celt vo~e, KcA~ams "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," Almond
"aye. · aiddlelpe~g.~ "aye." Chew "ave." and ~yoe S~a~t .aye.,,
~tton cad.ted unantuousty.
~. The Council eo~tde~ed adoption oi an o~dtnance
a~tng O~dtnance Ho. 8~-t47 to 9~ovtde toe a eeE~ected
deso~tptton o~ the pEope~ty ~heEeby Eezoned; and pEovtdtng ~o~ an
eliecttve date Z-t753.
The iotlovtng o~dtnance was p~esented:
NO. 86-08
~ O~IN~ ~NDING O~I~CR NO. 85-t47 TO
FOR A CORR~C~D bEGA~ DRS~IPTI~ ~ ~
~Z~DI ~ PROVIDIHQ FOR ~ RFF~CTI~
Stephens uotton. Hc~ans second to adopt ~he oedtua~e, on Eott
aall vote, MCl~IBI "lye," HOpkt~l "aye," Gtep~enl "aye," XlloEd
"aye~~' Ri6dlespergee "aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yo~ Gtwa~t "aye."
~ion cad,ted u~nimously.
I1 T~e Council considered adoption oi an o~inanae lo~
~s~n and Ca~otyn s. ~.hman a~/o~ t~et~ assigns ~o~ a new wa~e~
· ob ]elsom. Di~ec~o~ ol U~tlt~tes. zepez~ed ~ ~te
ovezst~e a~zeemem~ amd would ex,emi a va~ez tine
439
City o~ Denton City Counoi~
~et~ng o~ Januacy ?. ~.986
Page T~i~ty-~wo
The ~olkowtn~ e~dtuaace wee p~esen~ea:
~pkins ~on. C~w ~me~ to adopt the o~dtnance, On ~o~1 cal~
vo~e. ~a~ '~ye," ~9~t~8 "aye," 5~ep~en8 "aye." ~o~d "aye,"
Rtddleupezgez "aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yoz ~te~a~t "aye."
caz~ed u~ni~e ly.
~. T~ Coume t l eomstdezed ~opt~on o~ an ozd~namce
aut~oz~zt~ ~e ~y~z ~o execute a stage, at o~ agzeement between
~he ~can Red Ccoss a~ t~e C~Cy o~ Denton zela~ive to d~sas~e~
pze~azedmeaa= a~ pzov~ding ~oz an e~[ect~ve da~e.
8t1~ Angelo, &he,stent to the Dizecto~ of Public ~o~k8, ~epo~ted
t~t t~ta ~e a zoutt~ oz~t~ace. This ~d been an
agzee~e~t in the past. a~ the o~tmance ~ould put all o~ the
co~itton8 in v~iting.
~. ~6-~0
,~ R~T~ ~ D~R PREPRRR~55; ~ PR~IDIN~ FOR
vote, ~ ~aFe," ,~p~t~a ~a~e." SteVhene "aye," ~lto~d "a~e,
Rtddte~VeEqe~ =aye," Che~ ~aMe," and ~Moz Ste~azt "aye,"
'~. T~ Co~aoil conaide~ed adoption o~ an ozdtmance
au~o~t~t~q Vu~ehane ~ ~al p~opezty (Lot 4, Bloc~ 3. Oatman
~t~om - ~z Ja~a D. Swangon and wi~e, Jackie V. swaneon).
~t~ng C~ty ~ge~ Ric~ 6vehla zepo~ted t~t this ~a8 the pzope~ty
on Kt~e Roe4 ~teh ~d been discussed ea~te~. The pu~c~le was to
obtain
NO. 86-11
P~E Of R~L ~R~ ~Y ~ CI~ ~ DE~ON. ~
~8~IB~ ~ ~R~ZIMG ~ ~XPR~I~ Of
~~ ~ ~IDI~ FOR ~ EFFR~I~ DATE.
~Ada~+ ~L~U. Cbe~ seeo~ to adopt the ordnance. On toll call
vote, ~ Sa~e, ~ ' ~V~ "a~e." Stephens ~aye, ' ~llozd "a~e,
R~ddleepo~et =aye, · C~w cafe," And ~yo~ Ste~act "aye," Kot[on
cazzte4 u~nt~us ly.
h. The Council eona~dezed app~al o~ an ozd~nance
appcov~g a eontzac~ p~avtdtng ~or the purchase of ~eal p~ope~ty bY
the C~ty o~ ~ntom. TOXIC. ~zom ~yhtlt Road Realty Co~pany:
authoz~atUg the exVe~tuEe gl tu~s the~eloE; and Vzov~d[ng age an
eE~ect~ve date.
Rob He18oa, Dt~ecto~ ot Utilities, zepozted that the puzchaae was
age 8/10 o~ an acze undez Texag Municipal Vo~e~ Agency line
440
City of Denton City Council
J(eet~ng o~ Janua£y ?, L986
Page Tht£ty-Th£ee
Paige Road. The p~ope~ty would be used ~o£ m Substation ~n the
southeaste£n potties o~ the City. The app£&tsed pcice was
All ag£eeuemts had been ~imalized with the pco~ecty
· ~e ~ollowimg o£diuance wee pzesented:
NO. 8,-12
Hopkins uo~ion, C~ev eeeon~ ~o ado~ ~he oc~e. ~ co~
l~ddlelpe~ge~ "aye," C~ "aye," a~ ~yoc S~iE~ "&~i." ~o~
entered u~n~noutly.
4. T~ece vas no o~cial action on ~xecut[ve session iteu o~
S. The ~olloM[ng ~te~8 o~ ~ev ~l~is vote 8u~ested by
co~c~ bubecs ~oc ~u~uce agendas:
A. ~yo~ Pie Ten ~opktna asked to ~ve t~e annexation
placed on the agenda in a ~ev ~eKs -,a~ec 8ange~
cece~ved any petitions Eec annexation ~oc the aces
question. He would lt~e ~o :educe the amnexat~on e~p
500 Eee~.
· . council ~bez ~c~a~ asked to ~e a 5:00 p.~.
meeting. She wou~d ~tke co ~ve di~Cecent ata~
peasant ~het~ invocation to the Council.
o~ Te~s peti~ton.
C. Counc~ bible etdd~espeEge~ ast~ ~ the ~opoeed no
needing.
~ld be zead~ ~o~ the next Council
D. Council ~eabe~ Riddleape~ge~ a~ed the City ~o~ney
vehicles on lawns.
6. The Council ~econvened trite t~o Executt~ Session
dts~s legal ~tce~g, teal en~ate, ~cl~nol and boacd
appotu~ueut8. Ho o~etaZ ae~ion vas ~akea.
M~th no ~ucthec tteu8 o~ busines8, the ~etimg vas ad~oucmod.
1497a
441
City Council Minutes
Janua£y 14o 1986
The Council convened into the special called meeting at 6:00
PRKSENT: Na¥or Steva£t: Mayor Pro Tam Hopkins: Council Members
&l~ord. McA, dame and Rtddleeperger
~ting City 'Kanags£, City Attorney and C~ty
~SE~: Council ~mbec8 Chew a~ Stephens
~ ~. The Council come,diced ~he eondit~ons a~ economic
~mpact
~,. analysis on Z-~779 (~tio~ o~ MEllec oC Texas - hakeview
Develop~Gt.)
~ting City ~gec Rio~ Sve~la cepo~nd t~c the purpose oC the
attached ~o t~e pro,sod ~lanned develop~nt. The economic ~mpact
etatement on t~e agenda was to allow Counc[1 bubecl to 1Est any
oomce~ms which theF u~eAt have Co~ tta~ to ~esea~cb. Sta~ wou~d
~eet[ng. ~oga~dt~ ~he utilities, these ~ould be ~nc~udod ia the
platti~ p~eduees a~ the ~i~ o~ development.
Jo[E bFe~, DtEec~oz oE Planning and Co~unt~y Development, Lead the
develop~nt. The ~E~t condition was as
1. "A aompEehe~etve site plan must be submitted Co~ each
Vazcel befoze platttn~ ~s appzoved. The comprehensive
I~Ce plan ~lt show all development 8tandazd8
including but not limited to lot d[uensione, lo~
coverage, ~eight, pa~k~ng, eetback8, tng~ee~ and
eqzeeg, la~tcap~ng, bu[~ez~ng/sc~een~ng, and
~yec cepocCed C~c Cht8 was a standard co~t~on ~oc plan~ed
deve~opMntl end Was ~a~en dtEectly out o~ the subdXv~sion ~uXes and
~egulations.
~yo~ V~o T~ ~Vki~ ae~ il the develovez a~eed with all el the
purebred ~e~ ~oc Juntog a~d ~enior h~qh ~choo~e ductnq the last
~choo1 dtat=~et Ua~ted roue additional 8choo~ sites ~u the Lakeview
tree. IC Mt~et oC Texal d~d not develop the property aa o~e large
parcel, t~ete ~ould be ~ guarantee that school 8~te; vould be
donated.
Council b~bet 8~ep~ens Joined the
hyot 6~att then au~ed ~ a 20-inch water line would be tequLted.
Bob Neleon, Direc~o~ et U~ilitiea. ~epot~ed that a 16-inch varec
line wou%d need to be existed to the site, as well as a line
~o McK~nn~ 6CoseC. The developer wou~d put ~n p~ace c~e entire
iewez 1~ lyl~el. 5~aCE ~d ~ot ~lanned to oversize ~he linel, but
would conlide[ tt iC the Council ~elt tt vas app~opz~ate.
Council ~ubeE RiddLelpe[geE stated that the develope~ ~d mentioned
was not listed in Chi con~Cionl ~ot the p~anned development.
Nelson ~eepo~ed that ~he City via cecti[~ed in that area and would
week with the developo=. 8~a~ Eelt the City ~a~e8 wa~e very
co~peti~tvo.
44~
C~ty o~ Denton ~ity ~ounoil ~tnutes
iteet~ng o~ Janua£y 1¢, 1986
·aga Two
l~b~& D£&yovitCho C~ty ~tto£ney. stlted that e~tl wo~ld not resound
imposing, aa a oondition to ~oning. reqni~ing the developer to uae
City o~ Denton utilittea. It waa he£ ~aeltng that th~a would t~en
become an ~t~-t[~$t
counctt Membe~ Stephens state~ that the devetope~ eout~
uae ctty uttttt~es: however, as the p~opezty devetopea, va:toue
Netaon ~eipo~ed t~t tht8 was a dual ce~tt[tca~ton a~oa.
Coumotl aembe~ itdd~eJve~e~ auked ~ T~s Pove~ a~ b~ght ~d to
~eleon ~esVo~ed
o~ Te~8, ~ they dtd develop t~e pEopeE~y Vtth U~eEgEOU~
H~, ~e~ton ~ee~onded yea.
~ye~ ~epo:ted t~t M~lle~ et Texas ~d otheZ devetoguentg
various ~ann~ng sta~es. ~e utility question ~uld be a good teat
Cou~e~t ~embe~ ~e~am8 stated that the City ~d ~eeon~y completed a
nov vast~ate~ t~eatment plant. No ~edezal ~uudu ~uld be available
~o ~elp ~nance anothe~ plant. Mhat ~uld tht8 ~evelo~ut ~an to
t~e timetable established fo~ the anticipated ~utuEe constEuct~on
anothe~
Nelaon zeGponded the Lakev~e~ development Would mOVe that up
apWox~ely one yea~.
add~t~o~ 500 ac~e8 to the iou~ ~uld a~ect the t~Mtabte even
pastorates treatment plant had some growth tats data built
X~oxt~tely one-~lt el the anticipated gzo~ zate due to the
La~evtew project rag al~ead~ built into the ttmetabte.
plugged in the othoz
Council Membe~ Me.ams ~ated that Counot~ p~evto~sly ~d looked at
a Ieee dents gto~h tare.
Counct~ Me=beE H~am8 asked ~ow t~e actual g~o~ ~a~e
were utch~ng wtt~ t~e p~o}ection8.'"
Nolgou ~espondod that the aetua~ g~o~h ~ate was sou~at
been one o~ a fpuzt o~ gzowth and ~hen a leveling
~ounc~l Mombe~ Mc~aus asked i~ the p~o~ected ~ate ~d
Dem~o~'s location tn the 5u~ Belt ~n~o
'443
city oc Denton City Council Kinutes
HeetimV o~ Jauuacy 14, 19~&
Page Th£ee
Nelson tespo~ed that 5% vl~'# ~ ~aicly'aggcessive estimate.
~ayo~ P£o Tem ~pkine stated t~at council had looke~ a~ a 9~ g:o~h
~a~e ducing ~c planning zetcea~, bu~ had agzeed on
Nelson ~e~eza~ed ~ a~oz~ely one-halt o~ ~h~s
deveXog~n~ was alzeady p=ogza~ed im~o =he
Counct~ ~be8 A18o=d s~,~ed ~ha~ he ~e1~ co~o~able wt~h wha~ had
been p~ogza~d ~oz gcow~h a~ ~ ~he C~y ~oul~ ~ake caze o~ ~e
u~tl~ty needs ~o~ ~hie developsen~.
Nelson zepo~e~ ~c cha ~ez a~ vaa~eva~ez pozciom8 cC ~ha long
zaage p~am Eig~ ~ve ~o Me Io~d up one Meaz. T~e develop~ea~
would a~d abou~ ?00 u~ts pe~ yeaz.
the e~tt~e development ~qXd avpe~t overnight, v~ch vas not the
case.
Council ~ez ChaP Joined tha ueet~g.
aeveIop~ut eoul~ e~ au a "bubbIe" on the gzo~h
all tzeel to be z~ved, a~ all tzees to be pl4inted
~st be appzoved by the Vlan~ing and Zoning CouUsliou
Co~lllOU m~ the C~y Co~uc~l ~uld bot~ ~ to approve the
plan. The ~e~lopez vas ia agceeuemt v~th the co~t~on.
3. "A detailed la~acap~ng plan must be appcoved b] the
" Vlaun~ a~ Zoning co.lesion m~ city counct
conjunction vtth the comprehensive site plan."
bM the ~lanntmg a~ Zoning Co~ta~on a~ the City Council.
4, P~velo~c I~ll iub~t a detailed Gene~al Development
Plan pE~oE to i~F platting. That plan s~ll include
me~ts ~eemla~y to allo~ each p~me cc tcact o~ land
to bm ~evel~ped. The developec m~ll comair et~hK
~velop~ut"~lan -to pcopecly ~tch t~t
~ethod ol develo~ent. ~ tza~ic studM ~us be
8u~itted a~ approved by the Planning and Z
Co~tamion ~h C~ ~eme~al ~velop~nt Plam. T~e
specific planned development cond~tiona listed bel0w."
~yet ~epo~Cid t~c the develope~ would have to submit a detailed
develop~nt plan pttot to platting. This vii tot the ptotectt)n cC
the C~y, a~ the plan ~uld ~ve to be approved pilot tc any
cond~t~o~ vould be appco~ by the Citizens Traffic 5a~et~ Support
444
City o~ Denton c~ty Council Mtnutei
Meeting o~ Janua£¥ 14, 1986
Page Four
~cttng City ~maga~ R~c~ 6vehla ~apo£tad that th~s was usually
app£oved by the Planning and Zoning Cou~aaion. The C~t~zens
· £a~c S&~e~¥ 5u~po~t Co~a~ss~on uluall¥ dealt w~h ~ssuas on
ex~s~in~ s~£eets and vazious safety
5. ,One hundred Cyent¥ (120) ~ee~ o~ c~g~t-o~-way
ex,ending ~£om Un,variety Drive (U.S. 310) to ~be
southecn bounda£M e~ tha development s~all be
o~ ~he developuem~.'
8vehla ~epo~ed %~ ~his condition was ~o~ ~igh~-o~-way
zes~demtial sees, Each time a plat ~a, subuit~ed, a ~za~tc impact
study would ~ve to be suppl~ed. Mtlte~ o[ TO~8 was alee
develop 500 ac~e8 8o~t~ o~ thug 700-ac~e paEcol. I~ ~e southezn
500-acEs t~act developed Eizat, t~e 8aue eo~i~ous ~oE developMnt
au were appzoved ~oz the 700 aczet could be L~peaed o~ amended,
6. ,,lupEove~nt8 ~o 8ta~e cQads 8~t be done at ~he
developer's expemse, ~nc~ug bu~ no~ ~tmt~ed
e~c.), ~uzn lanes, a~ any ~igh~l-o~-Vay ne~essazy
achieve ul~tla~e ~eveloplem~. ~1~ ~p~ove~s s~ll
be detecm~ned du~img ~he p~a~t~mg p~oeel8."
8vehla ~epozted that this condition Wag vezy general in ~uEe
was ~esig~ed to copse the C~ty du~ng the pla~ng
~o~ Pzo Tem Hopkins 8~a~e~ ~ stg~l~zat~on ~uld be vezy
important ~n moving people ~n and ou~ o~ ~his develop~nt.
7.~ Repaying o~ overlay o~ a 24-Eoo~ section o~ ~lla and
Rlagg ROa~S f~om ~e Nozth/Gout~ ~teEial to ~yhill
Road amd T~tnity Road ~EoB Mills Road to
be detez~tned duz~ng the platting p=oceae ~en
development. The develope~ v~ll be ~eapons~ble ~oz
iBp~ovement cost, mot ~o exceed 8S0.000 pez ~oad.
~vehla zepozted t~ v~en ~e Ve~ole ~zips pez ~ zeach ~00, this
oo~tt~on would K[ck-~n ~o~ ~oad coaX. The develope~ would give
8. ~velope~ shall pay ~o~ a~ Sig~l~zat~on o~ ~oad
~upz~ve~nts neceaeazM on ~F~ill Road due to
~enezated ~zom th[~ developing. T~ose
total cost cE zend ~upEove~entu on ~Fh~ll ~oad
exceed 850,000 Eo~ ~he developeE.
wac=anted at the [nte~sectionl o~ ~K~nney St=eel and
~yh~ll Road and I.H. 35 a~ ~y~t~l Road, a~ a zeeult
o~ this develop~nt, will not excee~ j50,O00 ~o~ each
~n~e~section Eoz the develope=.
8vehla zepozted that this would be dete=at~d ~n the
9zooeee. The to~al cost on.~yhill ~oad would no~ excee~
~y~tll and ~K~nney.
9. The p~s~ng fez ~he ~one~ruc~om of ~e zoAd
w~ll be de~ez~[me~ by ~he ~o~la be~ow:
Construction shall be~tn when butldtn~ ~ezut~s
issued and colptet~on oC the ~oad vo~K an~
~a~zove~n~s suet be done be~oze cezt~Eica~ea
authozized.
445
C~ty ot Denton ~it¥ Counter
~eting o[ January 14. 1965
SF . Single-Family (dwel~ing units)
J~ ~ Multi-Family (dwelling units)
TH ~ Toqmhou(e (dweLling
T~ control Co~Xe Ihould
P~aee ~ - 700
P~ne lB . 1,~GO
P~ee 4 . 8.~8o
~. PEKOE ~O t~ ~esuance o~ any buLld~ng
~ lanes o~ ~e ~t~/~outh A~te~ial will be built t~ou
~. Th~s VhaOe ~uld zequ~:e w~den~ng oi the ~ tec-
· ecg*om, ,t Un*ve~,Lty D~v, (U.G, 380) and at--~
T~e elelusive z~ght-tuzn lanes at U.S. 380 and the
~ would ~,qu*E. w~daning the inte~section~
· ~ a~ ~t ~t~eF Street. T~ exclu~ive right-tucn
at the ~oEth/~U~h ~teEtal and F.~. 426, ~outhbou~d to t-
bout, Will be needed with the tuple~ntation of Phase lB
~~e The e~z~Sout~ A~tlzia1 eha~l be expa~ed a
d~vided zoadway izom ~Ktuney 6tzeet to U.5.
I~ov~nt8 alsoctited with this phase include the ~ bi-
tten la~ at ~oop 2~ ~ F.M. 426, ~t~bound to eastb)und,
a~ ~ dual ~8~-~u~ lameg at U.5. 380 and hoop 288,
~ T~ MO~th/Soutb ~e~Lal ~ll be expanded to a
divided zoadwa~ ~Eou University D~ive (U.S. 38 to
~Ki~ S~Eoe~. Thie phase =equiEe8 the dedicat~ou et 120
Ne~h/6outh ~zte~al to I.H. 35~. The ~upzoveuent aeaoc
w~tb this phase ~m the tight-ruth lane at Loop 288 and
3~O. uoEthbou~ to eastbou~.
~. The ~oetb/South A:te~ial ~uft be exVa~ed to a
divided toad from U.S. 380 to I.H. 3~E fo~ full
devoLo~nt to oeeuz, Exclusive ~qht-tu~n lanes at Loo]~ 288
a~ U.6. 380 a~ L~ 288 and F.M. 426, eagtbou~ to
bout, a~ ~ual lolt-tu~u lanes at F.M. 426 and Loop 288,
~0. ~thbou~ to ~8~bo~. a~e ~equ~d w~h th~8 phase
reached, the dovelopez wo~ld be ~equited to ~ul~ill theee co~itLona,
Council b~ez ~au asked toe an expla~t~on o~ the tziV tozu~la.
to lO ~hiou~a~ t~ip8 ~et day. The above ~o~uula vas based on peak
~a~i~c-~u~ u~a~o.
~ye~ iuzthe~ ze8ponded t~t vehicutaz tzip8 was a common
denou~nato~ u~ed tn eit[~te~ el thi8 ~tu~e.
446
C~ty o[ Denton City Council Minutes
~mt~ng o~ Jauua£y 14. 1986
Page Biz
Council ~embe~ MeAdaus then asked Minas would be ~he eye,age muube£
oi tzips genezated Io£ oltice/~etail usage.
Svehla zeplied appzoxiuately 10 t£tpe lo, crecy 1,000 equate ieet
the o~Itce/£etatl epace.
Council He~be~ ~cA~aus stated that Phase IV was the last phase
the p£0poeed development amd asked how much ol the stceets would be
completed p~to~ to ~he cons~£uc~on o~'Phase IV,
8vehla zesponded appcoxiuately ?5%. ~tng ~he ~oupte~ton ct
III, ~e City voul~ get t~e thzem-lane highway to Interstate 3S plus
all of the z~ght-o~-~ay. ~ztng Phase IV, ~e City ~utd have
~ull s~x lanes bu[l~ do~.
10. A ~wenty-~ive (25) ~o~t setback ~zon the zi~ht-o~-way
is zequ~zed alon~ the ~ozth/Sou~h ~ez~al on the east
and ~eat aides o~. the az~eztal a~ on t~e noz~h and
sou~h hides o~ MeX~nney 5tzeet. A ~educed setback
plan a~ la~s~apin~ p~an w~en t~eee doouuent8
submitted ~oz a~pzovaX by t~e C~ty
~yez ~epozte~ t~t tb~s co~ittom ~as vety geneKa~ ~n ~tuze. T~e
~evelopez could ~eguest a ze~uct~on of the setback ~u~ag
· ~e Council could, ho~evez, deny the Kequeet.
cz kn the 25-~oot setbacks outlined above.
~ye~ ~epo~ted that th~a condition wam negotiated by ate(( with
deva~ope~, and the dive,opec ~d agreed to thtm
12. A~I uaJo~ d~ainage c~mnel~ aec to ~e~n tn
natuzal state a(tez cleanout at the developer's
expense. Floodvay ~ ~ ~edtcated to ~he City o~
Denton. A~i ~no~ ~at~ge c~n~ete a~m to be
oonczete constructed u~le~e appzoved ~ Ct~M mtn((
Planmtn~ and Zoning
8vehla ~epozted t~t t~o aa~o~ c~nnels ~lo~d ~ough ~he pzopoeed
~evelop~ent. These channels ~ould be le~t ~n t~et~ ~tuzal state,
and ~he deve~opez ~ould be zeapous~ble foz cleaning t~ea out.
~yo~ P~o Te~ HOpWtne asked ~ t~e develop~en~ ~uld dzatn in~o
Svehta zempo~ed yes.
~yQz Stewazt elated that the~e could be a ~oble~ to any ~utu~e
development to the ~eat cE thte pa~eel and (eli tt ~al geod to leave
the ~)o~ czeeks ~tu~al. IE (utu~e development t~ the ~elt
to change the o~nne~a, Et ~uld be the ~eeponmtbility o~
developers to ~etu~n the ~atez to ~ta ~tuzal eta~e be(o~e ~t
~nto bakevie~.
~ye~ (u~the~ ~epo~te~ that this issue ~am cove~ed tn the ~nton
~velopment ~ukde am well aa tbs Subdivision Rulea a~
1). 5tde~alXe ~11 be ~equi~ed alo~ t~ aout~ am4
sides cE all et~eetm ~n t~ devm~o~nt.
~e~ zepo~ted that tbkm eomd~to~'~aa come,aleut ~t~h all ot~z new
development tn tbs Ckt~.
~. ~o ~und~ed and (t(t) ~houeand 4olla~m (~)0,000) will
be pzovtded bM the develo~ to ~e ~t~ o( ~uton
pa~ purposes p~o~ to the ka~uance o~ any building
pe~u~t8.
447
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting n~ J&nu&£y l&, 1986
Page Seven
Steve Grtnku~n. Director of Packs end EecreetiOno £eported that his
department Yes ¥ilitng to take the money and it would be helpful in
aecreat~on Department would like to see a greenbelt area tn this
Lewievt~la ~tch offered a unique situation, This proposal WOUld
open Lake 6e~tevitXe to Deutpn o~tizene off ~eXlnney St£eet £athe£
than at Highland V~ttage, His' deva:tuent had been Wo£king with
Millet of TexAs fo: moue time, and they had been ve£y helpful tn
working vith ataff om a park plan, The City had depended on
developeze to dedicate Va=% land and. in the past, this had been
very epotty. ~he:e ~ere three optione available foe parks in this
p£o~ect. The City had a Joint agreement with the Denton Independent
School Dtatrtot for }oint park and echoes elto land uae. Kany 8ite~
in thiel ptol~)aad development were adjacent to large parcels of Co£ps
neighbo~odl. ~e ta¢~ areas could serve as regional Va~X a¢ea8,
The Co~pl o~ Engineers did work with e~t~ei in alleviat~ng the
~ntenanee
whether c~il could count al a pott~on cC the C~ty cC Denton'8 park
space om Lake Letter, tie.
thte ileum,
~yo~ ~o TeB ~Vktns stat~ t~t thin p~k area could tie ~n to the
become a veer viable a~ defined c~eek when the level o~ 6a~e
Lew~lville yam
~cink~n :eap~ed yes: ~nY posttbilit~em, including a golf tousle,
co~ne~ ~z Step~nm aoked ~t vat the status o~ the ~ato~y
pack land dsd~catton o~4~oe. The proposed ocd~oe Would
tequ~te 10t et the ptopet~y be dedicated lot
Vlann~ a~ Zoning Coutseton foe a work session. ~ public heating
~u~d be ~ld, a~ then the ordnance would be placed on a ~utute
City ~il agenAa.
Counc~l bmbec Stephens stated that in the Lakevtew pro,eot, only
about ~ o~ t~ total devolo~nt vas being desig~ted am pat~ area.
Rttnk~n teplt~ t~t other pack areas veto possible, a~ veil as the
Coops ~ ~t~ti
Counc~ bRbo~ S~op~8 anted how ~a~ 6250,000 wou~ ~o in the
B~tnk~n ~e~ed ~at ~ts was a very ~ amount: however.
w~th t~m dmvelo~nt.
bet~e~ tM ~ol utst~tet and the Parka and Reeteat~on Departing.
9ttnk~n tes~ea t~t t~ So.ct vas responsible ~ot the school
building a~ the packing lot a~ t~e City was tes~onttble ~ot the
Council ~t ~ams at~d cegatdtng the hakeviev development,
the me.oX vas net Conmt~cted t~ed~ately during the ~ttst p~se,
would t~ City p~oc~ vit~ t~ development cE the pat~.
448
City o~ Denton City Council Minutd*'""
bering o~ JanuaEy l&o ~986
Couna~l bubeE MoAdaus asked hey much would this cost.
~Ei~knan ~esponded eppEox~mately $250,000.
BE~n ~ept~e~ ~ha~ ~e deve~ope~ ~u~d ~u~n~s~ lZSO.OOO.
~t. ~e C~ty would develop ~he pa~ke as ~hey could. ~e p~ogoee~
~nda~oEy pa~k ta~ ded~ea~ton ordi~nce would help.
Cou~tl Me~be~ ~am8 stated t~t the ~evelo~ ~e ~ogoet~g
ga~ would not be ~ch to serve ~hl~ a~ea, Alse ~u~toned vas the
~ac~ tha~ ~heee parks would be used by e~ttzene ~E~ alt ove~ the
e~y.
B~tnk~n ~eegonded that a la~ge regiona~ paE~ aEea ~u~d be built
the oouth by Pecan CreeK.
hyo~ P~o Ten HopKins stated t~t ~h~e a=ea ~d been a
bu~ vas not being u~L~zed at all at t~e g~esen~ ~.
Couue~l ~aber a~ddlespe~ge~ stated t~t the Cou~tt ~4 Eece~ved
le~te~ ~ou the S~dy ~ho~e8 conun~y and as~ t~ ~b~s Would ~ve
any e~eat on the devetopuent.
Sve~la ~epoEted t~t ~he ~oadvay ~ou ~K~n~ StEee~ ~0
35 ~d been p~y to t~e C~ty O~ Denton, T~ devetope~
o~g[~l~y wanted to go to the Co~tn~ ex~, but ~d an option to go
~O ~e 8~dy 5ho~e8 extt along the tnteEsta~e. TM Ct~F ~d s~ated
~ vented both. ~ co~ttou on the add~ttonal 5~-~a~e
Te~. development ~o the south would add th~u Etg~t-o~-vay. Denton
had an ag~ee~nt v~th Co~tnt~, a~ sta~ ~e~t al~ issues ~ad bean
covered.
Counct~ Meube~ ~Xdaa8 aSKed ~at voutd be the tmpac~ ~[ two lanes
o~ the ~oadvay ~re taken out and the density o~ the g~oJec~ reduced,
8Vehla ~epo~ted ~hat sta~ ~d not loo~ed at ~s, a~d tt ~ut~ be
at~.~ ~ugoee~ble to accoug~tsh ~ose catculatto~s pEio~
January 2~
Couna~l Heube~ Stephens asked w~ was ~he oveEa~ density ~o~
~uton.
byte stated t~ s~a[~ could provide thto tn~orMtton ~o~ the
Cou~ctl at ~he next ~et~ng.
Counetl Meube~ Stephen8 asked how htg~ would ~ ~he
port,on oE La~evtev.
~. Boge~ ~ar~ett, ~eg~esenttng ~he develope~, stated ~hat the
highe8~ condominium8 Would be seven I~o~ee, a~ the o~ce
but~d~nge ~uld be t~ to ~h~ee 8~oEie, tn ~etght.
DE~ve v~th the density o~
~tte~l, teal estate, pezsonuel and boazd appoint~nts.
ac~on was
449
~et~ng o~ Jauu~y ~4,
t522a
450
CLLM Council Minutes January 21.
~he Council convened into the work session at 5:00 p.m. tn the Civil
Delenee Room,
PltE$~NT: Mayo: Stewa£t; Mayo£ Plo Tsm Hopkins: Council NaBbete
&lfo£d. ~tephens and Rtddlespetget
&cling City Manager. City &ttotney and City Gectetaty
ABSENT: Council Members Chew and Me&dams
1. The Council constdeced the conditions and economic impact
amalyets on Z-L??9 (Petition of Millet of Texas - Lakevtew
Development).
Acting Ct:y ~nagec Rtc~ avehta cepotted :~at the ~eCat~ea ecomomic
impact a~lysta tmiot~tton had beer received by t~e City Council tn
the age~a packet.
Council ~bet Nc~a~s ioimed the ~e~tng.
8ve~la ~ucthet ce~octed t~at staf~ ~outa pcesemt t~e high points o~
on JaauazM 20 showing pmolected zevenuea at t~e build-out
Lakevtew, This data included taxes, lines a~ fees. Solid waste
e~a~ge8, and utilities. Aisc sho~ ~ece the expe~ttutes.
as the developez ~outd be ceepommtble ~oc the tnte:~l street
the coaple:ton ol build-out,
Council Member Chew Joimed the meeting.
Svehta capocted t~at stall ~a attempted to pectate services
currently being pcovtdea and extend t~em out to teac~ t~e
tn the economic impact analysts. T~e Police ~patt~nt ~utd add 2A
o::tcets oyez a tS Meet peztod. ~hts ~outd include addttto~l
supetvtsotg personnel, veWLcles a~ clerical support. Im other
~tds. ~hen the nu~bec o: police oi:toete leached a certain point.
a~dtttomal clerical a~ eupecvtmoty pecsonmet would have to be
added. The Ft~e ~pa~tment would ~ve to add 10 itteitghtets during
~e 20 Mea~ build-out, as well aa ~ pieces o~ equipment and
substatton. The cost oi the substation an~ ~he addttto~l
~outd total appzoxt~tely $20,000,000. These figures we~e not
t~oluted undec expenditures but ~a2hez unde~ deb~ service, To~aed
~he coaptetton ol build-out, the s~atton ~outa covez ~ze ~n Just
Lakevte~. Appzoxi~tely 75t cE t~e cost toz eezvictng the
~ould be attztbutabte to the hakevie~ development at It~s~: ho~eve~.
as the suzzoundtng land also developed, the ctt~ lactttttes and
services tn place ~ould also sezve the entt~e azea. ~eqa~dtnq the
Parks a~ Red,cation Department, a number o[ ~oettion ~uld bm added
over the lile oi the hakevia~ pcoJect. Rpp:oxt~tely
ici the [mp:ovement and development off all pa~ks ~n the City o~
~nton was ceilected tm the Capital Imptove~mts Program.
htbta:y had esCt~ted apptoxt~tety l~00,000 got buildings and
sta~tng, vhtch wece based on extmtt~g sta~tng levite. The City of
Denton htbtacg did mot currently stall accotdtag to state
eta~atde. The total estimate :et the Library was ~9~2,900 o: which
1600,O00 was tn the Capital Improvement etogtam ici
buildings. The Solid Nacre ~pattaent would ~ve to ~ve an
additto~l :cute to seers hakevtew. Another cost ~utd be ici
additional tcucks and the use ol the tand~tll. These costs would be
s~ltt thcough various departmental budgets a~ operating costs,
eye,la then pcesented an Dye:head pcolecttom o: t~e cost ct
~tc~ was cutcemtly La ei:ect. The bottom Lime on t~e expenditure
side was app:oxtmately $43,g00,000 a~t on the Eevemue side the
itq~te was ap~coxt~tety $31,g00,000. The $13,000,000
ici t~e parks would be used bM all the citizens oi ~aton, mot Just
the residents o: the Gakeview development. The net loss to the City
was appcoxt~tety $B,900,000 which did mot take into account the
$13.000,000 Eot 9azks. Howevec, a positive tolta~ Itguce could ~t
451
Cit~ o~ D~nton city council M~nutea
Hooting o~ JamuacF 21. 1986
be plac~d on the 6 la~ ~ozcidor ~ich the developec would be
building, This stzemt ~ould be used by other ~l~n Lakev~ew
reeidentt.
Cecile Cazaon. U~bau Planme~. dict£~buted in~oc~at~on regarding
density. The ~icat oompacieon was between
uulti-famil~ a~ mobile ho~8 in the City a~ ga~e the density
uutti-~amtty, mobile hOneS a~ ~keview and gave the density
ao~e. ~ third co~n ad,ed theme to~ethe~ to ~[ve the
density. I~ all the ~estdenttal land in Lakev~ew was added to all
um~ in ire C~M, t~ density seethed 1~ un~te ~ez acze. I~ the
portion o~ ~he p~opoled davelo~memt which included ~he 50 un~t~
acze ~e~a ~ele~ed, t~ deaatty ~as then a~p~ox~ely 8 1/2 un[ts
p~g
be ~de on v~et~ ~o aae~qn a ce[ta[n amount to the ~hole C~tM
omlM to la,evil. T~ eco~c ~pact e~tt~tea oyez 20 Meaze would
~eflec~ al~mt a~l o~ t~m comte me,metaled v~th the develoment, but
~ot t~e ~evemuee ~tch ~u~d be ~enezated a~tez tWe eoa~
expemded~ ~.e., paz~e ~tch ~utd be buil~ and c~z~in~ ieee.
Council ~mbee ~tephen~ ~ked t~e staff fo~ the good Job which
been do~ in a ghost pe~tod o~ tt~ and asked tf ~he~e was amy more
in~o~tton due tn ~tch miq~t influence the voZe on this p~opoaal.
6vmhla ~em~ed on~ the parka amd Capital Improvement Pzogcam
numbecm.
Coumc[1 ~ube~ ~a~e e~a~d t~t the pcopooed pack~ ~ould d~av
people ~o ~a~on who uece ao~ ~m~on cesidente and would no~ be
~ouncil bsbe~ R~dleepetQe~ aeW~ [~ the eta[~ had am~ data on the
school coats.
Council ~be~ ~a~ l~ated that ~he wam concerned abou~ ~he
demetty. T~ out,emi ~at~ was 4 units pe~ ac~e. Mithout the
h~h-EigO poEtio~ cE t~e pEo~eed develop~nt, the dematty ~u~d be
8 un, tm ~z seem. Mtt~ the bt~-ztae po~t~om, the denl[t~ ~uld be
16 untie ~ sate,
app~ozi~tely 40% mote ~ltt-~amil~ housing than cup,early existed.
~yo~ PO Tem ~p~nm scaled ~ ~e wanZed ~o know what the ~o~al
develop tnt ~8 built-out.
coumci~ ~ubez Rt~lespe~eE e~ated that he would ~e to eec
~outd t~m 9ectton add to o~ ~uld ~emoval ~ake fffom the total
Council ~e~ 5Ce~e~ eta~d ~hat ig t~e demmity wece ~eduoed, the
6 %ane~oad~F ~uld not ~ ~eded and asked ~e~e was CUe "bceaR-
even"P~mt ~o~ the develops.
t~e Cutuffe w~thec ~e de~tty wam ceduaed cc not.
would ~ece~ve the 120 ~t =~g~t-o~-way amd the aeve~ope~ would
build 4 lamas.
52City o¢ Denton City Council
I~etiUg o~ Janua£y 21. 1986
Page Thcee
2. The Council convened into the Executive Sossion to discuss
legal ~Atte£s, £eal estate, pecnonneX and boacd appointments. Mo
o~toial action was taken.
The Council then convemed into the ~egulaz ~eeting at 7:00 p.m.
the Council Chambecs.
PR~SL'~T: Mayo~ ~tewa£t; Mayoc Pco ~em Ro~n~; Council
wc~ing city ~nagec, City W~ocney. and City 8e~ce~acy
~S~: Moue
v~e c6umcil consi~ece~ appcova~ o~ ~e a~nu~ee oC ~e
Re~ulac Meeting oC Deceubec ~7.
Ri~d~eepe~gec uo~on, M~Adaue second ~o appcove C~e M~nucal
pzememCed. Motion ca~ed u~nt~uely.
2. Consent A~e~a
Riadtespe~qec mo~om, Hopkins 8econ~ ~o appzove the Consen~ ~enda
aa pcesen~ed. Motion cacc~ed u~niuoualy.
Consent
W. B~ds and Purchase Ocdec8:
Bid ~ 9~70 - F~ce ~pac~ment Un~ocus
2. Pucch/se O~de~ ~ 71270 to Alamo Tcans~ocmec
the a~ount o~
3. Pucehaee O=dec 9 71712 to Joan Co,gem ~n the
i~ount o~
4. Puuchame Ocde~ W 7~9~8 to Motoco~a in the amount
o~ 850.568.00
B, Plats a~ Replats:
1. Approval of pcel~m~cy plat o~ the Chad
~ddi~ion, Lo~ 1. Block 1. (The V~anning a~
zonin~ co~issioa ~eco~emde appcoval.)
Snidet ~ditiom, 6cotton II, Lots l, Z. 3,
2~, 22 and 23, BlOck 6. (The Vlanmi~ aaa
Coutssion ~eeo~en~8 approval,)
3. A~toval o~ pcel~mt~cy and ~inal cepla~ o~
McKennon's ~ddition, Lot 6, Bloc~ 1. (T~e
Plannin~ and Zonin~ co~ssion ceco~e~e
4. ~Vp~oval ot pzel~zM ~nd ~na1 zepla~ ol the
No~thside kdd~t~on. Lots 10 a~ ~1, 8lock 2.
appcoval.)
5. App~ova~ oC pceltminacy and ~inal ceplat o~ the
~olden Tzian~le I~uet~at ?azk ~dt~on, P~ee
V, hot 2, Block ~. (The Plaunin~ a~
6. Approval o~ ptelim~y plat og the ~mbetla~
~esbyte~iau ~ild~en'a Ho~e ~dttton, Eot
Block 1. (The Plamning and Zoning Co~is~ion
=eco~ends a~proval,)
453
¢£ty o~ Denton ¢~ty coun~l ~nutee
J(eet~ng o~ J&nua~y 21, 1986
Fage FouE
i(ayoc s~ev&ct aauouaced t~ ~eu 9.H ~ad been zeuoved ~zom ~e
agama by ~he .Ca~.
The Council co~deced a~p~ova~ o~ ~equemt by ~t~ Scouts
o~ ~eELca to ~ng a ban~o~ 4cEoss Ca~o~ aoulevacd at
t~t t~e banners ~u~d be up ~ou February ~4 to ~Ech 9 on t~e
Sout~b~u~ ti~ o~ 2a~Eot~ ~u~eva~d.
Hopk~nl ~o~ion, ~l~o~d goco~ ~o approve the ~eques~.
cad,ted
4. The Comment Eece~ved a ~ecoue~a~on on c~ty ~undtng o~
R~tzabe~h Ivi~, Co~r ~o~ent ~ge~, ~epoEted
currently D~Yi~ t~e ut~lit~ cost8 ~o~ the dominoe p~ayera ~n the
same bu~kdt~,,
notion. ~a~ seao~ ~o a;ptove the
~ng ~Lty ~ger Rick 8ve~a ~epo~ed t~t no~ly t~Ls wou~d
~equi~e S~ ~tton on t~ bu~et. 6taXi ~elt the added cost vould
uoney. ,~ ~ea~Eog~titton o~ ~uud~ might have ~o be ~de in the
CouGeL~ ~C ltdd~es~cge~ stated t~at th~8 ~Eoug eou~d be using
t~t, ant ~ C~y van a~Eo~y payt,, the cost vou~d be tnctden~a~.
~tion ~ ~ t~ ~[ng ~o[ the utility colts ~o~ the
Country ~ CeaSE e*=~ u~n[~ously.
p~an anteing ap~ox~Mtely 34.68 accee situated in the H. Fox,eft
and ~e~t~h&E ~o ~o ee~tecl~ne o~ ~ 426, approximately 2,000
~eet eas~ o~ ~y~i~t .need A-t4.
~ ~l~ ~ZHG A T~CT OF ~ ~TIOUOUB
, ~CT ~ ?~t ~ ~ CON6IST~NG OF APPROXI~LY 34.60
~8 ~ ~ LYX~ ~ BEING SITUA~D IN ~ C~TY OF
~, GT~ OF ~6 ~ BRIN~ P~T OF ~ M. ~R~ST
G~, ~ST~T ~. 4~7. DEaN ~U~. TE~5~ CLASSIFYING
VOte, E~lll "aye." HO9~8 naye," Gtep~nl "aye," A~ocd "aye,"
Htdd%eg~Ege~ Uiye," ~v .aye," and ~yo= 6teva=t "aye." ~ttou
454
City of Denton City Council #inures
Nesting o~ Januacy 2t, t986
6. The Council consideced adoption o~ an ocdieJ~Oe a~td service
plan annex~n~ app~oxt~te~y ~50 lOESs situated ~n ~ D.
Survey, Abet=act 646. a~ beginning ~I~ o~ ~yh[~l
~CT OR P~CEL OF ~ ~BIGT~ ~ ~P~KI~LY
DE~N, 5TA~ OF ~8 ~ B~ING P~T ~ ~ D.
~ G~ A8 AGRZ~L~L "A" DZ6~I~ P~R~;
D~C~I~ ~ ~FPRCTI~ DATE.
Chew motion, atddlespe~e~ seco~ to adop~ ~ o=dtna%oe, On =oil
east VO~e, ~am8 "aye," Hopkins "aye," Stephens "aye," AlEo~d
"aye, n ~tddlespe~ge~ 'aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yo~ G~i~t "aye."
~ton cad,ted unantBously.
The Council oona~de~ed adoption el an o~dl~nee a~
plan annexin~ approxt~tely 60,38 accel situat~ tn t~ G.
GUCVey, Abstract 1330, a~ beginning adjacent and e&s~ o~
Road app~oxt~te~y t,O00 lees east el ~yhtll Road
The iottovtn~ o~dtnance vas 9~e~ented:
~. 86-t5
T~ OR P~L OF ~ ~IGTIM~ ~ AP[~XI~LY 60.38
~RE8 OF ~ LYIN~ ~ BEI~ GIrArD IN ~ C~
D~T~, STATE OF ~ ~ BEI~ P~T ~ ~ ~.
5~Y, ~8~CT NO, t330, D~ ~,
C~SSIFYI~ ~ S~ A5 ~RI~L~ "Ac DIG~Z~
iCep~na motion, Chew leco~ to ldo~t t~e oEdi~nce. ~ colt call
race, ~a~ "aye," Hopkins "aye." Stephens "aye, . Attend "aye, .
Riddleeperge¢ "aye," Chew "aye," a~ ~yor ~t~art 'eye."
earr ted unantnousZy.
8. Public Heac tnq8
A. The Council held a public ~eacing o~ ~be Petition o~
R, O. ~Donne]l ~equsstin~ a change in zont~ i~o~ ~he
3~.4 acre ~act located on the sou~h stQe ol FN 4~6 (Bast
Street) apD~oxtaatety ~,000 ieet east ot ~yhitt Road. Ii epp~oved,
tbs planned devalogmen~ w~ll perBit t~e ~otlow~ la~ uses:
5.9 acres generat re~ait
33.5 ac~e8 _
duptex
·~ ~Fo~ opeaed ~he public
No one a~o~e in laver. '
Mo one Spoke tn
Cecile Cacaon. Ucban Plan~e~, cego=c~ ~ha~ 5 ~egly ~o~ ~d been
~ttod ~th 0 titucned, This Zoning cequelt was being reconsidered
beeaule et the annexation. These wets no lube&chiSel c~ngel tn the
otdiunce.
455
City cC Denton City COuncil
Meeting cE January 2~, ~986
Page SLx
NO. 86-~6
~5, A8 5~ ~ ~P~D ~8 ~ APP~IX TO ~ CODE OF
~DI~8 OF ~ CI~ OF D~ON, ~ BY O~DIN~ NO.
6g-1, ~ ~ED, ~ ~ SAID ~P ~PLXE8 TO 39.478 ACHES
~ ~ ~D ~ ~ S~ SIDE OF F.H. 426 (EAST
P~I~ FOR A ~QR IN ZONING C~58IF ICATION
~I~h aA" DI~ICT C~5~IF ICATION ~ USE
IN ~ ~I~ ~ OF St,000.00 FOR VIO~TION5 ~REOF;
~ ~VIDI~ FOR ~ E~ECTI~ DA~.
~ams Ho~ion. C~ew aeco~ to adopt the o=dt~nce. On zolt cal~
vo e, "aye," HOp~t~ "aye," Stephen8
Rtddlelpe~qe~. "aFl," Ch~ "aye," and ~yo~ 8~ewa~ "aye.' ~ion
cat,ted a~nt~usLy.
B. The Counctt held a Rubric hca=trig on the pmtttton o~
~e~ , & NaSh, InC. =~ues~tn~ a change
agricultural (~) classification to ~he ptanned developuen~ (PD)
dist~tct~ io~ tt~ht i~uit~iit (LI) uses on a 50.1 ac~e t~act tocated
on the ~t stye ol ~yhttl Road 4,300 iee~ no=th
No=th. Z-1727
The ~yo~ o~n~ the public heaEtng.
No one tpo~e ~u
No one Spo~o tn
The ~yo~ clos~ the 9ublic hea~in~.
Cecile ~on, U~ba~ P~anne~, EspouSed tha~ 2 ~epty Ictus ~ad been
~iled. T~o was a co=E~ton in th~s ozdi~nce that a 6 [eet
~enee ~ld ~ located alO~ the ~eon ~ga=d
what ~he, d~lap~nt ~s,
and wou~d ~ve to ~ve a site gtan apg=eyed. Was the=e a c~nce
t~at ag~e~8 co,Id be ~taeed on ~a~cel
tndumt~tal uses~
Ca=aCh =es~o~ t~t ~ ont[ way t~t could be done ~uld be
Nayo~ P~o Tea ~p~t~s as~ t~ the p~oposed hoop 288 extension ~o
the east ~uld ~ot cross thta
Cat;on t~s~ed that ~t ~ul4 co~e vety close. The new
the pco~ty ~e aware o~ thLI and ~e wtttt~ ~o work etch the
t. T~ Co~ctl eonside~ed adoption oi an o=d~nce
agp=uvtng a c~n~e tn zo~t~ on a %0.t ae=e t~aot located on the
The CotLOvtUg otd~unee via ptmaeuted:
NO. 86-17
456
city of Denton City Council Minutes
Maettug of Jenua=¥ 21, 1986
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEY~S BY ORDINANCE NO.
69-1, AS AMENDED, AND RS ~AID M~P APPLIES TO 50.1%76
OF [~ND LOCATED ON THE WEST 8IDS OF MAY}fILL RO~D 4,300 PEET
NORTH OF INT]~RSTATE 35 NORTH, A6 MORE PAI{TICULAHLY
DESCRIBED ~EREIN, TO PROVIDE FOR A C~AN~E IN
CLASSYFTCATION FEO~ A~RICULTURAL #Aa DI~THICT
CLASSIFICATIO~ ~ USE DESIGNATION TO PL~D D~VELOP~{~NT
"PD" DISTHICT CLASSIFICATION ~ND US~ DESI~NATION~ PROVIDI~
FOR A PENALTY IN A I~X~I~JI{ AMOUNT OF $~000.00 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF~ AND PROVIDIN~ FOR AN EFPECTIVE DATE.
6tephene motion, Chew second to adopt the o£dtnanee. On toll call
Riddlesp,£gec "aye," Chew "aye," and Mayo: Stewa£t "aye." Motion
ca££ted unanimously.
C. The Council held a p~blic heating on the petition
Tommy Cocpocatton N.V.. represented by Mettoplex Engines:lng
Cotpo£ation. tequeeting a change in zoning icom the ag£icultutal
classification to the planned development (PD) classification on
60.38 acres. The p£ope£t¥ la ~ocated no£th and eaeC of gdwa£de Road
end shown Ln the Gideon Walke£ Su£¥e¥. Abst£&ct NO. 1330. The
following land uses ace p£opoeed fo£ the planned development:
Single Family (aP-7) 25.0 acces, density ¢.5 units
~e£ ac£e. total units
Ze~o ~ot Line - L3.O ac£es, density &.l units pet
ac£e° total unite 79
Multi-Family - 13.7 ac£ee, density 15 unite pet ac£e,
The Na¥o£ opened the public
No one spoke tn ~avo£.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayo£ closed the public hea£tng.
cecile Cacson, U=ban Planne£, £epo£ted that ~ £eplF fo=~ had been
mailed with 1 £etucned in [avo£ and 1 £etu=ned in opposition. This
petition was bastcall~ the same as the last time with one addLt~onal
condition that a tree ~teee£vatton plan must be submitted along
a comprehensive site plan fo£ the ~lti-fa~ly development.
ceapect to the waste disposal plant.
Catson £esponded the plant wa8 1ocate~ to the
1. The Council considered adoption o~ au o£dinance
app£oving a change tn zoning on a on 60.38 sates t£act located north
and east of Edwa£ds Road
The following ocdLnance was presented:
NO. 86-18
AN O~DINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON,
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF D~NTO~, T~AS BY O~DINANCE NO,
~9-1. A5 AMENDED, ~ND kG SkID MAP APPLIES TO &0.3~ AC~ES OF
lAND LOCATED NORT~ AND EAST OF RD~HDS HOAD, ~ I4 MORE
PARTICULAELY DESCRIBED H~REIM, TO PROVIDE POH A CHANGE
ZONINO CLASSIFICATION FRO~ ~RICULT~HA~ ."A" DISTRICT
CLAZSIP~CATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO P~ED DEVelOPMeNT
"PD" DISTRICT CLASSlFIC&TION ~ U5E DESIGMATION~ PROV]D]N~
FOR A MAXIMUM ~ENALTY OF $1,000.00 FOR VIOlATIONS
PROVIDINO FOH A 5EV~EANILIT~ CLAUSE; ~ PROVIDIN~ FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council M~nutee 4 5 7
Meertng ~' ,$anua,'¥ ~t.
Page
M~aus ~tton. Ch~ ee=o~ ~o adop~ ~he o~tnanoe, On ~ott
vote. M~8 "aye," ~p~tn8 nays." Stephens "aye.' lttotd "aye,"
Stddlel~e~E "aye." Ch~ "aye., and ~yot 5levitt "aye." Motion
cacEted
9. Ordinates
accepting coupett~tve bids a~d pEovtdtag fo~ the awazd of contracts
for the putouts o~ ~cettatu. equtpuent, supplies or services,
· he iottowing o~dt~ce was p:eseuted:
~. 86-L9
~FO~ ~ PR~IDI~ FOR ~ EFFECTI~ D&~.
Che~ ~ttOa, ~td~les~qe~ second to adopt the o~dt~nce.
call vote, ~all "aye,' Ho~k~s "aye,' Stephens ~aye." ~t~otd
"aye." Btddlelgltget "aye," ~ ,a~e.,, a~ ~yot
~tton cattto~ u~nt~ue~y.
B, The Co,oil considered adoption ol an ordinance
ptovtdt~ ~ot the expo~ttu~e o~ ~u~8 ~ot eue~genc~ putc~se8
ulcerate, equt~nt, supplies o~ le~vtces tn accordance
provisions oi s~a~e taw exempting such purchases ~om ~equl~euen~e
o~ coupe~t~tve bide.
The ~otlowtng ozd~mce wa~
~. 86-20
~ ~IN~ PR~IDI~ FOR T~ EXP~ITURE OF F~5 FOR
Si~I~ IN A~CR NITH ~ PROVISION8 OP STA~ L~
~I~ 8U~ ~ES FR~ REOUI~S O~ ~ETITI~
Chew mo2ton, Et~oEd second ~o adopt the ozdtnance. On
vote. ~a~ Uaye,' Hopkins 'aye, ~ 5~ephon8 "aye,
Rtddlesp0~ge~ says," Ch~ u'aye," and ~yot ~tewa~t "aye.' ~tton
C. ~e Cou~it oonside~ed adoption oi an o~dt~nce and
eao~ o~ t~e eeu~etttne o~ U.S. Highway 377 and south o~ Blush Ctee~
Road, a~ being pazt ol ~he Oeozge M. Daughez~M Survey.
35~ A-lt.
David Elttson, 6enio~ Pla~e~, ~epo~te~ ~hat ~ta vas one o[ six
anmexa~nu w~tch ~ze ~elohedule~ due to an adveEttstng
The ~ollo~tng o~di~nee ~as 9~esented:
~. 86-21
~ ORDIN~ ~AI~ A ~CT OF ~ C~TIGUOU5
~~ ~ ~ CI~ ~ DE~, TE~S; B~I~ ALL ~T LOT.
~ ~ I~ ~I~ ~ B~ING 5I~ATED IN T~ ~Y OF
~, ~TA~ OF ~5 ~ BEIN~ PART OF T~ QEORQ~ W.
Mc~au8 :uo2ton, Chew lec~ to adopt ~he otdt~nce. On
vote. ~a~ .'aye,: HOplinl "aye," Stephens "aye," ~tlotd 'aye,"
cad,ted u~ntlously.
~i~y o~ Denton C~ty Council
~et~.ng o'g Janua~ 2~.
o. ~e cou~c~ cons~e=ed a~o~on o~ au ordinance
service ~an annexing a~prox~e~y 93.67 ao~,. beg~g 3SO
8ou~ o~ an~ pe~po~cu~a~ ~o ~e ce~oc~ne o~ ~,8. H~g~y 38O
· ~e ~o~ov~ng o~nan~e was p~eaeu~e~:
~. 86-22
ACRE$ O~ ~ LYING ~ BRING SI~A~D IN ~ C~ ~ "
D~, STATE O~ TE~S ~ BRI~ P~T OF ~ M.
5~Y, ABST~T NO. 417, ~ON CO~, ~81 C~B~IFYI~G
8~eg~*ns ~ton. Ch~ se~on~ to ~09~ ~ o~tt~=oe. On ~ott call
Rt~dtelpe~ge~ "eye," 2lev "aye," a~ ~yO~ S~e~ 'iyo."
ca,=ted unantuouily.
E. The Council constdo~ed adoption ot an oEil~nc8
~z&~ Survey, Abstract 514, and ~gtnninq ap~oxtutely 500
nOE~h Oi a~ peEpe~tcula~ to t~ ce~e~ttne ol U.~. Btgh~y 380 a~d
~8~ o~ ~scb B~anc~ Road A-tS.
T~e ~ottowtng o~dt~nee was p~agented:
~ ORDIN~CE ~XING A ~T OF h~ ~I~8
~T TO T~ ClW OF D~, ~G: BIlK lt~ ~T
T~CT O~ PHC~L OF L~ C~8IETING OF ~P~I~LY 42.3S
AC~6 OP h~ ~YINQ ~ ~I~ GIrArD I~ ~ ~TY
D~N, STA~ OF TE~ ~ BRI~ ~T O[ ~ 8.
T~ G~ AG AGRICUL~ uA" DIG~ICT ~OPER~
c~ aotton, ~a~s second to adop~ ~e o~din~c~. On ~oll
VOtt,, ~ldail "aye," Hopkins "aye," S~e~enl "aye, · At~oEd "aye,
Rtddtelpe~gec "aye," C~e~ "aye," a~ ~yo~ 8t~ "aye. ·
caEEtld unanimously.
H,~.P. & P.R.R. Survey, AbstraCt t470; t~e B.P. ~e;sou
Abstract 161 the E,A. Ott Survey, ~sttact 993; ~ht G.N. Andet~
8utvey. Abstract 12; the M.E.P, & P.R.R. ~utvey, Absttac~ t%O2;
t~ T & P Survey, Abs~tact 1302. ~nton County, Texasl bet=~ 9at~ ot
a tract ~no~ as ~e Golden ~o~ ~eh and beginning Sou~b o~ U.9.
H~g~y 380, east o~ FN ~56, and west o~ ~gan Road A-32.
The [~low[nq o~d~nanue was
~ ORDIN~CE ~XI~ A ~ ~ ~ ~I~U8
~T TO ~ CI~ OF D~N, ~: BBI~ ~ ~T ~T,
BUR~Y, ABG~CT NO. 9831 ~ T & P ~I~
~G~ ~RR 1302; ~ ~P & P~ CO. ~Y,
~ER 1470; ~ ~P i PHH ~. 8~Y, ~S~T ~. 1502;
~ E. F. ~K~GON 8~Y, ~GT~ ~. 16; ~ ~ G.
~ERSON ~y, ABS~T 12, D~ C~,
~ DEC~RI~ ~ EFFECTI~ ~.
Page Ten
Chev notLo&, Ben,hens saconni to adopt the ordinance. On toll call
R~ddleu "&ye,' CheV "aye," &nd Nayo£ BeeriEr 'aye." ~o~
~ac~ed
~Q, T~ Couucl~ ~on~e~ed a~op~on o~ an o~d~nce
setting ~ date, t~ ~nd 9~loe foe ~ub~c he~ng8 on the p~o~oeed
annexlt~on o~ ~to~to~y 6~4.6 i~el be~n~ pate o~ t~e R. P~c~ett
~nte~est fE~ ~ teuLdem~e o~ O~d AXton Kititef-at~he~ te~
mu~v~t&e~ ~ M~t develop; ~vevet, dut~ the stages.
u~o~.~s ~.~ o~ t~ come,ns o~ the oxd Axto~ Estates
co.unity. ~t ~ct~v~ty genet&ted ot vas te~tesentlt~e o~
~nd~v~dua~s ~ ~te voluntary petitioners v~th th~s request. ~he~e
vas a 2~7 tract ibutt~g the ~nto~ ~not i~te to the ~st vh~ch vas
the ex~g o~ty SLuttg, To ~epo~t on t~e ove~asS
~iotu~e ~t~ t~ City. ~t~ Jazzy ~, ~e85 to Jaflua~y ~, ~986,
annexations. ~8 d~ not ~ncXude t~e s~x petitions ~ot aunezat~on
C~ty an~t~ons duE&ns ~18~ ve~a voXu~taty. Vh~Oh was o~e oC the
· nneEaC~OM ~tev~ duE~ t~ ~nth OC January ve~e ~nc~uded, the
tote~ a~ei~e ~u the Ctty vouX4 t~en be 30,090.89 ac~e..
~&nu&~y ~, ~91~ a~ Ja~Ey 3~, Xg86, toughly 2200 a~tea ~d been
I~toE~e~y 4&.~ Iq~AEe S~ei, ~e C~ty could a~ex & ~u o~
annexation,
counci~ ~c RtddXe~z state~ t~at thin ~a~ceZ vas a~ong
o~ the ~Eo~e~ 8out~ Loop
E~son~t~ t~t a ~ o~itment hid not bean received t~ou
the state to ~t the C~CV'I conoept ~ot the Xoop. ~ then
te~etz~ au ~ez~4 ~o~ect~on o~ t~e ~p o~ the p~oposed
~yot 8 ~g le~t t~ ~et~g as he o~ed property In the ~toDole~
anne~t~
railroad &~e. &p~toE&~tely l.o0o acts, tot anne~t~on
ot~g~lXy ~ea d~sousmea; ~o~vet. dueto poor toad co~t~o~s amd
a bt~ge over the o~ee~ ~ ~uXd be ~mo~u~e~, t~e ~t~el ~ beem
teduoed. T~te ~te &Lie ptobleu8 LG obtaLu~g accurate lega~
Ryan Road a~ Rto~oty ct~ Roe4~te d~c~u~t to get to. Along
t~e nott~ I~ ot K~e~ogy C~ee~ loa~ t~ece vets a~p~o~Lutely 7
occupLe~teet~e~ee ~tch Wvld be ~ncluded, Included ~te the stat
south I~ o~ Kteko~y C~ee~ ~oad t~ete wag l single ~aut~y teitdence
vhteh ~ld ~ ~a~en tmto ~e Ct~y. Sta~ tet~ ~he~e azea should be
cometdez~ Co[ aamexaCton. The Council coutd ~educe the
460
C~ty o~ Deuton City Council ~tnute~
#eeting of January 21. ~986
Page Eleven
~ollowing the creek, and have the boundary line at the bzidge and
still include the high tupact ptope£ty ae ~a£ as current activity
was concerned,
Council Member Mc~dams asked the parcel being presented at this time
included the bridge.
Ellieon responded that ~t did tneluds the bridge, but not the toad.
Council ~mbet stephens asked i~ all o~ the o~e~e in the parcel ~ad
voluntary annexation.
acres coming in pith a voluntary petition. The oemeEa had responded
a planking and land use ~o[nt, the City mtght not be able to wait as
the~e was already discussion o~ deve~o~uent tn
zeco~md~ng t~t the ~izgt public Aeazimg be held om YebEuazy 4 and
the eeeond public hea~n~ on Febzua~y 18.
The ~ollow~n~ o~dinamce was
~. 86-24
· N OHDIN~CE SE~INO ~ DATE. TI~ ~ PL~R F~ PUBLIC
~AHING5 ON T~ PHOPOSED ~T~ OF C~HTA~M P~PEH~
DESCRIBED ~REIN BY ~ C~ OF
~HIZ~NG ~ DIHECT~NG ~
SUCH PUBLIC ~INGS.
~a~s ~otion, Chew Second to adop~
vote. Mc~dau8 "aye," ~teghens "aye." ~l~oed
elye,e Chew "aye." e~ ~yo~ P~o Teu Hopkins "aye," ~tton cad,ted
unant~u~y.
~o= Stewart Joined the
H. The Council considered adoption o~ an o~d~e
authorizing t~e u~e o~ compensatory
T~I i~ou was ~enoved ~ou the agenda by
10. Resolutions
A. The Council considered app~ova~ o~ a ~esotutton
co=potation [o~ the constuctton a~ ~atntenance o~ 9ipeline~ and
appu~te~nces.
Aattng C~Lv ~get Rick Gve~la tape=ted t~t thig wis a resolution
~o~ the City and there would be o~ ~tom the Cou~t~ to allow
Enmea~eh to go onto the Flow Hospital p~ope~ty to ~ke c~nge~ and
an t~9=ovementm to the d~strtbutton
Council ~mbe= Stephens as%ed ~( tht~ was on~y to me=~ Flow.
8vlhla ~empo~ed yes.
The ~,ollowing resolution was pzelented:
RESOLUTION
Xeuo~a~ Hospital: and
City cC Denton city council M~nutes
Keetinq OE January 2~. 1986
Page Twelve
,WKRRBAB, t~Le Denton County-City ce Denton, Texas Hospital
Board (Flow Manorial ~ospttal) was created and ope£atee under the
prov[etoKI ot &tittle 449¢t-1 V.~.T.S.; and
Wi~RRAS, satd statute £equt~es that the City o[ Denton and
the Cou~y cC Denton aVVEo~e by resolution any conveyance cC real
BE IT EBSO~V~D BY TH~ CO~dClL OF THE CITY OF DENTON. TEXAG:
That t~e City Council oC the City o[ Denton hereby
authorizes the Denton County-city o[ Denton, Texas Hospital Board to
deecrtbe~ in that easeuent attached hereto.
P&SBED AND APPROVED thee the 21st day cC January. 1986.
RICHARD O, 8TE#AHT, M~YOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
RTTBST:
CiTY OF DENTON, TEXAG
APPROVED ~G ~ L~ FO~:
~op~iR8 motion, Mc~a~l second that the ~e~olution be a~p~oved. On
"aye." Bi4dleSpe~ge~ ,,a~e." Che~ .aye." and ~yo~ Stewart "aye."
Motion ca==ied u~niuoully.
B. The Council considered approval o~ a ~eeolution
authorizing t~o lubatil[o~ o~ an application to the
Justice D[vLiLon ~equelttng funding Cot a Juvenile Police
~cCLng City ~nage~ R~c~ SpeCie repotted that this vas a
continuation o~ a g~aRt fu~[ng program which wa8 in tt~ Coucth
state ~o~l~ pa~ 40~. TEe ~U~e ~uld be used ~o~ ~a[a~tea. eeo.
a Juvenile ~ttce ~C[cec.
$~, iL is ~ooilli~y ~ot the Council oC ~e City o~
Denton ~Q aUthOriZe the lUbB~ll[Qn u~ an application to the Texas
Criminal Justice Dip[itOh =aquas=lng Cu~[ng ~oc a Juvenile Police
~E~, ~ct~cte %41~ (~2a), V.T.C.S. was a~ended
the C~[ILnal Justice DtvLnto~ oi the ~tate o~ Texas to allocate
g~antl a~d adutntece~ cc[~[~l Justice programs o~ a statewtde
levee: a~
~. C~e City et ~nton is eligible to ~ecetve ouch
Cunds a~ decize8 Co pc~te the public eatery and ~11-betng cC
Depactme~ in its law en[or~a~nt relatimg to Juveniles;
462
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o~ January 21, 1986
Page Thi£teen
~ THEREFORE, BE IT RE6OLVRD BY THE COUNCIL CT TI~ CXT~ OP DLqqTON,
~ECTION ~.
Tha~ t~e City Council
~e=t~e~ ~t the C~ty ~e eligible ~o ~ece~m a ~u~ng alloca~o~
O~cez to au~ent the City's Juvenile Law Em~occement P=og=am amd
Tha~ ~e City Council he~eb~ authorizes
City ~ga~, o~ his ~eeignee, to ~epzeee~t a~ act ~n be~l~ o~ the
City o~ Demton ~m wozK~ng w~th the
=egac~ to such gcant applieat~om.
SECTI~
That a co9~ o~ th~s Resolution shall be ~o~wa=aed to the
Te~s C~tmi~l Justice Division a~ the NotCh Texa~ Central Council
PASSED ~ APPRO~D this t~e 21st day o~ Ja~u*~y. 1986.
RICHARD O. 8TI#ART, MAYOm
CITY OF DENTON, T~KAS
A'TT~ST:
CHA~I~)TTE ALLEN, CITY SECRETARY
CITY Ct~ DENTON. TEXAS
APP~3%~D AS TO LEGAL F~:
~ ~I D~YOVIT~, CI~ A~ORNEY
CITY ~ DE~,
8~ep~nm mo~ion, MoAda~ second tha~ the cesotu~ion ~ approved.
~oll call vote, ~a~ "aye," H~t~ "aye," 6tep~enl "aye," Allo~d
"aye, ~ Rtddlespezge~ "aye," Chev "aye," 4~d ~yo~ S~a~t "lye."
~tioa ca~ied u~ntmously.
c. Conatde~ agp~oval of a ~esoluttoa apD=ovtng
n~t~tton o8 D~. Jim B. Pearson ~ Place 6 on the No,th Texas
Hi,hex ~ducat~on ~utho=tty, Inc.
~ttng Cit~ ~na~e= Rick 5vehla =e~zte~ t~t t~ta ~eco~atten
~d been =ecetved i=oa the Roa=d ol Dtgec~o~e ct the Nozth Texas
Hlqhez Education Authoztty, Inc. a~ ~d ~us been ptace~ on
agenda.
T~ lellow~ng =eaotution was peeae~ted:
R E 50~UT I O~
~[IS, M~. ~lvtn Gouge, ~mbe~ oi the Boa'~d el Directors
ct ~ No=th Texas Bt~he~ Education Authority, Inc., Place
~ig~d e~ect~ve 8eptembe~ 30, 19851 a~
~R~S, on January 14, 1986, the Boa~ O~ Directors o~ the
N~th Texas Htghec Education Au~hoct~y, Inc. no~tuated D=. Jt~ B.
Peacson ~o Place 6 on 2~e Boa=dl ~, ~FORE
B~ IT RSSOL~D BY ~ CI~ ~IL OF ~ CI~ ~ ~N, ~T:
463
city o~ Denton Cl~y Council ~inutee
Meeting o~ Januec¥ 21, 1986
The Council hereby approves sa~d nomination and appoints
Dc. Jt~ B. Pearson to Place 6 on the Boa£d o[ Dt£ectots et the No£th
Texas HLghe£ Rducation &uthotity, Inc. tot the Octobe£ l0 198B
th£ough Septe~be£ 30, 1~87 te£m.
,SKCTION Il.
This ~esolutton shall become e~eettve ~tom a~d a~te~ ~ts
PA~SRD AJiD APPROVIID this the 21st day o~ Janua£y, 1986,
CITY OF ~N, TEXAS
RTT~ST:
CH~RLOTT~ ALLRN, CITY
CITY OF ~INTOtlo
APPR~D AS ~ L~L FO~:
Stephens mot[on, Me,ins 8eco~ t~t the ~esolut[on b~ appKoved.
toll call VOte, ~a~ "aye," Hop~[n~ "aye," Stephens "aye." ~l:ocd
"aye." R[d~lel~:ge: nays," Chew ,aye," and ~yot StewaRt "aye."
~0.~255 dozes Located at Kings Roy a~ p~ovosed Loop 288. ~outh o~
David ~ttteon, Se~toc PLanner, presented a conceptual :and use
extend[oB el ~op 288 ~teh ~ould cut at the cotnec o~ this tract.
ptopettF. All /utuze ~i~ht-of-~ay fo~ the Loop had been taken ca~o
~ou:d ~ve on coa~ tn the aced ~ould be tn the ~ay o: pect~etec
s:~eet~. Tho developers vece ~:opostng aV~coxtmately 3.8 acre8 o~
commecctal ta~ usa ~ete the 8outheait edge of the ~opecty ~ould
E8tatet; t~e celtdent8 o~ ~ Bend Estates had stated that they
mot tnte~elted tn being tnotuded ~n the annexation. Brai[ ~a8 not
Council ~lbet Rtddleepetget asked how uany people lLved tn Oa~ Bend.
kouees ~n ~he Oak bend Retards neighborhood
Mc~ame notion, Stephens seco~ to aeoevt t~e voluntacy petition aa
it ~ae and to begin the aanexatton ptoceduces excludtn~ oak Bend
12. The Counc~ held i d~ecuslton o[ ~ettt[on o[ Bella~ce Nest
Partners Eot annexation o[ appcoxt~tel~ 102.49 acte~ begtnnLnq
adjacent a~ no,th o~ Jtu Christal Road. south o[ u,5. Highway 380
464
C~ty of Denton City Council
Neet~ng of January 2~. ~986
vest. app~oxiu~ately 1/2 mt~e east o~ Ragen Road and 3/4 u~le vest of
Unda~vood Road [o~ the purpose sC dete£utntng vhethe= to beg~n the
annexaton p£ocese A-34.
David Ell[son, 5ento~ Planne~, ~epoEted that th~l Vas
petition. The deveZope£s vished to have the paccel a~nexed and had
al£eady submitted a petition Cot light Industrial zoning. The~e vat
~equelt. Residential development vould not be pots~ble und. e£
cumulative zoning ~C ~he an~eza~o~ and ~tgh~ ~USCEta~ Eontng vt~e ,
tract to the Dentom ~nic~pal A[cpo~t. 5talc vas ~nteteBted
w~ethet the Council Wis~ed to add pto~etty to th~s a~tion
aa ~mal t[eld notes had ~ot been ptepated.
Council Member 5top~eue gtate~ that t~ts ~8 at the tequegt si the
devolopet~ and ag&ed w~at vii the t~ 8oh~ule ~o~ develo~ent,
~ll~son responded t~at thete wag ~o tine 8chedu~e ~o~ development.
It wa8 hi8 opinion t~at t~[e petition was lot the putpoae
obta~mim~ zoning: he,ever, ~ven the location et the ex,sting City
limits in th%8 alee and as there wets ~o population, ct ettuctu~e8
In the atea to serve, annexation Wou[~ mot ~tt ~e C~ty. The
a~ 2,000 ~eet veal o~ th[8 s~te. It ~u~d take 8ezious Joint
planning and ~Jo~ development Ln C~e enti~e a~C Vicinity become
a~y activity occu~ed.
Stephens motion, Me,ams second to p~ooeed w~th the
pe~ton a8 it wa8 pcesented. ~t~on cad,led
13. The~e vas no offtc~a~ action on Executive ~ols~om tte~ of
legal ~tce~l, ~eal estate, pezsomnel sE boa~d
14. No items si New Business viis iuqgei~ed bM Council
~o~ ~uCuze agemda8.
15. The Council ~econvened ~n t~e Rxecut~ 8easter ~o d~acueu
legal latter8, ~ea~ estate, pe~eon~ a~ board a~lntment~. No
o~ictal action ~a8 ta&en.
Ntth ~ Cu~t~e~ ~teu sC bua~meS~, t~i meeting w&e adjourned.
1667g
465
C~ty Council Minutes
Febcuacy 4, ~g86
The council convened into the week session at 5:00 p.I. in the Civil
DeCense ~oou.
Al~o£d. Chew. #e~da~. R~ddlespe~ge£ and Stephens
Aet~ng Ctty ~ge~. C~ty Atto~ne~ a~ C~ty
~GRNT: None
1. ~e cou~eL~ ~evt~d pzOposed ~evLston8 to the o~d~nance
been tpl~t ~mto t~ sepazate pzecinct8; however, both el the County
population nu~s ~o~ dtst~tet. An eE~o~ had also been ~ou~
that ee~us ~ac~ 202 sh~ld be located In p~ee[nct D2 a~ not DA.
Co~ect~o~ ~ad ~en ~ a~ none o~ the single uea~
l~nes ~d been ehange~. ~e ~ d~e~tcts took ~nto account the
past yeaE'm aMe~om8 a~ ~he tnczeases ~n population.
2. T~e'~l ~ecet~d the pEeeentat~on oE the a~endod d~aEt
o~ the "6el~t~n P~ooed~Ee~ ~nual" ~o~ ~ttl[mg Council appointed
dEa[~ o~ ~ Mnua~ ~d boon d[ft~butod to the Counc~ ~ubo~s
the~ age~a ~tazial8 a~ asked ~o~ ~u~the~ ~npu~.
"houseKelpt~" tte~ add~; i.e., who called who, when did
Counc~l,~et, v~n ~ze t~ seteet~ons Viseed on t~e Council agenda.
Cou~ct~ ~lboE ~aus 8,~ed she had In u~nd when the n~be~ o~
candidates to= a Council appointed Voa~tton wa8 down to t~. She
would liWe to eeo 8ouethL~ added to the ~mual which ~uld
who would be zesponstble ~o~ keeping the Couucil ~ntoz~ed el the
status OE t~ telectton p~oce88. 8he Sell t~e~e needed to be
~utdelt~es o~ ~n t~ a~ace the selection to the p~ess, otc.
~yo~ Plo T~ ~tna a~ggoste~ that a i~o~ c~tt o~ the seq~enoe o~
events lt~t ~ helpful.
3. The Council conwood ~nto the Executive See~ton to d~scuss
legal M~I, heal ol~a~e, pe~ionnel and boa~d appo[n~ueut8.
o~[ci&l ac~iou~8
The Co~t~ t~en couvenod i~to the Regu~a~ ~eet~ng at 7:00 p.u.
~he Co~I C~ube~s.
PR~$~: ~yo~ I~E~ ~yoE P~o Ten Ho~n8; Counct~ ~ube~a
~ttng C~ty ~ge~, C~y ~tto~ney, and City 6oc~eta~y
~. consen~ Agenda
~lsl ~on, Cht~ le~o~ to a~p~ovo the Conaen~ Agenda
466
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
#eeting el February ¢. 1~6
Page ~o
A. Beds amd Pu~cl~tse O~dece:
1. Bid * 9550 - Mate£ T£eatuent Plant upg£ade
2. Pucchaee Ocde£ # 7094e to NEECO in the &mount of
$32,660.O0
3. Pu£chase O~de£ # 71905 to Rome Rnqinee~s tn the
auoumt of $L5,000.00
4. Purchase O£de£ # 71945 to PARR Equipment in the
a~oun~ el 120,000,00
k. The Council held a publ~o hoa=~ng o~ ~he ~e~on
planned devetopuent (PD) d~st~to~ on i 0.47 ~o~e react ~ooeted
The ~yo= opened ~he publtc boa=trig.
Mc. Jer~y Gage. ~epresen~ing Jan Neats and the Seventh
~t8 tcaot [or o~tce zoning, ~ts oltents ~elt that the butldtng to
be 91aoed on t~e sate would be an advantiDe to the netgbboEhood
~uld upgcade ~he a~ea oonstdecably. Gems o~ ~e pcope~ty on
Paci~to %rEset was in a decttnin~ state. T~eCe ~uld be looses o~
el ~ple St=eel and Pactitc S~reet and adequate paEkt~g spaces
~ 9=ovtded. All oi the butt~tnq8 ~uld be tn accoE~anoe with
o~dinances ~o~ ollice zoning. HiS client would like to place a
~tldtng on the site which wDuld be co~tible w~th a~ imp=eve the
=esidential neiqhbozhood.
M~. Vhitltp Run,u, 416 Maple Street, ~poko tn opposition 8ta~ing
laying to zeeltablieh and ~edevelop ol~e~ netghbozhoods, The oldez
neighbo~hoodz oilseed moze ai~ozdable houe~ ~o yegg couples and
olde~ citizens. He ~d invested quite a eua et ~ey a~ ti~
ee~deling amd zehab[litating his ho~e an~ intended to sta~ theze
~o~ a long time. Thece was a t~e~ to ~e~btltta~o ho~l in this
aces and ielt it ttpoztan~ to t~y ~o zeclala t~e noighboEhood
single Eautly dwellings. ~ did not ieol this developuent would
enhance ~he pEopezty values. Tho pott~tone~ ~ad 8~ated t~ ~he
non-zestden~ pzopezty owners were tn ~avoz o~ the Eezontng;
he did not believe that this was t~e case. All el ~he ho~ovnezs tn
the aEea which he had contacted Were opposed. The 0ity had
developed ~utdeline8 loc lu~uze developuent. CazEoll Boulevard was
designed ~o nova t~alitc a~ the City polioy had been to dtgcouzage
eo~Ecial uses along t~t co,Eider.
Counotl ~abe~ Stephens asked il Mz. Rui~u had Eeoetved a notice
~he pe~ttion.
Ne. Rullu ~espo~ed yes.
Council Meubez Stephens asked il M~. Ruilu had chosen no~
co,plate the zeply ioz~.
~. Runic ~esponded yes; he le~ conliden~ the City Council would
pzotect his
467
City sE Denton City council Minutes
Meeting of Feb=uacy 4, lgl6
Page Th:cae
itayoc 5~evact alloyed Mc. Gage [iye uinutes icc cebuttal.
Mc. ~aga stated that he had contacted one o~ the Smith hates and
they had been in ~a¥oc of the catching. A l~sting of the addcesees
o~ those pocsons he bad contacted and who wece in [avco o~ the
petition had bee~ included in the ~atecials. This development would
not impact the ceeidant~al etceet tca~Ic, Ps£sons coming into the
o~fioe building ~ould come dmen CacEoll to Pacific and then into the
packing lot. The neig~bOzhoo~ had seen seine ce[ucbish~ent: hoveve~,
th[~ ~o~ld be a qual[~y aevelopaent and ~ou~d not detCact ~¢oa the
hones. ~ ~¢ o~ the 'houses ~e~e Cented and acne ~eCe o~e¢
occupied. ~ee~ on Pac~ic a~ ~p~e 8t~eet~ wou~d be ~mp~oved.
ney ~e ~dcant in t~e development ~uld add to ~he ~ce p~oCecCton
capabtli~F. The pett~tone~ ~elt Cht~ uould be an inp~ovenen~ to the
ueighboEhood,
~yo~ S~evatt asked it the people vho ~ad been con~acted by ~[.
lived tn the neighborhood sc ~e t~ey absentee
Gage ~es~onded both.
vece ten,ecs oc a~encee
Sage ceapo~ yes.
~yoc Btwact asked tf ~he ~evelopec planned any cucb cuts on
Ca~coll ~ivacd,
Qage zes~o~ed yes.
The ~yec alosed ~he ~ubl~e hearinG.
Denise 8p~vey. Ucban Plannez. cepozted t~at 18 ceply ~ocu8 had been
~tled ~itb 3 ~e~z~ in gavoz and 2 ze~uzned ~n opposition. One
pu~c~a~d ~EQ~t~ ~ the a~ea but vas not on the tax coils. Three
~equeg~j ~o~ office toat~g on Cad,oil BoulevaEd ~d been ~eeetved.
Denton ~elo~ ~ide ~lt~ ~egazd~ng t~ pze~ez~atton of olde~
neighbo~hoOdW. ~ta~f ~eXt ~heaa ~equests ~hzea~ened ~he s~abtl[ty
o~ t~ olde~ ae~ghbo~o~s a~ ceuld be an enc~ae~n~ ~hich ~ould
open t~e does ~o~ othe~ t~es o~ Especial uses. Three
o~ecs ~d &~p~oach ~ca~"~ ~xp~eased thet~ oppost~ion aa they had
tnvea~ed ~ney co ca,del theic ho~e a~ vece planned on
~he~e. 8o~ o~ c~ ~ouee tn ~ aces vece mot in good cepa~c and
were leos eE~e~ve ~M:' Young couples and olde~ people needed
thin tF~ o~ aeoocdeble ~stnq. The pcoposal would call ice cucb
euitablB ~o~' any 1se other ~n [elidentia~. Natez linel cu[~e~tly
did ~o~ ~ ~he capacity fez adequate tile p[oCec~ion tot
co~letctll ~age. leg~tdt~ c~e ~i~e plan, thece would ~ve to be
an ad~ttio~l Z~ ~eet o~ cight-oC-way ~oc PaoiCic. ~ioh would
elia~te ap~Cely5 pac~ng spaces. Tha cuzb cut on
ceco~ 4enLal to the ~la~tng a~ Zoning Co,lesion aud the
~ ~d~ ne ~o~en- datio~ on the Council on the petition,
Council ~z ~id~lee~qe~ aek~ t~ anyone would build a zes~dence
on th~. lac t~ ~be meigb~od.
Sp~vey cegpo~ld t~t thta could be done; ~he~e vas au~ictemt
pcotection ~oc cee~en~al uses.
468
C~y of Denton C~ty Council ~inutes
Mset~ng of Feb£ua£y 4, ~986
Page ~ouc
Council Meube£ Stephens asked who would be responsible 1or extending
the water line.
Spivey ceeponded the developer.
Council Member Stephens asked would the c~ty share ~n this expense.
wag detscmtned to be nece2eacy to seers othe£ aceas.
~tayoc eeo Tem Hopkins asked tl these wo£e old lines which would meed
to be ceplaced.
Sp~vey £espomded that there cuzzently wam a 6 ~nch wate¢ line. The
5ubd~v~=ion Rule= and Regulations ¢equ[¢ed 1500 gatl~a pe~
~low be p¢ovkded ~o~ ft¢e pzotect~on ~n co,ararat a~ o((~ce use
~yo[ P~o Tam Hopkins asked ~ the wate~ l~ne would have to be
¢eVlaced.
~¢e not old but would have ~o be ~eplaced w~h la,geE l~nes
aoco~odate the ¢equt~ed Ei¢e [low.
develope¢; hoveve¢, the Denton Devolopaent Guide did have
io¢ olde¢ ueighboChoods. ~ny people could not ~t~ a~[oCdabla
housing and t~ the t~end to destzoy otde~ homes continued,
apaztment complex ~ould be ~equ~¢ed. ~ven i~ ~he design ~e~e
at~zact~ve, she doubted that anyone vho l~ved rheem ~uld ~ant an
otitce building ~n 5outhCtdge o~ ~ontec~to. She ~elt th~s ~a. an
in, custom tame the neighborhood which suggested ~o ba~K8 and le~tng
~nst~tutions that the neighbochood was no~ s~able. Th~e, tn
d~eouzaged any new ~es~deut[a~ const~uction o~
~a~s action, Chew second ~o deny ~he pet~ton. ~on to deny
~. The Council he~d a public hearing on t~ ~eque~t
~e~d Compton, R. J. ~utton. Charles Z~EE a~d the City oI ~nton
fo~ annexation o~ approximately 614.6 accel be~ ~t o~ the
the J. aogecs Survey, Abstract t084, the ~. aogeE8 SU=Vey, Abstcact
~085, and the R. Ro~ec8 Sucvey, Abundant t~0~, a~ beginning notch
o~ Old A~ton Estates, sou~h of ~yan Road, west of ~ 2181. a~ east
o~ the ~.C. a~ 5.F. Railzoad
The ~yo~ lef~ the meeting as be o~ed pEope~ty In ~he pzopoled
The ~o~ P~o Tam opened the public hea¢t~.
~v~d Ellieon, 5entoz Plamne¢, epoXe tm [avo¢ ze~¢~tng ~t an
adjustment had been ~de to ~he ~ o~ ~he p~o~aed a~e~tton
~en ~his paccar was ~[~s~ bcough~ be~o~e the council, it was qu~te
a ~a~qe a~ea going to ~ ~83o. ~ctuO ~e pEocess o~ p~epa~[ug
~teld notes, the~e was a pcob~eu ~n lecu~ng pEopeE deed Eeoo~dg.
The t~[vtduals ceipon~tb~e ~o~ p~epartng the ~tetd notes cut do~
on the pzoposed a[ea due to the ucgency tn ~ec~ o~ t~e voluntary
~uld be poltponed until developuea~ tceudl ~n ~he azea could be
Eotu~ned ~n ~avo~. ~. Calvec~, ~o had p~eViously been oRpoGed,
wae not included the ne~ pEopoged a~neza~on seem. 6ta~ ~el~ tha~
south s~de o[ H~c~o~y C~ee~ Road wag the spearhead ~o~ iht8
annexation pcopolal. ~o~e 8~ek ~ed an 80 ac~t 8~te which
469
City o~ Denton City Council Kinutes
~eeting o~ ~ebru&£y 4,
Page ~ive
sandwic~ed between the eEisting City l~mit line and Hz. Coupton's
tract. It b~d been repo£ted that Aome a~iak possibly had some
intentions og intenei~yiug or beginning some type og wining o£
excavatLnn york. #lt~ proposed residential laud uses being
considered in the a£ea, Mr. Compton and others who were pa£t ot this
petition vece concerned about the plans og Acme nc~c~. Sta~
located Ln be~eu Jose a~ea Which uy be annexed a~ la~ that
would ~ out Og the City limits was enough ~eason to include this
wa8 available gcc review, There were two busines~e8 along Ryan
annexa~LoG. Wttb t~s e~e as pcopoGed by starS, t~e bcidge would
a~ea wo~ld Eesul~ ~n ta~i~q ~n pa~t o~ the b~d~e and possibly all
o~ it. This anne~tion ~uld take tn the north and south halves
Ryan ~oad blg~uning at t~ in~ecsection et ~ 2t81 at Ryes Road and
continuing ~gt ~O~ appEozi~tely 1,000 ~eet and west
appcoxt~tely an addi~io~ 1.050 ~eeC. aegin~ing at the Hickory
Ccee~ Road a~ ~ 2~OZ due ~est loc app~oxt~tel~ 2.300 lest,
the developMnt ~ut~tel )uiti(~ed annexetkon cC the a~ea Iho~n on
the ~p as pin,clad. Th%8 aces ibouLd be watched Eo~ a yeac cc
beto~e oo~8idez~ng any ~UCtbeE anneal%on.
~yoc P~o Te~ ~p~ina ask~ ~( t~e~e wa~ amy development occuc~n9 at
t~e p~esent
El~iaon tempered no: C~ ~ton Hence ~u~ivimion did ioM cou~b
cutting o~ roads but ~ve not continued with development. T~e a~ea8
w~fch ~d ~n t~ t~a~i~n o~-dovelopuent ~nquicie8 were at the
annexation a~ zoning pe~tion ~tage8.
scactuq C~ ae a~ ~. zipp were owners and were ~n rayne o[ the
annexation.
company wal involve~ with comprehensive planning on 300 ac~ea og the
p~opeg~F o~e~8 a~ t~ City to obtain conpltuenta~y la~ uses
would bo acceptable to tho Ctt~. A p~el~ui~ plat as vell a8 a
zou[n~ ~ ~h[b[t on M~. Campion'8 property and were to submit a
Ccee~ Ro~.' ~[ugs ~ce voc~inq well but they did ~ave some
concecmm gega~i~g Sucgou~tng la~ uses, ~bey wou~d request that
Mc. Oe~cey Bodley, reprinting &cue Brick, stated that be did not
k~ow i~ ~[8 gtCU vas t~ giver or opposition. Acue Brick vas in
[nte~es~8 o( the pa~ttoe involved. Acme o~ed an 80 ac~e t~act
This land ~8 p~cc~sed ~ a clay ~eaecve to support operations at
the ~ton plant. T~ m[~ wac an integral part o~ the lt~e o~ the
~nton plant an~ wag ~equi~ed to guppo~t tee current operations.
RE[ok ~k[~ clay Wac a limited conod[ty round [n ~tu~e and ~cme
tract. T~ ~ine was cuzzently in use and Acne would appreciate the
commiseration o( t~ Council ~n this ~ega~d. Any action by the
Council shoul~ ta~e knee account that Acue'8 use o( th~u pzope~ty
vas hme~ t~ueteial in ~atuEe an~ [u~the~ zecogn~ze that they would
470
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Nesting of ~eb~uaty 4. 1986
continue to use Hickory Creek load to move the clay to FI4 218~ and
then to the plant. The conce~fl wes thet any plans which would
~eeult fzom the annexation ~uld allow Acme to continue
operation in harmony with the gibe= uses. The comments at this
public hearing lead him to believe thet the pEoposed Ulel would be
heavily ~esidenttal.
Council ~eube£ Stephen8 asked how ~uch o( the tCaot yam cuzzently
being mined.
Bo~ey zempo~ed appco~i~tely 25 ac~em but eventually all of
~zac~ would be u~ned.
~. Gazy ~d~ag~l spoke in ~avo~ stating t~t ~e hoped the ney
be apvzoxi~tely a: Hickozy czeek
a~limon ~empo~e4 yea.
No one spoke ~n oppom~tkon.
· he ~yo~ Pzo Tom closed ~he public hea~ing.
Council ~ubet Stephens asked the C~tM Attorney lot · statement on
~he ~a~ ~ega~d[ng ~on~nua~on o~ ex~m~ng ~an~
~b~a OtaFov~tch. C~ty ~ttotney. repotted that the law ha~ been tn
use became a non-conforming use a~ St was dittlcult to alleviate
that use.
Counci~ ~ubet Stephens asked ~ ~cue 8~ic~ could cont~nue to use
the
Dtayov~tah responded yes: he, vet. any altetatio~, ad~t~ons ct
~e~latione o~ ~he C~ty ~ they occulted aCtez the annexation.
~ale motion, c~ev second to cont~mue the amme~atiom Vcoqeed~ngs.
~tion carried unan~moumly.
~yoz Stewart )o~ned the meeting.
c. The Council held a public heating on a~ng tha ~out
~bza Dta~ovitch. City Attotney. repotted t~ no,lee ct the public
~aztag had been published in the n~eVapet. T~ ~ati~g ~d
t~e pzeeinets, as allo~d by law. 8omc c~es had been d~seoveEed
Joe ~tie, ~8a~etant City Attorney, tek,ted that the public notice
c~ata~ned one eliot concerning t~e nu~bet o~ pezl~l listed lot
DietZ~ot A. The etto: entailed 1~ petaonm ~o s~uld be listed ~n
Dilttiot 2. The ptopoled ordinance vas oot~ect. The~e vets
ot~et ~Jo~ changes in population diltti~tiona al to the vetcentage
o~ tectal o~ lan~age m~no~[tie8 th~oug~ut &be distziete. No
annexations io~ 1985.
The ~yot opened t~ public hea~ng.
No o~l ~po~e ~n ~avot.
The ~yoz closed the public
471
City cC Denton City Council Minutei
Meeting o! ]~*ebEua~y 4.
Page Geven
Agemda ~e~ 4.~. ~al ~ved ~head ~n the agenda
The ~o~l~tmg c~di~mee ~ae pzesen~ed:
~. 96-25
· ~1~ DI~I~ I~ T~ CITY ~ ~NT~,
~ 81~ ~ DISTRICT1 ~ P~IDI~ T~T THIS
stephens ~t~on, Chew seco~ to adopt the o~dt~nce. On ~olL cal~
vote, ~ama nays, s ~tu8 ~aye. ~ Stephens 'aye," Al~oEd "aye,"
Rtddlelpezgez "aye." Ch~ "aye," and ~yoz Stewart "aye." Motion
ca~zied ' unaat~uely.
3. The Council eouetdezed approval o[ Z-1779, takeview planned
develop~nt.
~yoE S~ae~ 82ated ~hat this wac not a public hea~in~ a~
Council ~as ~t zequtzed to l~eten to eithez pzo8 cz cone.
wz~tten zequest ~d been zece~ved ~zou az. Judd Bolt who wished to
8peak. ~e Co~ctl had igEeed to let Mz. Holt speak ~oz 3 minutes
and ~o allow 3 utmu~ae ~o~ ~ebuttal, t~ any.
~, Judd ~1~. stated ~ha~ the ~tn question was one o~ ~ene~ty.
theze ds ~ co~zol of ~o~h, Denton would become ~uet aaothe~
bedzoou O~y With no wpaza~e identity. T~e key to the quality
o~ gz~th in ~ton vas d~mt~y, opem space and the amount o~ ~oom.
·ach C~'~I ~ ha6 an oppo~tumit~ to apply a vision ~o~ the
C~ty'e ~utu~e. an Op~Etmity to determine the ~utu~e o~ ~nton.
should e~talon aa a~ea ~teh ~heM ~ould be ~lad to ta~e out o~ town
'vt~[to~l to ~; a uee~io~ o~ ~ovu which ~d pleasan~ 8~eets and
~tive ~eee8. ~nt~ vi~ a ~tve~se a~ea; tho~e ~a8 a need ~o~
duplexes, a~cmt8, vazytng, sizes o~ lo~e. Theze should pommibly
be att~ive' hLqt ~ael. Reat~en~a would want to ~o~
t~t t~'~ section o~ ~a~oa ~s an extension si the old section
and ~ne~ ~ only the I~ltlt lots o~ 5F-7 and SF-~0. but al~o
5F-L2 a~ 6~-~%. Mot eveEyo~ who wanted a la~ge~ lot should ~va
to ~ove ~te~e ~he city limits si ~nton, Residents would want
visito~ ~o s~ ~ighbo~h~d pa~ks, not Just park areas along the
as well a8 toctea~[o~l a~ a~hletic ~ac[lit[o8. Rea~demts would
also ~an~ ~o be able ~o tell vEsito~8 that th~s azea was not
submtdi~ ~ the ~elt o~ ~nton. The cent si ~nton wa~ able to
t~p~ove, ~he e~tattm~ zoa~e, e'xte~tm~ parka, build ~ze
centers a~ ~eove itu ~e~ol8 because it had no~ been saddled with
a tEeue~g eeo~lo ~Edon bzought about by Bakev~ew. I[ he
a devel$~E tgyiag ~o sell ~h~t plan, he would do~ play the ~act
bu[ldtnql to be constructed In ~he meca. He ~ou~d tal~ o~ ozde~ly
accoapl~l~ ~t qeal. ~ ~uld not te~l the Council t~t ozde~ly
devele~ e~td be ashamed by ~oze ~a~ka, mo~e school la~,
lands ~ ~liee, ~e, l~bza~ieu a~ vide~ streets. ~e ~uld not
tell t~ Cc~X t~t ~ee coul~ be mo~e ozde~l~ develop~nt ~th
wanted 9~pl'i l~vtmg in C~ City who impended to ~e~im ~n ~nton.
11 he ~ze the devetopez, he would talk to the Council about the
user of those e~loyed ~uld, in all likelihood, co~ i~ou the
Lakev~ew axes. ~ also would not ~nt~on t~t user this azea would
472
City of Denton City Couucil Minutes
Meting of Feb£ua£y 4. 1986
Page
become an a£ea o~ tcansiente and not an aced wheel people would come
to stay. One o~ ~ucphy*s laws stated ,~hatevs£ they say it's going
to cost, it will cost a whole lot ~o~e." Ha ~ould add al~o, "They
~evelope~, ~t wou~d be susa t~t the debate ~eVO1Vld a~ound co~t
benefit=. He ~d Cead zeveCa~ thinga about the co~t bens[its but
was con~u=ed. He did UsS think anFene tn ~nt~n ~uid be opposed
the~e we~e Io~e lot~ added ~e .~ngle ~aa~ly ho~.. ~ would not
not oppose a plan ~h~ch gave adequate la~ Eec e~lty centers,
~noluding ~ec~eat~ona~ eente~ a~ ~ib~a~iee a~ la~ ~tch could be
used fo~ E~e and police substations. He ~ou~d not be opposed to a
~lan v~tcb gave la~ fo~ a ney high eehoo~, a junio~ high Gchool a~
a ~u~E~cient nuBbec o~ e~e~entac~ 8cboola. He would not be opposed
did not exceed the p~eeent density levela. If t~e develope~
seziouely intezested in the City of Denton an~ ~aa developing
p~epa~e a plan ~hich eve~youe could be p~oud o~. I~, ho~eve~, the
develope~ va~ solely interested tn t~e p~ope~ty ~o~ speculation
pu~ees and quick pzo~it, the Council would pco~blF no~ ~eaz
the~ again.
TheEe wa~ no ~ebuttal.
Council Meabe~ Mcface eta~ed that S~e ~d thoug~ about this
development a lot, talked to people, loo~ed It the statistics o~
eo~eide~ was what was it about ~nton t~t the cea~eGte ~ cole to
~be ~esidence could enjoy. 5he ~eeogn~zed t~at it va8 t~ue
ci~ies: hovevez, ~nton had chosen to ,~ething a little ~if~e~ent.
by a~ large, agreed to pay ~o~ ~t. ~e~i~ent~ ta~e~ about
lea~t 1/3 as la~ga as the current City and with a de~aity o~
unite per ac~e. This vas couai~etab~y Bose t~n v~ the City had
at ~his point. 5~e did not feel thil would pgovi~e the ~Be quality
o~ li[e ~lc~ Dentonites had oo~ to enjoy. Obi ~uld li~a ~o
density as t~ test oE the City. A density sE 5 union ~ acta on
balance~ aca~e, with the exception o~ ~e h~gh Else. ~ou~d be
acceptable.
co.ail had been t~ld that ~he de~elO~aent would zepzeeent a
milliom lode and then om Januazy ~0, t~ey had been told these ~uld
be a 1276,000 ga~n. This vas t~e e~e ptopezty vit~ the sams
pCOpoaal and he did not undecatamd the di~fecenee, ~ did ~t
~ic~ ~ta~[ did not ~eel ~d bee~ apptopc~atel~ possessed at the
police ac~vit~ee sE otAe~ ~ees which moz~lly QCOU~ M~th~n the
City. Stair based the additio~l nuubez on a ~otal split
n~ a~ the add~t~o~l 20,000 people which woul~ be tn ~ev[~.
included, it ~ep=eeented appzox~tely S1.6 ~[ll~on. T~ =e~inder
be ceoeived ECOB the County, at cuctent leve~e, ~ot ~e pet capita
cost o~ lite protection which ~nton pcovtde~ in the County. Gta~
~ze. ~ vez~ con~ezvative appzoac~ wad taken ae to
473
City o~ Denton ~ty Council Minutes
~(eeting of Feb£ua~y ¢, 1986
Page Nine
gcowth . ~n the Lakeview p£oJect. Tbs second change to the
calculation we the in a£aa o~ the Packn and Recceation Depa£tment
a£ea ct the capital improvements area. ~t the January 17 Meting,
utaff discussed the [n~ot~tion t~at the Ditecto~ of the Pa~ and
Rec~eatiOn ~pa~t~n~ ~d p~ov~ded ~o the Council outlining
addit~o~l 813.0 million in cap,tel ~up~ove~nt8 to all cE the
paz~s. ~n a ueao~a~uu dated Januazy 30, some si the c~n~ee were
d~ecu8sed Whic~ s~m~E ~elt weze appzop~iate. T~e ~tzst uae
mi[l~om ~ich M~. B~nkuan had placed ~n ~he e~ti~te8 ~o~ pa~k ~and
acquisition ~n ~ieu cE the CoEp8 of Enginee~ land. The assumption
Lakem a~oa, t~t the~ ~uld bo uo~e comuun~ty ~n ~tu~e. The costs
Lakevtew develop~nt. Ap~Eop~ia~e Eeduct~on8 were ~e co the cost8
pcesented to the Council ~ JanuaEy 17 having to do vtth the way the
paid tn. Tho actual a~un~ o~ dol~8 pe~ pe~son generated
based on the g~o~h of hakev~ew, ~t would ~e ~o~ an [nocease
those atoms cC c~ngo in the pcoJeoted cevenues and/cc expe~ttucee
~ce the sale~ tax, ~tne8 and ~ee8 and the pac~8.
Counct~ MbeE ~tephen6 grated t~t the City could not depend on U.
S. ~ove~nt ~an~ ~o~ove~ ~oE and e8~ed ~o~ lon~ could the
~tand bo uged a~ ~ul~ t~Ee be pa~ 8pace. Anotbe~ ~gsue which had
~ot be mdd~88ted in t~o pEo (o~ wa8 that tbs ad valorem taxes
626.0 million Wag at build out in ~& yeses. What would be the taxes
(~om the (~rmt to tbs (tfth yea~, etc. 8o t~t the Oity coutd be
8uEe t~t t~ dt(~e~ence t~ the come o( police a~ (i~e, eta. did
not bare to be ~de up by the euE~ent ~e8kdeuts uutk~ t~e e~ o~ the
fit v~th the ot~c p~oposel8 vh~eh ~d been p~esented ~QE ~nton
controll~, o~ecly g~o~b. The Counot~ vented ba~eview oc any
o~he~ ~evet~at ~0 ~ellow ~hat same general pla~. b had
~eee~a~tou8 ~egaEd~ the ~evelopmen~ and ~euetty ~a8 one o~ them.
it. MaO the~o any u~ddlo qEOU~ ~[ch could be Eeached.
Council ~bec R~dd~espe~go~ stated that the ~igu~e8 ~hoved the
the expO~itu~e8 ~uld be 828 m~llkon plum the capital ~mpcoveuent8
Counci~ ~u~c ~a~ stated t~t ~t vie veil to ceueubet, au the
Counoil d~seumled tho e~no~tc8 o~ · u[tuat~on, that one o~ the
thing8 ~e~ was &no~ ~to~ hi~toty wa8 that a stttet~y tel~dlntial
co~unt~y had to have excessive taxes tn ocdez to pay fez ~tself.
T~eze Was not a co~untty a~eze which ~outd be eea~oh~nq
hea~ t~ustEy t~ the ~st~al base was no~ needed to help p~ovide
474
City of Denton City Council
Nesting o~ February 4, 1986
issue was not one o~ whether or not tM. development would generate
extra revenue for the C~t¥ but rather that an additional industrial
base wes needed to take cate o[ the City's need8 now and even u~re
vould be needed to ta~e care o~ Uakeview. ~ven more tupo£tantlyo
was dt~icult ~or her to reconcile ls units per acre as being the
saue quality o~ tt~e wh~e~ was now being enjoyed with less than
Council Me.be= Stephen~ asked re= a definition cE "clu~te~-detaehed"
cecile ca~son, Ucban Planner, ~epocted ~hat the o~us~e~ question was
a ~e~n~t~on p~oblem. The La~ev~ev p~OpOSal ~ange~ E~om c~u8te~
housing being detached which could be ze~o ici l~ne type housing
helots the~e vas another house. Cluster housing could also
iouEDlexee o~ duplexes, attached ~ype dvellinps. It could also be
as much a~ s~xplexe8, which were p~opoaed tn 8omc areas ~n the
C~ty. 5taf~ would poLnt out t~at there were ~t~e~ent
not~9 to do with ~he nuube~ o~ un,ts, The designation
total numbs= o[ units which were p~oposod would not be developable
to balance th~s out.
~ a =ow house with co,on walls.
Ca,sou =espohded ~hat the Council ~ p=evtoust~ app=oved an
~nctuded cluste~ ~y~e housing Which was ~ou~ptexe8 to
which would be six units tn a
Council ~mbe~ 6tephens asked tt the Pta~tnq and Co,unity
~velopment Department should dictate that as asteric~ should be
ptae~ by t~e cluster designa~on on planned developers
ou~ specittcs.
t~e ~eaaon ~or the co~D~l~e~tve Site plan o~ itl
devolopuents so Council could see actual layouts and tot plans.
zontn~ should go togethe~ on developments.
~yo~ Stewart asked regarding the h~gh tt~es, t~ &he density
all on 1 ct 2 [~oots, would th~s not be qu~to dense. Yet
there vas a 25 story high t~le on the campus o~ Texas M~n's
Uu~vetsLty wt~ ~ny apartments and a resulting b~gh
Ho~ve~, the~e was quite a lot el open space surrounding the
building. He u~e~stood ~hat t~ high ~tses p~oposed Io~
hakev~ew development would be 6 ftoo~s a~ they Were also p~opostng
~ been 9resented in a conceptuat mature ~ioh tncluded these
amenity
~yot Stewart then aeked it the mta~ wan aware ~t th~e would be
high trees and not 1 ot 2 ~1oo~ but&d~ng~.
Catmon responded t~t atari wae a~te o~ the d~ttetence between the
~0 units pe~ acre along the lake a~ the cluster housing which
avenged to be app~ox~tely 1~ ua~ts ~ot ac~e, The~e was a
~tstinctton and 8ta~ was aware o~ the 109 acres ~lch would be
475
City of Dentoo City Council Ntnutes
Meeting o~ Yeb~Ll~y 4,
~age
sonethimg ~ amd di~ere&t fez Denton with the high ~ise. Howeve£,
sca~ also re&llled c~at t~ze vas a definite change in the overall
density1 o~ tl~e City i~ only the cluster and nulti-~amtl¥ vas
considered v£~hout the lo9 ac£ae o~ high ~lae,
Meyo£ ~te~urt stated that his point was that theze weze alzeady
other ere~o in t~e City. such as TMU. NTGU and Good
Village, ~hich b~d t~ee t~e8 o~ high ~iee buildings. ~no~hez was
undez conatzuotiou at MeaeMte ~sp~tal.
diCCtculCy il eom~ci~ C~ Co Lakeviev because ta some ways. they
weze vezy d~fozent. O~ ~uld be zes~aenttal uses ~oz
c~t~zene ~tle t~e otM~ wouL~ be ~o~ e~Chec 8~u~entg cc
tm ~he ~iCy ae Col am C~e ~Lgh clan wan co,teemed.
~yoz V~o Tel ~lnl snared t~C ~n o~hez planne~ developuem~
um~,. ~o~ e~Ie the Loo~ 268 CQE~do~. Council ~uld be lookin~
at appc~xt~tety the s~e ~ubez OC un~tl ~e~ ic~e at ult~te build
out aa ~t~t~.
CaEeom geared t~t the planned developuemts axons the Loop which
had been av~*v~ caused teem a ~xiuuu density ct 25 unite pec
acce. Foc.t~e c~tming pEopeztF, planned development ~tch
had coupcehe~ive e~te plane approved, the City ~d used an ovecall
OmC ~he to~a~ ~z o~ unite along the pzopez~y. Theze veze acme
pe~ acts ~o~ ~lt~-~au~Ly. ~e~e was qu~e a lo~ o~ divezs~ty
~yoz Phc Tea Hopk~mg stated that the point wag t~t at ult~te
Lakev~W.
unite ~uld be the sa~.
Counc~ ~z ~ s~ated t~ p~oblea vas t~at t~8 enti~e 700
acres ~ ~ aa ~ease ag ~op ~88 a~ ~ univeze~iee. 1~ vas
one tht~ te ~ve a ~tieula[ a~ea th~s dense. 6he d~d not ~ve an
ob~ecttel tea 7 storm ht~l ztee but ~em the total area then came
to be Os 4eu~ this, 'it co~t6e~ably d~i~emt ~o~ the
uvpez E~MG cC 6.S to 6.7 ultra pec acze as the city ~gan to
ozev. ~T~li',~zttcutaz ~lo~nt vould sttll leave the total
d~icult ~teion to ~. ~11 o~ the Counctl ~ube~8 had
empe~te~o~d co~eeEn8 ~e~aglt~g the ~ensity and Eealtaed t~t the
economies cl t~ p~olect waa not souethi~ ~ch they could loo~
was very viable place. ~ ~d seem th~s a~ea go ~o~h~ll
now ~stoally a ~vaup a~ a slum amd vas mot ~upzov~ng. Hoover,
c~ld ~ t~ gEeatee~ aeee~ t~t ~ntoa ~d. The Coumcil needed to
~aWe a ,~ Leek at ~eveloping ~ asset such as th~s lake.
been ttd~ t~at t~e high ~tee proposal was lunacy; ho~vez, he
would vem~uee ~o aim t~t tt ~u14 be t~e ~tze~ a~ea ~o ~11 up. To
hit, t~Lg ~8 an o~ey to redevelop the lake.
Lakev~ d~elop~ ~ ~ot, tko C~ty neede~ a zoa~ ~o commect
380 and, I~tefltate 3S. ~hte ~d been d~ucussed during strategic
476
City o~ Denton City Council ~lnutes
Keeling o~ ~ebtuaty 4. 1986
Page T~elve
planning seseion, The alte£native to a la£ge developuent such as
Lakeview would be developing a hedge podge over uaay yeaze o~ ¢o to
50 acres at a time and tzying to get lZ0 ~eet o~ zight-o~-way.
~teen yeats Item now, the City ~ould still be t£ytng to get 130
[eet o~ right-of-way. ~t the time the connecting toad would need to
be built, the citizens o~ Denton ~uld bi faced with the
£es~onsibtl~ty o~ having ~o buy the ~e~t~img ~ight-o~-~ay a~
come,Cutting the et¢eet, ~ltt-developaemts ~uld imc¢ease
at today's costs and thece vas mo telling v~ ~he cos~ ~ul~ be tn
~6 Feaze. One o~ ~be g¢ea~es~ ~E~gs abou~ develop~n~ along
lake ~n the opportunity ~o ~mptove the Pecan Ctee~ area,
ba~ mentioned building bicycle tcaila, a gox~ coulee, a~ other
~acil~tie8 a8 the City extended out ~n this direction. The City
~uld need t~e school cites w~cR ha~evie~ ~d o~e~ed a~ pgobablM
bus~ne88 and [~ugt~y and Jobs c~eated to mo~e ~han o~EeE the
lents as the~ had Lakevie~, He had ~oo~ed at this ~o~sa1 ~o~ the
v~e~oint o~ staff, the developez, the new toe,dents o~ the
deve~opnen~ and the peo~e nov l~vtmg in Denton. ~ot evetyome ~uld
af~oEd to live on a 16,000 equate Ceet lot at ~35,000 to ~4~.000
talksd about extemeiveSy ~ ~he ~mton Develop~nt Guide. The Quids
stated t~t these buildings ~ould be meede4 around ~ oC the ~Jot
~nttiatly done; the docuuent ~8 already outdated a~ vas in
o~ ~ln~ ~ev~sed. ~ could a~ead~ see 3 ~e ~Jo~ nodes
~uld be neceula~y in Denton tn ~he nex~ I0 yeats. Council
access to ~n~oz~tion ~hich gave ~he~ ~Be oppo~u~i~y ~o
~he~e the ~m~enatt~ and development wa~ going to occur. ~zoumd
t~eae maJo~, nodes, ~he ~ntention ~al to develop pastry oz
detn~enai~y al you moved a~ay ~zo~ these modes. Ba~evte~ ~ae not
sight tn town and ~ould not a[[ect any develop~m~ im ~he C~ty
~n~on. ~a he ~a~ ~, th~s p~oposal met the ~mton
Guide.
p~o~osal Bet the guidelines when ~t vas over on crecy ct[te~ta.
the Guide teco~endat~on Was to keep the density l~t, not to
unit8 Ret acta, did not follow the Denton ~velo~t Qutde, and
~ch was ~uch ~eate~ t~m any othe[ development ~hieh had been
done beloze.
Council ~mbe~ Che~ stated that the C~uncil ~d l~eteoed, evaluated,
to g~ow and the Couuot~ needed to too~ at the plule8 a~ ut~ue
this pa~ctcu~a~ development. Nhen tt vas ~ttst btough~ become the
could debate this proposal all n~ght.
Chew uotion, ~Vkim8 second to apr:ope Z-~779 ~th the 8ta~
~eeo~lndatton8.
o$ this e~ze vas a good ~dei. ~o one ~d suggested other tha~ 120
teat o~ z~ght-oi-~ay, klso discussed ~d been a 4 o: a ~ lane
etzeet, oonttn~ent upon the nu~be~ o~ zeaLden~e duz[~ the build out
~lod, The conclusion ~aa t~t this v~te ~ould determine the
lu~uze oi ~nton i~om a density point el vie~. ~ ~e~o~1lM tell
this ~as too concentzated and could be adjusted. He liked the idea
Meetiug o~ Peb£ua£y 4,
Page ?hi,teen
o~ T~akoviw [£om the sta~lpotnt o~ one ~oup to vo~k on develop-
~nt. ~oo co~emtEated o~ ~ seemed to be the ~88ue - not g~ovt~.
~e ~o~ ~Lm ~. ~oo ~oneeu~atud.
opposi~io~ ~o ~e p~opogeX, no~ in ~avo~.
every s~Eee~ ou~ ~e~e. ~Ee ~e some ~o~on~l~onl ~n p~a~e nov
· o~ ~y~e o~
coun~l b~E A~Co~d s~a~e~ ~ each o~ t~ ~ube~s ~ad gone
through, a ~l~ o~ ~K &~ ~OE~h in thei~ ut~8 on this issue.
~ntecemti~ l~t ~d b~l toc~ved ~rom citizens. Than~8 ghould
alan be give~ to the ~aton Record Chronicle ~o~ ~n~ot~tton which
they h~ p~ov~. Th~l ~egue ~d been con~us~ng bu~ ~ ~luae, and
minus ~d to ~ veigh~.
patience ~ile this p~opolal had been delayed.
Council. ~ ~g sta~ed t~t t~i8 wag not an eit~/ot issue.
The Co,ell could approve ~e peoposal ~o~ Lakeview but with ~educad
den~ i ry.
cE DenOn t~ a plan~ed ~velo~nt o~ this size had been pEoposed
~tch ad~eg6~ the
could ~ott la ~ as l~' ~o 850 zillion to build. The devolope~
~isvt~le. I~ a ~ttit~ o~ g~ou~8 developed ~hte sees, t~ City
~uld ~ g~ t~ l~ ~ oC Etght-o~-way which ~uld be ~ut~ed
~m t~ gu~u~e. ~ ~d dgt~n~ ~hte a~ea a~ ~ was a mess. It could
only ge~ ~e~ ~o~ it ceuld ~t get verse. The area was being used
Motion ~o apg~o~ Z-1779
4.
A. The ~ou~i~ co,side,ed
T~e ~ot~i~ o~4~e ~ pEeseated:
HO. 86-26
Hiddles~egi~ "aye," Chew "aye. ~ and ~yor 5teva=t "aye., ~tion
478
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
lleeting o~ Febcuacy ¢. 1986
Page Fou£teen
B. The Council consideEed adoption cE an o£dinancs
~covtd~ng ~o£ the expenditu£e o! ~unde ~o~ eae£genoy pu£chaees o~
amte~ials, equipaent, supplies o£ services in acco£dance with the
p£ovtsione o[ state lay exeupttng such pu£chases ~zou
oE coBpetit[ve
The ~ollow~n~ ozd~nance was p~esented:
~. 86-27
~ ORDIN~CE PR~IDING FOR ~ E~R~I~R ~ F~ FOR
~NCY P~C~S~S O~ ~TERIAL6. ~OUX~. ~UPPLIR~ OR
EII~TI~ 6Ua P~C~S[6 FR~ RE~IR~ OF
BI~; ~ PROVIDING FOR ~ ~FF~CTI~ D~,
chew ~tton, Hopkins second to ado~t the o~dt~nce. On ~ott call
vote. ~c~ams "aye," ~pXtms ~aye,~ Stephens "aye," A1to~d "a~e,
Rtddtespe~ge~ "aye," Chew "aye," and ~yo~ ~tewa~t "aye." ~tton
cad,ted unantlously.
C. The Council constdeEed adoption oi an o~tnanoe
appEovtn~ a contract peovtdtn~ io~ the purchase el ~eal pEopeE~y by
~e City cE ~nton. Texas as described he~etn.
~ O~I~CE ~R~I~ ~ ~T P~I~ FOR
Cb~ notion, Stephens second to adopt the o~t~anee. On ~ott call
RtddlegpeCge~ "aye," Chew "aye," and ~yo¢ 5tevazt "aye."
ca¢¢ted unan$moualy.
D. The Council considered adoption o~ an o~dt~nce
zequest oi Teasley Road Associa~es a~ the City el ~nton
p~o~sed annexation oi app~oxt~tely 125.25 ao~es ~qt~tng at
loa~ and p~oposed Loop 288. south et OaK Bend ~states, an~ south
~ttvezdome Road
the ii,et public ~eaztn~ be held on Fabz~zM l~ and the second
public heantn9 o~ ~ch A. ~ppzoxt~tety la.5 aczes el the
am~xattou pazcel ~uld be tnvolun~azy.
The iollo~in~ o~dtnance was p~esen~ed:
DEG~IBED IN E~IBIT "A" A~D ~R~ BY ~ CI~
~tlS~ ~I~ OF SUCH P~IC
Ch~ motion, Hopktn~ second =o adopt the o=~t~nce. On Ioll
vote. ~ame "aye," HopKtnl "aye," Gtephena "aye." Al~ozd "aye,"
Btddleepez~er "aye," Chew "aye," an4 ~yo~ Ste~zt "aye."
ca,=ted unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption o~ an o~d~nee
autBoctztng the u~e oi compensatory ct~ undue cec~atn co~tttoms
loc public safety employees govecmed by Acttcle 12S~, V.T.C.5.,
a~nded.
479
C~¥ o~ De~tton C~t¥ couno~
M~aC[ng cC ~bcua~y 4.
Page
The Collow~ng oz~i~ace w*l
NO. e6-~o
~ ~D~N~ ~XZIN~ ~ USE OF C~ENSA~Y T~
~HT~XN ~TX~ FOB ~OYEES ~O~D BY ~T~C~E
V.T.C.B., A~ ~D; P~IDING AN EFFB~I~
Chew ~O~lo~. HoD~ime eeco~ to adopt the o=dinance. On zo~l call
vote, ~a~ "aMc. ~ Hophiua "aye." Ztephens "aye," A1Eo=d "aye,
Riddlee~Ege= "aye." Chow "aye," and ~yoc Stewact "aye."
ca=~[ed u~ni~oualy.
~oc C~t~ Cou~tl 9oltt~on, vii app=oved ed=lie= tu the age~a.
Council MOUbOE ~a~ le~ the leering.
G. The Council considered adoption o[ an ordinance
calltnq and o=deg~ng an election to be held on ~pc~ 5, 198~, ~oc
the purpose o~ eleettn~ a ~ot co Place 7 and Council ~ube~8 to
Placee %. 5 a~ 6.
T~e ~ollow[nq oz~nance wa~ p=eaen~ed:
NO. 86-31
~ ~DIM~CE C~I~ ~ OHDERIN~ AN ELR~ON ~ BE ~D IN
~ C~ ~ D~, ~S, ON APRIL ~. ~986, FOR
P~R OF R~K~X~ ~L~ER6 TO ~ CI~ CO~CI~ OF
~ OKD~R~ A 8~CX~ ELECTI~ FOR F~LLING A VAC~CY
P~ 4~ O~HI~ ~T ~K PUN~ C~D ELEC~ON~C VOTING
~ ~D ~ ~ C~TY BE USED IN 6A~D ELE~ION:
DK~I~TI~ V~I~ P~8 ~ APPOI~ING ELECTI~ OFFICIALS
~ ~XDI~ ~ EL~ SUPP~IR8.
Counc~ ~bet ~Adam8 Jot~ the meeting.
Stephens ~t~on. Chew 8eco~ to adopt t~e o=dinance, on =o~
rotc, ~ "aye. ~ ~9~tns "aye." stephen8 "aye." A~o~ "aye."
atddleepecqe~ "aye,,' Chew "aye,,, and ~yor Stewart "aye." ~t~ou
caz=ied u~niaoualM.
R. T~e Council conatde~ed adoption o~ an ordinance
aba~oning a~d vacat~ag m cat,aim utility easement.
The [ol~ag otd~mee was presented:
~. 86-32
~ ~IM~CR OF ~ CI~ OF DE~ON, ~S, AR~NIN~ ~D
V~ATt~ A CBETAIH ~ KASB~NT AS DES~IBRD
~ ~I~ ~ ~FR~ DA~,
~Ada~,~c~o~, ch~ seoo~ to adopt the ordinance.
been loea~a tuz~he= to ~ notch and thil eaeemen~ was no longez
ne~ed.
Al~o=d "aFc," Hiddle~pe=qez "aMc." Chew "aMc." and ~yo= 6~ewart
"aye." ~o~ ea==[e~ u~m~ou~l~.
T~e Council concede=ed app=oval o~ a ~og=am ~o= "take
home" o~ Police vehiclee.
48O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting o[ feb£ua£y 4, [986
Vega Sixteen
Acting City ~anagez Rick Svehla zepo~ted that, t~ the concept ue£e
appzoved, it would allow the City to lease moze Police o&£8
than having to pucchaee as warty. [t would allow the o~ice~s to
take the vehicles home and use thew fo£ pezsonal use within the
City. The concerns ~ega£ding fLSA end XRS had been add£eeeed.
I~ayo£ Stewa£t stated that app£oxiutely ? Feaze ~ ago, the City
t~ gasoline.
~g~ Lynch, C~[e[ of Police, zepozted that a Police o~[ee~ van an
o~ice~ 24 hou~s ~ez day an4 could zeepo~ at ~11 ~t~,. 6ta~
t~ th~e pzog~aa ~utld ~e~uee ~[n~enanee costs ,e t~[a caul4 be
accomp~she~ while the o[[icez wan off-du~y amd uoC ~ie the caz up
4uzing peak ~[me,. tc would also [ncceaee the 9atzoX capability on
tee It~eet8.
council Meube~ flte~ens ae~ed how t~e use would be ~e~ated - would
t~e o~[ce~s only uae the vehicles ~en they wee la
Lynch ~eaponded no; the o~[ce~a would ~ake the ve~ielee to the
~11, ale. and ~ould tm ~ac~. be amo[hez eel at eyes on the s[teet.
Svehla cepo~te~ that the agenda beet-up me,eclat gave guidelines
~ega~dtng appropriate d~ee8, vbeme the cams could be used (Oen~on
omly), that the o~iee~ only coul~ delve the vehicles, etc.
~yo~ P~o Tea Hopk[na asked ~t ~uld be the pe~lty ~om abuses o~
~11 c~itezia ~o~ the p~og~au ~ul~ ~ adopt~ in W~tttng. ~he
vehicles ~oul~ be [eased ~o~ a 12 ~ath vez[~ a~ etai[ ~ou[d
aase8~ the p~og~au at the conclusion o[ the lease.
Ch~ ao~ton, Ridd~espezge~ second to a~Vcove the ~zogzau. Motion
ear,ted
6. The Council conatde~e4 selection an~ appzoval of ~ouc
~ba~a o~ the City Council to reeve on the Land Use Pla~ing
Co~tttee.
~yom Pea Ten aop~tne suggested t~t the thzee ~bezs ~ho would be
~e~nin~ on ~he City Council atteE the Apz~l 5 election be selected
a~ the touz~h ae~bez be Council ~ubez HeAdams az LeE succeaeoz.
~pXtU8 Bottom, McAdaus eeoond tha~ Council ~ube~8 Al~ozd.
Lane Use Planning Comities. ~tton eactied u~niaously.
7. Theze vas no oi[[cial action on Executi~ session tiaa, o~
legal uatte~8. ~eat estate, pe~sonnet ac boa~d apVein~nta.
8. The tottering irene o~ N~ Business vece ~eeo~ed by
council Members ~o~ ~u~uze age,as.
council ~ubec Stephens asked tot a discussion by atari and the
Council zega~dSng an ozdi~nce to zequtce a sits plan ~m a pta~ed '
development zoning c~an~e was appEoved one contingent upon
Council ~ubeE Riddtespe~gec asked toe 8ta~ ~o pEepaEe a no-suo~tng
o~dt~nce loc consideration.
Council Membez Me.ams ~equegted ~ail ~o explo~e ~e posatbtli~y
also allowing pet ~egiet~at[on at City ~ll.
481
City o~ Denton City Council Minutem
Meeting o~ Peb£ua£y 4. 1986
Page Seventeem
The Council then conmideced the eue~gency a~enda addenduu item.
1. The Council conmide appcoval a £emolut~on
opposition to the defez£al of five hundred mill~on dollacs
($~00o000.00) ~zoa the fiscal yeaz lgS~ app£op£1at~on o~ th£ee
b~llio~ one hun~zeO twenty ~ou~ m~ll~on eight hun~£ed thousand
dolla=s. (~3.X~4.800.000) fo~ the Co,sun,tM Development Block G£aat
Ptogtal &u~! uz~g Congzeem to ovettu£n this de~et~al.
The [olSowtng tesoSuttonw~s presented:
~ESO~UT I ON
WHBREAS. the City Council o~ the City o~ Denton. Texas.
support, ~he Co,unity ~velopment 8~oc~ G~ant P~og~am; and
~. t~e C~ty o~ Denton. Texa~. [8 presently a
tecipie~t o~ Entitlement Co~un~ty ~velop~ent Block Stent ~undin~
and ~m utilized such [u~ng lot the benetit o~ e~tizens et ~nton
lot a nu~be~ o~ yeats: ~.
T~ ~he C~y Council of ~he C~M of Den=om w~shea to
e~pzemm ~1 oppol~on ~o t~e de~e~a~ o~ Five Hundred
~llaza ($~00.0~.000) Ezo~ the [~acal yeaz
These Billion One ~n~ed ~enty-~ou~ Mill~om Eight Hundred Thousand
~lla~e (~.124.~00.000) fez the Co~un~t~ Developaent Bloc~ Grant
The City 5mo~eta~ is hereby d~eeted to sand a copy
oi the Un[ted 8tates Con,ess. to the 5ec~eta~ o[ Labo~. and to
each usage et the Texas delegation to the Congress. w~th the
request t~t ~t be entered ~n the Congressional Record
to the Congress et t~ Un,ted States o[
That th~m resolution e~ll be e[Eective Immediately upon
~t8 ~aeBago a~
· ASS~ ~ ~aO~D this 4th day o~ Febzuazy.
RICHARD O. STEWART, MAYOR
CITY OF DRNTON. TEKAt3
ATTEST:
CHA_~LOTT~ ALLEN, CITY
CITY OF D~,
~PRO~ ~ ~ LK~L FO~:
DR8~ MI ~Y~H. CI~ AT~RNEY
C~TY OF D~.
MCAdABg ~Ot~On. Stephens second that the Ee~o~ut~on be approved. On
toll call vote. MC~I "aye," Hopkins "aye." Stephens "aye." Al~otd
"aye." Riddlllpatge~
Motion cazzle~ 6 to 1 w~th ~o~ Stewazt casting the "nay" vote.
482
City o~ Denton City Counter Minutes
N~ettng o~ ?eb£ua£y 4, ~.986
l.?l.9g
483
City Council Minutes
The council convened into the week session at B:30 p.m. in the Civil
NeAdams, Riddlaspe£ge£ and Stephens
Acting City Manager, City Attorney and City Secretary
~S~NT: ~yoc 8~act vas in Dallas a~tendino a ~ece~tton
The Council ~eceived a p~esantation by ~he ~conoltc Devel-
opment ~tudy
H~. Jack Htlte~, C~t~pe~lon el ~he Chambe~ cE Co~ecce Economic
attract nm~ t~umt~y to ~nCon in an ei~o~t to [no,ease the tax
bass. The video tape and Fact Book ~eEe excellent tools, The goal
o~ t~e oo~it~ee ~s ~o ~k pith the City and othe~ o~gantzatioas
nulbe~ cE ~OlpeOts ~s dwindling. The Sun Bel~ ~obs and
between, the ~n Belt and the Rust Belt. It Was time to stap bac~
amd st~y the situation a~ to plan ho~ ~nton could get tis shale
oi the kt~s cE Jobs ~ich ~te ~anted in out co.unity. ~ report
had bssn p~epated b~ N~. ~e~y cote a~ the coaaittee was nee out
~. Chuck Cazpen~e~. ~ep~es~n~tag the Cha~be~ of Come,ce. ~epo~ted
that inpu~ ~as nov being ~uested ~om the C~ty Council.
Council ~1~ Allo~d stated that he believed the p~og~am had
~ecetved ~he point ~n t~ had Wanted to be two yea~e ago. I~ was
qood %~ ~ve people ~o ~e willing to "sell' the City ~ho ~td not
wo~ Ice ~he Ct~y.
The~e will be eolpantes who wilt ~elocate a~ the committee would
~al~ to ~. The pEo}~ton ~as t~t t~e~e ~uld be leve~ and
Service i~ugt~tes, such as telephone ~elated businesses, eec,,
would t6ke 2~ place. The economic development thrust might need
Mt, ~et[~ Co~t I~a~ t~t t~e gzo~ i~ ~nton ~ay ~ve lulled the
bun~nes~ e~ity into o~lacenoy, ~at should be 8~udted vas hey
to keep ~he City ~o~o tt ~8 and not to doubts the g~owth. The
shill t~ ~SS ~dgets Could hu~t Denton. It s~outd be deltned ~hat
depend on one employeE. ~ co.tePee would lt~e to have 6 uon~hs
Council ~beJ 6~ephens a~ed t~ p~opose~ incentives ~o~ ~etoeatton
had been ~eoo~ln~ld.
Co~ E~e~nded ~ ~o~ a~ this ~tme. ~ this point ~he co~t~ee
was as~t~g ~o[ a consensus ~ou the City Council to p~oceed
tnves~tq~tng ~ny various ~ds el econo~tc development.
iIIUe8 ~uld be explo~ed, The committee was asking tot input on
~hat the Council ~ight want ~heu ~o study.
~htch ~ould ~ mutually beneltotat to the City and
t~ustttes.
484
City o~ Denton C~ty Council M4nutes
Meeting o~ Feb£ue£y ~.8, ~986
Page Two
Cott responded yes: the presidents ~om the two un~ve~sitiss were on
tbs coemittee. All aspects o[ tbs City would be explocedo such as
in~r&structuce, etc.
M~. Mille~ stated that an inventoey Would be accomplished o~ the
land ~hich was available now and the cur£ent zoning,
Council Member 6tephene asked iC the Chamber ~ould be advert~sin~ in
trade umgazines and rec£uit~ng ir~ustries. '
b~ought bac~ to the Counctl (o~ a~p~oval. The oo~olusio~m
mean takin~ a different type o~ ~ettng spacemen.
~yo~ P~o Tam ~ns stated that the oo~tttee should ~t ove:loo~
~nton could ex,and. ~otha~ titus v~tc~ m[gh~ bm e%~lo~ed wal ~t
tn~ast~uctu~e, utilities, land a~ ta~ ulml, itc. The Council
untve~e[t~e~ and ~oapitala, and butld o~
Ca~pente~ stated these vece obtained ~Eou TIEs8 P~E and
2. The Council cece~ved a pEesentation o~ ~Mnt LesSeE by
· Ethu~ Andersen a~ Company, auditing
Mc, Bill Dillon, ~ep~esent~ng Acthuc ~ecsen mud C~, ~epoEted
~at the th~cd audit wam completed. He ~hen ~m~e~ MI. J~ana
~n~el8.
~. Juana OmahaS8 tape,ted t~t ut~lt~y Eeveaues wee up ~n ~915
which was attributable to incceaeed usage a~ Ea~es. ~cconeoue
~tec ceadinge ~d celulted tn 81.5 million ~l~ i~ezzeotly
t985. The Ctty ~d participated in a bond EO~EO~OO and
~nveBtBent policy existed in the Fiance ~ct~n~ but vii being
~ocom~at~on8 dealt with the accounting a~ closing p~oce4uEeo.
~eco~e~a~on yam also ~de to ~ev~ev the ~unding policy a~ the
Texas Municipal Reti~elent System ~d been u~unded and the
o~d~nce ~equ[~euentB.
~e to ~ae~ o~ true, tht8 teen was not d~8cussed,
4. The Counct~ va8 to hold a d~scumsto~ o~ a "uo
o~d~nance ~o~ the C~ty o~ ~ntou.
5. TBs councl~ adjourned trite the Rxecu~tve 8eBston to d$seugt
legal matte~8, :eel estate, pe~aoune~ a~ hosed appotn~lents.
o~tcla~ melton ~a8 ta~en.
485
Ci~.¥ o~ Dent.on Cit.y Counct. 1 Mtr~te~
Meettng o~ February ~9, ~986
Page Three
The Council ooavened ~n~o the Regula£ Meeting at. ?:00 p.m. tn the
Counoil Cttambe£e.
PRESENT: MayO£ Pco Tea HopKins; Council Meube£s Al~o£d. Choy,
ABSENT: MAyoc Stewact was ~n Dallas at~e~ng a ~eceptio~
~. Coneen~ ~e~a
Chew ~ttom. M*~ms eee~n~ ~o appzove ~he Comeem~ ~ge~
p~esen~ed.
R~d8 a~ ~ce~ee Ocdecs:
B~d ~ 9S93 - Vacuu~ s~eepe~
3.8~ ~ 957~ - Yello~o~e & Pcaicie D~atnage
Bi~ ~ 7577 - Aluuinuu conduc~o~
~e amount o~ 114.805.40
~he a~u~ o~ ~1%,000.00
B. C~ge Oc~ez:
~Eea~u~ Plan~ Upgrade (P~se X). 8oewe~ Compamy
c. F~I Pa~u~s:
~. B~ ~ 9487 - aepav~m~ bid - bo~ issue ~
Repav~
2. ~ece~ze wa~ec ~ne. westmate Heights, Phase
U. P~a~o a~
1. ~ppCova~ of pcel~m~nacy p~a~ o~ ~he 288 Condec
~t~on, Lot 1, Block 1. (The Plann~n~
Zoning Co~tee~on zeuomMnde
3. Appcova~ of ~t~l cepla= of the Co,mcca Cen~e~
, ~di~on. Lo~ 1H, Block 3. (The Planning and
, Zonimg Co~isl~on cecommend8 approval.)
AppEoval oC pcel~m~cy and g~nal cep~at8 o~
Fce~Ay PAEW ~d~C~on. LOCe 4B~ a~ 482, Block
A. (The Planning lnd Zoning Co~ma~on
ceco~8 ippcoval.)
4. Appcova~ of pce~uinacy an~ C~na~ cap,ate of ~e
~nm'8 ~on, Lo~a ~, 2 m~ 3, Bloc~ 2. (T~a
Ptanntng a~ Zontn0 couiseton ceco~end8
agpzoval,)
5. ~ppzoval ol genezat develop~en~ Dtan ol
Sou~hecn Hills A~litiom. (The Ptanming and
Zonin~ Co~tsston ~eco~en~s appcoval.)
486
City of ~nton City Council #inures
#eating of ~ebtua£y ~8, ~986
Page Pout
2. The Council oonsideced approval of alloying students fcom
had taised 84,000 fo[ the United May. The delve vas set Eot
1, t986.
atdd~eipe~ge~ mot[on, Chew 8eco~ ~o approve the collection of
Co~c~ ~e~be¢ 5te~ene asked ~. ~el~oe ~E he vas involved v~h ~he
~und d~[ve [n [985.
~. ~elsoe ~eeponded no; not
T~e Council ~hen considered ~ e~e~geney age~a a~e~u~.
1. The Council considered approval o[ aloe[rig ~k Street ~om
~S, ~86 ~oB 7:00 ~.m. until ~L:O0 ~.m. ~ot a
it[let ~ance.
~. Frank ~vila, tepze=en~tn~ the 8esquicentenntal co~ttee,
tepot~ed that this even~ ~d been requested bM the equate danes club
tn conjunct[on wLth the ~eequtcem~ennial caleb[at[ca. There ~uld
~ nc e~z~e ~ot the event and ~he public ~ae invited ~o
a dance. ~o~on cag~ied u~nimou{~y.
The Counc~ allo~ed an appearance by ~s. ~u~an
tnv~ing vagiou{ o~an~zat~on{ (such as %he ~, 8alva~ton
~. Susan Ba~y-Gohozeg stated t~t she ~d ~ a bad expe~{ence
had become avaze o~ the Eact t~ %here vas a ~em}ezate need Eot
ahel~ez and aid ~oz the needy in De~a. She Eel[ ~he City should
these people. She had bee~ ~e~etted to 2he ~a
Co~tttee but ha~ decided ra~hez to appeaz before ~he C~C~ Council.
4. The Council via to couside~ appzoval Of a zequeet by ~z.
~1 ~o put up posters ~or tally at the ~t~ Gospel Chuzah.
5. Public
Paul ~. ~a~ood tequest~ng app¢oval o~ a eoaptebensive site ptan
a pot[ion o[ a 1LZ.e~ acts ~txed use pla~ed developleb~ (~-41)
~K~ey Street (~ 426). This 3.12 acEo t~aet appEoved ~oE planned
development/general ~etail lan~ use ~8 located at t~e
coz~z o~ Loop 288 and East McXtn~ey S~Eee~ (~ 426). The pzopoeed
site plan contains the ~oll~tng
hand A~ea - 89,000 8quaEe
Rutld~n~ A~ea - 18,0OO squats
PacKing P~ovtded - 97 spaces
tot Cove[age - 20
8u~16~ng He~obt - 37 ~eet
5tg~ge - 400 8quire ~oo~ ~E~ atom,
40 feet ~ximuu ~eight
487
C~ty o~ Denton City Council M~UtM
MeetEng o( ~ebrua£y 11. 1gl&
Page F~ve
ME. To~ ~eeC~, ~egc~ent~ the pc~ne~pa~8 ~nvotved, 8po~e [n ~avo~
been before the ~velo~t Review Co~ttee 3 t~ues, the P~ann~ng
deveto~nt.
The ~yoc Pro Ten clome~ ~ public bearing.
d~(Etcult 8~tuat~on w~en otbeE po~t~o~8 cE tbs t~act development.
Tbt8 vas t~ (t~at moderate kutenstty node kn the C~ty to expand.
Sta(~ ~u~d ~ mon~toE~nq tho ~ance o( t~e Eeu~niug development
tn this ~la~ ~veloM~. ~ mkte p~a~ ~d been approved on the
u~n~u~Ly.
1085, a~ t~ R. R~ete 8~tvey, ~bstcact ll01, a~ beginning north
et Old ~Rlt~ litatel, eo~th cC ~au Road. vest of FK 2~81, a~ emit
et t~e G.C. i 8.Y, iatlz~ A-SO.
The ~yoC ~o Ten o~ued ~ public beactn~.
the le~o~ ~btic bia~t~ A~ acta o~ ec:o~ ~ beer teloved ~tou
the am~ttou ~9. Fourteen reply ~otue had been ~tled vtth zero
was ~om~%v~ item ~. Cal~Et. Tho euc:ent annexation ~a:eel would
appcoxtM~ly l,OOO t~t a~ ~t tot aVpcoxt~tely an additional
~mt ~)t appcoxt~te~y 2,300 CMl, the Ckty WouLd ~ an~xtmg the
ap~Eox~M~ly 2,~0 (oct, tho City ~u~d be annex~n~ both halve8 o(
H~ckoc~CEoe~ Read. The bc~qe was tn the parcel as kt could not be
· ctt~g C~t~ ~et l~h ~vehla tepo~ted that t~l bridge ~d been
reconstitute, by the ~t~ igptoxt~tely t~ a~ one-~Lf yeats ago.
Counci~ ~ Gte~ ~d tt aCa~C could visit with the other
people ~c~itd~ volu~tacy .c&t~c than ~nvolunta~y annexation.
~tch could be swayed wee those o~etl o: the 217 aces t~act.
conce~t~lF, this vas Where the start wanted the extension ce Loop
288 to ~ a~ ~ce aiki~ ~ot 50 ieet t~ght-ot-vay.
488
City of Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of Februa£y lB. 1986
Page six
MR. R. J. Button. o~ne£ of one o! the tracts, spoke in fevo£.
Me. ~tephanie Campion, owner of p£opeRt¥ in the annexation parcel,
spoke tn favoR.
#~. Thomas Catvert spoke tn opposition and asked tC the C&tve£t
tract on Ryan Road had been criminated f£o~ the petition.
Rllisou responded yes.
Mr. Calvert then stated that this was his onty opposition.
The Mayor PRo Tam erased the public
stephens motion, MoAAems second to continue with annexation A-30.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing concerning the
proposed annexation of app£oxiutety t25.25 eo~es beginning at Zings
Reed end proposed Loop 288, south of Oak Bend Rstates, and south
SttvaRdome Road A-33.
The Mayor PRo Tau opened the public heating.
David Rllison, Senior Planner, spoke in favo~ stating tb~tt this
the ft£st pubttc hearing. AppRoxtmitely 14.5 acres of the
annexation was involuntary. Striae this Request tot annexation
been discussed in Work session, interest hid been expressed to staff
in the annexation and devetopment. Teasley Road Associates coutd
submit a zoning tequest fo£ the pRopeRty atone the proposed
eztension et Loop 2a8. The developers were committed to the
project. One £epty form had been Received team RDSl however, the
tax ~ntls did not shay them to be pzope£ty
Mt. ViRgil Strange. representing Teaeley Road Aeeoatatee, spoke tn
~avot.
Me. Susan Batty 5chtotet asked if the crosses on the ovsth~ed
ptolection of the map indicated a cemetery ami if so. she did not
feel this g~ope~ty could be devetoped.
No one spo~e tn ovDoet~on.
The ~yot PRo TaR ctoeed the public hea~tng.
~tion ca~mi u~ntuouety.
A. The Counott considered adoption o~ an o~dt~nce
aeoepttn~ competitive bids a~ p~ov~dtng got the award og oontelets
The ~ollowtng o~dtnauee was p~esented:
AN ORDIN~ ACC~IN~ ~TITI~ BI~ ~ ~I~ A
C~CT FOR ~ P~C~SE ~ ~RI~, ~I~, SUPPlieS
OR ~ERVICES; PROVIDIN~ ~OR ~ ~I~R OF
T~RRFOR~; ~ PROVIDING ~ ~ RFF~I~
C~ew mo~ton. Rt~leepe=ge= aecon~ ~o adopt ~he o~ti~ee. On ~oll
salt yore. Me,ams "aye." 8~e~hen~ ",ye." Atlo=~ "lye."
~e~ge= ',ye." Chew "*ye." and ~yo= P~o Te~ Hop~t~e "*ye." Mo~io~
489
C[~y oC Oentou City Council
~eet[ng oC ?eh~u&ky 18,
Page 13eveu
U. T~ counett ~ous[~e~e~ a~op~ton o~ e~ o~t~nce
T~e ~ol~[ng o~[uinoe Wll
NO. 86-34
~ O~[M~ ~[~ C~ETIT[~ BIDS ~ PR~ID[NG FOR
~ ~ ~ ~S FOR PUBLIC ~RK5 ~
P~DI~ FOR ~ ~[TU~ OF F~ T~BEFO~; ~D
~IDI~ FOR ~ ~TI~ DA~.
Chow ~, At~oEd 6eo~ ~o a~opt the oEd[nance. On Eoll call
vo~e, ~a~ "eFe, = 8~e~em8 .aye," Almond "aye."
"aye," C~ u~e." a~ ~= Pzo Tea ~pkine "aye."
C, T~e Cou~il eone[de~e4 adoption o[ an ozdiuance
o~ COU~t[t[ve bids.
The ~o11~i~ o~[~e vie p~eienCed:
~ ~DI~ P~l~l~ FOB T~ E~PB~ITUH~ OF F~ FOR
~ ~8 ~ ~R[ALG, R~IP~T, SUPPLI~5 OH
BI~ ~ ~[D[~ F~ ~ EFFECTI~ DA~.
Choy ~t[on, Al~otd leco~ ~o adopt the o~d[nanee. On ~oll
"aye," C~ 'aye," a~ ~yoE P~o Tea Hopkins "aye." Motion cad,ted
O. ~e Council co~tdeced adoption DC an ocdtnance
aue~t~ Ocdt~e ~o. 85-?9 to pcov[de fo~ a eo~ected legal
dese~tg[~n o~ t~ ~Eogi~ty t~e~e~ ~ezon~ Z-1729.
The to~l~g ocdt~aee w~ pEese~Ced:
MO, 86-36
W ~1~ ~I~ O~IN~E MO. 85-79 ~ P~IDE FOR A
~D L~L ~6~[~I~ OF T~ PROPRR~ ~EREBY
~; ~ ~IDI~ ~R ~ EFFE~I~ DATE,
"aye," ~O~ a&~,. ~ ~O= P~O TI~ Hopkins "aye." ~t~on
unan[~u,
E. The Council eo~l[de~ed adopt[on o~ an o~dtnance
i~[~ Ozd[~ace ~o. 85-[46 to p~ov[de [o~ a co~ected
~. 86-37
~ ~D~ ~1~ ~DI~CE NO. 85-~46 ~ PROVIDK FOR A
~D LB~ ~CRIPT[~ ~ ~ P~PRRTY ~REBY
490
City o4 Denton City Council litnutes
Meeting DE Feb~ua£y 18, 1986
Page Eight
Chew motion, licAdaBs second to adopt the o~dinance, on toll call
vote, llcAdams "aye," Stephens "aye," &l~o~d "aFe,"
"aye,. cEe~ "aye," and ~ayo~ ~o ~a BopE[n8 "aye." ~tion
unanimous ly,
~. ~he Council considered a~o~ton et an o~dt~nce
approving a contract between ihs City oi Denton and Denton Boy's
Baseball. Ins,
The iollo~tn~ o~d[~noe was p~esen~:
~E~ ~ CI~ ~ ~N~ ~ D~ ~'i ~A~, INC.
~OR RECR~AT IONAL PR~ 5~S~D BY ~ P~
~REFO~; ~ PROVIDI~ FOR ~ EFF~I~ D~,
~tddlespe~qe~ ~otton. Che~ second ~o adopt t~e o~dt~s. On
Cart VO~e. Mc~aus "aye," S~e~he~s "aye," lllo[d "its,"
liddleapo~ger "aye," chew "aye,. and ~yQE PEO Ten Hopkins
~[[on ca~rted unanimously,
O. ~he Council considered adD,tiaa of au o~dt~noe
abandoning easements in the 5outhe~n Hills ~dttion.
~lng City ~ge~ Rick Svehla ~epo~ed ~ha~ this ~as a
aba~onuent. TheRe Were 2 TP&L [t~s located Da I liege t~aet
land ~ich the C~ty had pu~e~eed behind the ~t~t sto~e. The
earn[ any lom~ez.
The [ollow[mg o~d[nance ~aa p~eaen[ea:
~ OEDIN~ OF ~ CITY OF D~N, TE~, ~ING
VACATING CERTAIN UTILI~ ~AG~TG AS D~SCRI~D ~EEIN;
DEC~RI~ ~ EFFECTI~ DA~.
6te~he~s ~tion, Chew 8oco~ to a~opt the oEdt~nee. On ~oll call
vote, ~cMaa8 "aye," 5tephe~s "aye," At~o~d "aye, .
"aye," Chew "aye," and ~yo~ PaD TaB Hopkins "aye." ~tio~
uuant~us
~. The Council considered adoption o~ a~ ordinance to
P~ant (app~oxt~tely ~8.16 acres).
~ctin~ City ~ee~ Rick Svehla ~e~o~ted t~t this ~s baeleally a
lint suap. The City o~ned p~o~e~ty at the ~ast~ate~ t~eat~nt
plant and ~. Ben Ptnnetl o~ed se~ p~o~e~ty ~hioh ~as located
ctose~ to the entrance ol the plant. The idea ~as t~ exchange the
· ~ io[louin~ o~di~nce ~as p~esented:
~O. 8t-40
~ ORDIN~C~ ~P~V[~ ~ ~ ~IDI~ FOR
EX--GE OF R~L PROP~R~ BE~ ~ CI~ OF D~
A.B,P.. JR., TRUS~E, I~~ NO. 17. · JOI~
~ PROVIDING FOR ~ EFFE~I~ DATE.
~ ~tion. Mc~a~s second to adept the o=dt~e. On =oll call
vote, McAdals "aye," 8~ephens "aye," Ilfo~d "aye," Riddlespe~ge~
"aye," Chou "aye," a~d ~yo~ PRO Te~ Hopkins 'aye." ~tton
491
city oc Denton City Council Minutes
Meeting of Feb£uary
Page Nine
I. The Council coniide£ed adoption of an
approving a contract bet~en the City of Denton and Lake Cities
Muntcipa~ Utility Authozity for the intecim sale of wholesale
t£eated varec.
Howard tint,ia. City Chemist. ceported that the contcact was a
cu~u~ation of negoti&ttone between Lake Cities Municipal Utility
Authocity and the City o~ Denton. Lake Cities would purchase
approxil~ltely 500.000 gallons oC treated water per day. This was
similac to the contcact which Denton had with Corinth but the~e
two diCterenoe~. This wa8 a lO Fea~ Dlan and the ~atel would be set
based on Our oontza~t with t~e C~ty cC DAllas. Lake C~ie8 would
lines ~ieh~utd be given to the City gl ~nton.
Acting City ~nager Rick Svehla repo~ted that ~he rate~ we~e based
on the highez cost o[ the plant and would not da~ge
The EOllQW~n~ oEd~nce wal p=esen~ed:
~. 86-41
~ ~IN~CK ~Pi~I~ A ~CT PBOVIDING FO~ ~
~E ~ ~O~EGAtB ~D WATEH BE~EN T~ C~TY OF
~ ~ CITIES ~ICIPA~ UTILITY A~HOHITY; ~D P~OVIDING
6tephen~ ~ot~on. Chew second ~o adopt the o=d~nance. On ~o1~ call
vo~e, ~ "aye." Gtephenl "aye," Alfo~d "a~e." Riddlespe~e~
"aye," C~ew "aye," and ~o~ P~o Tem Hopkins "aMs." ~t~om ca:tied
unantmo~elF.
7. Reeoluttona
A. The Coumeil eone[dezed appzoval o~ a ~esolution
support o~ amt~-cz~ leg~llat[om.
ac~img city ~gez Rtc~ Svehla ~epozted that ~ta item had been
~laced on the agemda at the ~equeet of ~Moz Stewart.
T~e [ollowtng ~esotutton was ;~eaented:
R[50~UT I OM
~G, in Ip~e gE the dedication and best efforts of ou~
law em~o=ce~a~ co,unity, we ~nd that the czt~e =ate continues to
tree and t~t out Texas businesses a~ law abiding citizens continue
to nee~lessl~ au~et; and
~, t~e p[oble~ caused by cti~ and c~tmtnal acts
being visited upon ct~tz~as gl ~ntom a~ ctttzen~ thcoughout Texas
La unaoeeptable a~ must ~ zeett~[ed; and
~IA6, the citizenry requires that govet~ent8 at all
level~ ~a~e vhaCeve~ ao~ton a~ appropriate w~tevet sums ate
necessazy to pzcpezty lutltlt said above-=ele=enced [tzar Junction
o~ gove~mt: a~d
citizens gl Texal =equtze that mote attention be Cocused on
sotutt0~l ~denCttted Co add~eal out c~tle pzobleEI, a~
~t~G, cities t~oughout Texas a~e p~esentty wo~ing in a
coopeta&ive e~avot to idemt~M those aoluttone ~ic~ ~M be
tmpleuemte~ untlatetatly by t~e cities a~ those which Esquire state
legiaSative action; N~, ~Fo~,
492
City o~ Denton City Council Minutes
J~ettng o~ Feb~ua£y tS. 1986
t~age Ten
B, IT 8E6OLVED BY THR CITY COUNCIL OF THR CITY OP
~o oomveme in aanuazy. 1987.
T~ ~he city cou~tl ~nd8 and de~ezuluee that said
au~t-o~lme le~istation t8 ~he stngula~ ~s~ t~o~an~ issue
allee~in~ ~he lives, p~ope~y and sale~y ol t~ ottizeus ol Texas
~te~ will be deat~ wi~h ~n said legtata~ive session.
The City Secretary ia hereby di~ec~ea
~his zesolu~ton ~o ~oveznoE ~zk ~t~e. ~. 9o~za~z Bill ~bby.
8peakez ol ~he House Gib Lewis. Cztmtmat Justice Co~tC~ee
Xem~ Cape~on. said Co~i~tee's Vice Chatz~n. Bob ~F~ztand. eatd
Committee's ~eabe~s 8ena~oz RaM Fazabee. aema~oz 8ob
6emato~ Ted Lyon. Sena~oz H. T~t 6anXietieS.
~e~zeeem~a~tve Ben Campbell.
~CTI~
That this ~esolutton s~ll ~ake e~ee~tve t~dta~ely upon
tls ~assage and appzoval.
P~SED ~ ~PPRO~D ~his 16th day of Feb~uacy,
RICHARD O. G~MART. MAYOR
CITY OF DENsitY. ~AS
AT'I'~6T:
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
D~ilA ADAMI DRAYOVITCIt. CZTY ATOMY
Chew motion. Stephens secoui that ~be ~esotutton be approved. On
colt call vote. ~le "aye." 6tegkens "aye.~ llloz~ "aye,"
l~dteepezge~ "aye." Chew 'aye." a~ ~yo~ V~a ~ ~ovktns "aye."
~ttom ca~=ted u~ntmouely.
e. ~he Council held a discussion o[ petition ol On,hill Joint
~ntuze ~o~ annexation o~ aVVzoxt~ely Io.~o aozea begiuuing
a~Jacem~ and south o~ East ~cXinney 9~eet (~ 426) app~ozi~ely 1
1/2 uttee east ol ~yhtll Road to~ ~he purpose ol ae~e~utning
whethez to begin the anne~ttou pzoeees A-3~,
~vid Elltson. Gentoz Ptannez. pointed ou~ points oZ cerements on
the ~p ol the p~oposed annezatton &zee ami ~e~Eted t~t this was a
sta~azd zaquest, ~ptcal land uses ~uld include single la~tly
detached and cluster housing. T~ze v~=e tvo eEisti~g dvetltmg
units tn place and t~e annexitton was voluntaz~. The develo~nt
potential ~as questionable but the Vaz~et was ia el~se ptextattM to
the existin~ city limits line. Invotuutazy a~e~ion t~acte ~utd
have ~o be included ~o ~e~ ~o ~hte al~e. The~e ~ze 3 options
493
City et Denton City Council
Meeting o~ ~eb~ua~y tS0
~age
~ne ~ou ~ ~b~e ~oM pa~k ~o ~he LaKev~ev deve~o~uen~
ComsenlM o~ t~ C~ty C~l was to execctee opt~om 3 an~ extemd
I
9. ~ ~e~me~l ~ld a dtmcule~on oC petLt~on oC Mt~le~ cC
David ltltmom, Sentoc Plaune~, ~epocted that th~8 a~ea vas on the
top o[ P~go I zo~t~ ~o~ ~l~ov~ew, The ~et~tton vas [o~ volun~a~y
annexation o~ 60 ac~el; ho~vec, an add~t~o~l 22 acce8 ot
380.
T~O Counc~ co~LdoEed app~ova~ o[ a cequest [o~
e~c service outside ctCy tiiLtl by ~. O. McDonnell.
uan~Ca~ IME eeEv~ce ~oE K~. a. O. Mc~nnell's g~andson.
Mc~aBI ~tton, C~ leco~ to appgove ~e ~equelt ~o~
The Council eons~de~ed approval cE a ~eque8~ ~o~ wa~e~ and
l~eDe~ent ~ehoo~ Pi~ttiet on Hickory Creek Road.
loeate~ quite a dtnta~ce CEOE the existing CLty l~u~t ~me. The
~yot ~to T~ ~pktue al~ regarding ~he 9ol8[bil~y o~ ovecstz[ng.
appzop~ia~e a~ g~aC~ Wao g~udyin~ thte ~eeue.
12. These vel mo o~ttetal aetLon on Executive 5ess~ou ~tem8 cC
13. The ~ollowin~ ~teul o~ New BugLnee8 wets 8uggee~ed by
~utd ~ place~ ~n a ~utu~e age~a as t~ue ~td mo~
2. T~ ~tlcuistou o~ a .mo-e~kLng" ocdtnance Eot the Ct~y oC
~ ~uld bo placid on a Eutu~e ago~a aa t~e d~d not
494
City o~ Denton City Council Mtnutem
~eet~ng o~ Feb£ua~y 18, 1986
Page Twelve
3. Ma¥o~ P~o Tem Hopkins asked ~o~ · £eport on the c~ty~m
investlent 9oliey.
14. The Council ~econYened tnto the Execu~iYe Session to
discuss legal mattecs, zeal estate, p~£so~nel and boa£d
appointmenta. No oEEicial action Wa~ taken.
~E AL~EN. CT~ 6ECRET~Y
01470
495
496
497
498