Minutes January 22, 1990354
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 22, 1991
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in the
Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT:
Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Boyd; Council
Members Alexander, Ayer, Gorton, Hopkins and
Trent.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council convened into Executive Session to discuss
legal matters (considered action in Dyson v. City of Denton and
considered action in County vs. City), real estate and
personnel/board appointments (considered appointments to the
Building Code Board, Community Development Block Grant
Committee, the Electrical Code Board, the Historic Landmark
Commission, the Human Services Committee, the Animal Shelter
Advisory Committee, the Blue Ribbon Committee for Storm Water
Utility and the Sign Board of Appeals).
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding the potential sale of the City's commercial solid
waste system and consider possible alternatives.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that a number of months
ago, the Council received a recommendation from a Solid Waste
Advisory Committee that the Council had appointed to look into
all aspects of the City's solid waste system. That Committee
reviewed the alternatives and recommended to Council three
recommendations (1) residential collection service had
competitive rates and was well received by the general
population.of the City and recommended no change in residential
solid waste collection, (2) the landfill, was filling up at a
rapid rate and the Council should move to acquire additional
property and expand the landfill, and (3) the commercial
service should be a system where the City provided exclusive
service. Following that recommendation from the Committee and
after a public hearing and Council discussion, the Council
tabled the issue until staff could prepare specifications and
go out for bid to see how much the commercial solid waste
system would be worth to the City if the City sold the system.
Council Member Gorton asked for the recommendation from the
Solid Waste Alternatives Committee.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the
recommendation was that the City be the exclusive provider.
Council Member Trent felt that the recommendation from the
Committee had since changed. -'~
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 2
City Manager Harrell replied that the Committee had not changed
its recommendation. What had changed was that the Council took
the recommendation, had public hearings and then decided to
take bids on the system before making any decision regarding
the system. The Committee never changed its recommendation.
Council Member Trent replied that he had heard comments from
members of the Committee that they did not have all of the
information when they arrived at their recommendation.
Council Member Hopkins stated that a member of the Committee
had stated that he concurred with the report as it came then
but because they knew nothing was going to be undertaken
immediately that that was the position for that time.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, reviewed details
concerning the current operation of the City's solid waste
system. There was the residential system, the commercial
system and the landfill operation. Nelson detailed the number
of employees, number of routes, annual revenue, annual volume
and customers of each system. He stated that if the commercial
system were sold and some of the funds not directed back to the
residential system, the rates for residential service would be
greatly increased.
Council Member Gorton asked about EPA guidelines and long-term
commitment/liability. If the landfill were closed in 2005, was
the City's commitment/liability until the year 2035.
Nelson replied yes that the City would have responsibility
until 2035 and was one of the major considerations in the
overall look at the situation.
Council Member Gorton asked if there were environmental issues
imposed today that would be retroactive to the day the landfill
was opened.
Nelson replied that the new regulations were to have been out
in January. It was understood that there would be an eighteen
month grace period. If a landfill were closed in that eighteen
month time frame, the thirty year liability did not apply.
There was a five year post-closure responsibility.
Council Member Gorton expressed concern that a decision could
be made which would be good for Denton today but may not be
good in the future.
Nelson continued that if the landfill were filled at the
existing rate, a new landfill would be needed or additional
permitted area by 1996. With just the City's commercial volume
and Texas Waste Management's volume, escalating at the rate of
the City's population growth, the year would be 2001 or 2002.
3:5 5
356
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 3
There was approximately 3.5 million cubic yards of space
available around the landfill for additional space. Nelson
reviewed the bids received regarding the sale of the system.
The best bid was from Texas Waste Management, Inc. at, $1.9
million. Various options included either selling or retaining
the system, increasing the volume at the landfill, maintaining
the volume at the landfill or decreasing the volume at the
landfill. Some of the assumptions included effect on the
employees and their transfer and the fact that competition
would keep the commercial rates low. Main concerns were to
keep the residential rates reasonably low, the availability of
a local disposal site and the landfill liability. The
distribution of the $1.9 million for the system would include
setting aside $500,000 to cover a present negative in
Restricted Assets which would be recovered when the landfill
closed; $180,000 to cover 1991 contingencies; $40,000 to cover
accrued vacations: $1,180,000 would be invested at 8% interest
and $118,000 plus interest on the balance would be credited to
residential customers.
The first basic scenario included: sell the system, get out of
the landfill operation as soon as possible, but still provide a
local transfer station via contract or provide a local
convenience dump station, and retain the residential collection .
system. This would limit the landfill liability as the City
would no longer be in the landfill business. It did not solve
the thirty year post-closure responsibility. With this
scenario, it would take about two and a half years to totally
fill the landfill. The rates would stay level for the next
two-three years and then would increase by about 5% per year.
Option iA included that if the landfill were closed prior to
the eighteen months and Texas Waste Management were allowed to
set up a transfer station in Denton, Texas Waste Management
would be willing to pay the City another $1.2 million. This
scenario was the same as Option 1 except the landfill would be
closed prior to the thirty year post-closure responsibility.
The $1.2 million would be received in 1993 and Texas Waste
Management would install a transfer station and sign a fifteen
year tipping fee contract with a starting figure around $6.00.
In Scenario 6, the City could continue in the present mode,
competing with private haulers in the commercial collection
system, continue to provide residential collection service,
continue to operate the landfill and, via competitive rates,
continue to bring in 70,000 cubic yards of volume and then plan
to expand the landfill in 1996. Advantages would be that
Denton would keep on status quo, would provide a competitive
factor in the setting of landfill rates and commercial rates in
the area and residential rates would remain lower in later
years. Disadvantages included the City would continue to be
liable for the landfill and a new landfill would be needed by
the year 2003.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 4
Scenario
City would become
waste collection.
residential solid
approximately 1996
needed by 2003.
8 was essentially the SWAC recommendation, where the
the exclusive provider of commercial solid
The City would continue to collect
waste and would expand the landfill in
with additional landfill/disposal options
Council Member Gorton asked if the Publi~ Utilities Board had
made a final recommendation to Council.
Nelson replied that the Public Utilities Board had not made a
recommendation to Council.
Council Member Gorton asked if, by law, there was a necessity
to report back to a State agency.
Nelson replied no that there was a requirement on other utility
functions but not on this function.
Council Member Gorton stated that he wanted to be sure that all
legal notices required were taken care of so that there were no
last minute hitches.
Council Member Alexander asked if with Scenario iA which
involved the sale of the landfill, would that mean that Waste
Management would close the landfill at that date and would
assume the responsibility of it and operate it until it was
full.
Nelson replied that the City would continue with the
responsibility but they would assure the City that the City
would have enough volume to close the current pit.
Council Member Hopkins asked if Texas Waste Management was
willing to use the landfill and help close the landfill.
Nelson replied yes that they were willing to put enough waste
into the landfill at $3.00-$3.50 per yard for the next 18
months to fill the pit.
Council Member Trent asked about the location of the transfer
station.
Nelson stated that the City would like a site near the current
landfill. They had indicated that they may want a site north
of the City closer to I35.
3. The Council was to receive a report and hold a
discussion amending Article 11. Planned Developments. of the
Zoning Ordinance.
357
358
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 5
This item was held for the Regular Session.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding proposed amendments to the concept map of the Denton
Development Plan to provide for the expansion of the Special
Purpose Activity Center and amending the boundaries of
Intensity Areas ~1, 9, 10, 95, 105, 107, 109, 110 and 111 of
Appendix A.
Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that in September 1988,
Council adopted the Denton Development Plan. That Plan showed
a 3,500 acres Special Purpose'Activity Center by the airport.
It was intended that that area would attract industry and
create an economic base to provide a hub for economic activity
and employment in the City. In 1990-1991, the circumstances
had changed with relation to the Special Purpose Activity
Center. In June 1990, the Texas Department of Commerce
approved two enterprise zones for Denton. The boundaries of
Zone I extended south along I35W to include a large site
between I35W and Hwy 77. The owners of these tracts had
petitioned the City for annexation of approximately 1,397 acres
at this location with the objective of establishing zoning on
the tracts. With Enterprise Zone designation and given the
strategic location of this site in the I35W corridor, it was
the expectation of the City and the land owners that a major
economic development project may be attracted to locate here.
In order to establish the appropriate zoning classification and
aggressively market the site, staff was proposing to add
approximately 2,744 acres to the Special Purpose Activity
Center.
In a related matter, Persuad stated that the western portion of
the Denton Planning Area was characterized by large flood
plains and large tracts under one ownership. Some of the large
land owners had approached the Planning staff to discuss the
future planning and development of their tracts. The Perot
Group and the Henry S. Miller Trust had submitted general
concept plans and were currently pursuing annexation and zoning
of 1,367 acres east of I35W. The New Market Group Southwest
Inc. had met with staff about a large tract west of the TPG
property north of Crawford Road. RMB Realty had been pursuing
a General Development Plan for a 91Z acre tract located in the
southeast corner of Highway 156 and US Highway 380. The
inclusion of these tracts into designated intensity areas was
essential in order to implement the policies of the Denton
Development Plan. Staff was proposing to extend the western
boundaries of the Denton Planing Area. The proposed amendments
to the intensity area boundaries would promote the planning and
development of lands in that area in accordance with the
policies in the Denton Development Plan.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with staff
recommendations.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 6
The Council then convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Boyd; Council
Members Alexander, Ayer, Gorton, Hopkins and
Trent.
ABSENT: None
Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Council Member Trent left the meeting.
2. The Council received a citizen report from Carl young
regarding how Blacks felt about the City of Denton and policies
towards Blacks especially employment practices.
Mr. Young stated that there were no Blacks on the Council for
the first time in twelve years. He stated that the City
election districts were designed to keep Blacks out of City
government. He felt that Blacks had only a 25% chance of being
elected to the City Council. To further divide the Black
political strength, the City split the Black community by using
the Denton Housing Authority. This was done by building low
rent apartments west of the University of North Texas -
Concrete City. Other Blacks moved to apartments provided by
the Housing Authority in the north part of Denton - Village
East. At the same time, it was impossible for a Black to rent
an apartment at the Phoenix Apartments. He felt that if the
City of Denton's intentions were honorable, then the Housing
Authority would have made low rent housing available instead of
creating little ghettos all over Denton. Next, the Housing
Authority put up signs saying anyone not living in the Phoenix
would be arrested for criminal trespassing. He felt that was
to keep Blacks out. All of the people arrested for trespassing
had been Blacks. He stated that the City told people that it
had a program for fixing houses and destroying old houses in
southeast Denton. But in reality, the City destroyed ten
houses and repaired two. Zoning in this area of town
prohibited the building of a new home. He favored a 6-1
xedistricting plan. This would allow a Black a fair chance of
being elected. The City was receiving grants and federal
money. All that could be stopped as the City government did
not meet federal guidelines regarding the hiring of
minorities. There were no Blacks on the Fire Department and
only two Blacks on the Police Department with none over the
rank of Sergeant. There were no Blacks at the Electrical Plant
or a Black in a supervisory position higher than crew chief on
a truck. The City set up hand picked groups to meet in
southeast Denton for the COPS
359
360
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 7
programs. Some of these meeting had been secret meetings
attended by police officers wearing guns which intimidated
people to attend. These meetings were controlled by people who
worked for the City and who did not live in southeast Denton.
These meetings started at 6:00 p.m. for an hour which did not
allow the working people who live in southeast Denton to
attend. A police review board was needed with subpoena power
as there were many cases of police brutality. He felt that the
minorities in Denton needed to feel that the City of Denton was
giving real consideration to minority hiring.
Council Member Hopkins stated that the City had been trying to
redistrict and could not proceed as the County was waiting
until the census figures were available. A committee had been
formed to look at the boundaries and now that the census
information was available could proceed with that task.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that Young's objection to Black
representation seemed to be that integration had been
succeeding. He did not feel that seeking a segregated
community was appropriate.
Young replied that he felt the City had diluted the Black
political strength with the district lines and with the Housing
Authority.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked Young who he felt drew the district
lines.
Young replied he felt Boyd did as it ended at Boyd's house and
that the lines were drawn the year before he was elected.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd replied that it was the plantiff's in a law
suit and that the lines were drawn the year before Mark Chew
was elected.
Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered
approval of preliminary and final replats from Lot 41 and
additional unplatted land to Lots 4lA and 4lB, Block B,
Bellaire Heights Subdivision, Phase V located at the end of
Howard Court, east of Mockingbird Lane. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval).
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 8
Bud Hauptman, Metroplex Engineering, spoke for the
petitioners. He stated that behind Howard Court there was a
lot which as platted was an odd shape for development.
Additional property was purchased next to this lot which was
unplatted. In order to create a buildable lot, the owner
decided to replat and divide the property into two lots.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the
Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously approved the
request.
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the preliminary
and final replat of the property. On roll vote, Alexander
"aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and
Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered
adoption of an ordinance approving a Detailed Plan on Planned
Development 16 and a portion of Planned Development 19 for the
purpose of a mixed use development consisting of a public
library, fire station, and shopping center on ~an 11.20 acre
tract of land located at the southwest corner of Lillian Miller
Parkway and Teasley Lane. Z-90-016 (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval).
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
William Kaufer, NCNB Bank, stated that a number of years ago,
PD16 included a retail development with Teasley Lane curving
through the development. Since that time, Teasley Lane had
been straightened out with an intersection with Lillian Miller
Parkway. This had left the City of Denton with a small
rectangular piece of property. The proposal would take the
same development right, originally approved for PD 16, and put
it in a somewhat different configuration. The triangular piece
that was owned by the City of Denton was part of PD19. The
plan before the Council would move to the north, taking in the
abandoned street in the triangle as part of PD16, the shopping
center development approved a number of years ago. There was
,Do request for an increase in the number of square foot of
space allowed. However, it would be on a slightly differently
configured piece of property. The southern end of the tract
would be swapped to the City of Denton where a new fire station
and a new library would be built. This appeared to .be a
win-win . ~ituation for everyone. It utilized a piece of
property, the triangular piece and abandoned roadway, as part
of his development which gave him a square piece of property
which made it work better. It took a piece of property which
361
362
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 9
would be very difficult for the City of Denton to work with
particularly with a fire station on that corner. How to get in
and out of there with the access and no median cuts. It also
provided a buffer between the retail center and the residences
to the south. He pointed out that what they were asking for
was to reconfigure the shape of the property, no increase in
development rights, the request was still the same as a number
of years ago, and was as compatible now as it ever was with the
surrounding land and in fact was buffered now than it was
then. It also provided a piece of property that was in a size
and shape that the City of Denton could use much better. The
swap of the land was about eight tenths of an acre in favor of
the City of Denton. It had been recommended by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that a considerable
amount of time had been spent working on this project. The
City had about an acre of land to begin with. There was about
nine-tenths acres of land which was in the old right-of-way.
The Highway Department agreed to deed that property back to the
City after the Bank and Trust fund relinquished the access to
it. Under this scenario, the City would trade the 1.9 acres of
property for 2.8 acres of property. The good points of the
proposal were that it moved the facility away from the corner,
it provided more flexibility and enough room to get in and out
of the station, and cleaned up the intersection so that the
driveways were away from the intersection and large configured
driveways were not needed to accommodate turning fire trucks.
It also eliminated some median cuts and provided a site not
only for the fire station but also for a new library.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that the Council was considering a
concept plan only. The funds for the library had not been
appropriated and there had been no decision to build a library
there.
Svehla replied that was correct. Basically, it allowed the
City enough room that if the Council chose to build a library
on the site, it could be built there. If the Council chose to
build some other facility, it would have to come back and
change or amend the PD.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that there had been no bond funds or
any other funds appropriated for the library construction.
Svehla replied that initially there were part of the library
bonds that had been sold. There had been authorization from
the voters for $1 million and about $400,000 of the bonds had
been sold. The only money spent out of the $400,000 was the
authorization made by Council to hire a consultant to determine
future needs and/or locations.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 10
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that today the Council was not voting
to build a library.
Svehla replied correct.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the Library Board had
looked at various sites and it was their recommendation that
this site be utilized to build the library which was identified
for the southern part of the community in the consultant's
study. The Library Board further recommended that a small
portion of the $400,000 be utilized to do some of the public
improvements on the site that would be needed to do at a later
date. Technically, no firm decision had been made. But on the
other hand, some recommendations had been made and
recommendations would be coming to the Council very shortly to
commit some funds which would indicate that in all likelihood
that would be the site of the library.
Svehla stated that the '91 Committee had also reviewed the site
and would be making a recommendation to the Council as the land
swap came before Council.
Council Member Gorton stated that the issue before Council was
the detailed plan allowing for a portion of the plan to be
designated to the City of Denton for its own use and
determination at a later date.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, replied that this was a
detailed plan which would allow the library and fire station to
be constructed should Council so determine. Nothing else could
be built on the site without being changed.
Council Member Gorton stated that a change in the PD would be
on the City's request or the developer's request.
Svehla replied that if the City chose to do the zoning and the
land trade were made, then the City would be the land owner.
Normally, the owner was the one who would request a change.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that staff would probably
recommend to the Council that the City initiate a zoning change
even though the City was not legally bound to that regulation.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the City was at the point and had
the funds to build the fire station. It was not the same
criteria as the library.
363
Svehla replied yes that the funds were available for the fire
- station.
364
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22. 1991
Page 11
Bill Claiborne, representing homeowner's of Indian Ridge
Subdivision, questioned that there were no numbers in the
backup material regarding intensity. He trusted that they were
within the guidelines of the Denton Development Plan. He asked
about additional retail acreages in an area which already had
the Golden Triangle Mall and the Southridge Shopping Center.
In PD19 there was sufficient acreage for retail development on
the east side of Lillian Miller Parkway. He questioned retail
establishments next to a school He favored office-type uses.
He stated that City staff recommended not having a funeral
parlor at the location but he felt that such a business would
not be a bad land use for the intersection. He favored office
use or medical facility use at the location. As a
neighborhood, they were opposed to any auto repair business of
any kind in the area. He asked that any references to auto
repair be stricken from the PD.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that the current PD was not office.
Claiborne stated that that was possible, it could be general
retail.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked which alternative Claiborne would be
in favor of choosing between the current or proposed uses.
Claiborne stated that he could accept general retail but not
auto repair shops of any nature.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd restated that the major objection was the
automobile service authorization in the PD.
Claiborne stated that in the neighborhood meeting, there was
some concern that the retail sale of gasoline would be
appropriate even at the intersection. However, realizing that
this type of development usually attracts a quick-shop type of
development with retail gas sales, that would be acceptable but
not to their liking. Automobile repair stores at this location
would be completely out of character as less than a mile away
there was a complex for auto repair service.
Jerry Cott, Sundown Ranch, stated that the concept of
cumulative zoning and the concept of too much density and too
many traffic counts did not stop before four sides around
Sundown Ranch were zoned so intensely that there was no
possibility for him to consider living in the area with all the
cars and all of the homes and multifamily homes. In 1986 the
Council allowed that when PD19 started, a wall eight feet tall
of stone or brick would be built down the entire southern part
of PD19 and that would, he felt, screen his property to the
north. He was concerned about the language in the PD so he
spent quite a bit of time getting a specific verbatim
translation of the City Council minutes of that evening and of
the Planning and Zoning
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 12
minutes of that evening. There was clearly no doubt from
those, that as soon as PD19 was built in any shape, manner or
form, Sundown Ranch would have its screen. Lillian Miller was
not there at the time and PD19 at that time, went across what
was then Teasley Lane. In 1986, the zoning was changed and he
was never notified. He had no idea until about two weeks ago
that the zoning had been changed to create this current kind of
situation. The City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney had
told him that if it was not in the PD and his attorney
concurred, that there was a different kind of situation. Now,
that Bluebonnet owned the property rather than Dimension
Development, it was not in their PD. He believed he had a
strong case on the issue that because of the trouble he went to
to see that City Council approve the verbatim translation of
the minutes and approve the PD as soon as it would be built, it
was Council's responsibility, not his, to see to it that it got
into the PD.
Council Member Gorton questioned what it was Mr. Cott was
asking for.
Cott replied that he wanted the Council to build the wall.
Council Member Gorton replied that Cott wanted the Council to
request the petitioner to build the wall.
Cott replied whoever was PD19 he wanted them to build the wall.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that PD16 was. the shopping center and
PD19 was the City of Denton. The ~est of PD19 was across
Lillian Miller and not owned by the City. What Cott was asking
was that the wall be built on both sides of Lillian Miller.
Cott replied no, that the only way he could determine how to
get someone to do this was to either get Bluebonnet to put it
in their PD or get the City to put in their PD.
Council Member Gorton stated that a portion of Sundown Ranch
was issued a specific use permit for circuit race .....
Cott replied a race track.
Council Member Gorton continued for a race track not for
betting but for training. He asked the rest of the Council if
they recalled the restrictions as far as fencing, set back,
etc. He felt that it all dove-tailed. To whom were they
asking to build the wall between which portions.
365
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that he failed to understand .....
366
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January ZZ, 1991
Page 13
Cott stated that it was at one time one PD with no road through
between it.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd continued that he understood that. Was Cott
asking the City of Denton, on its triangle, to build a wall.
Cott replied no that what he was saying was the City's PD19 was
considered part of the whole PD. And he was asking for one of
two things. Either include in the City's PD the construction
of the wall or cause Bluebonnet who should have when they
purchased the property known that they had to build the wall as
it was in the Council's minutes and notes. That should be
something that they were required to do.
Council Member Hopkins asked if that was still not PD19 and PD
19 on the east side of the Highway would still have the
requirements that were in the minutes.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd replied .that what he felt Cott was saying
was that it was not in ordinance form and was just in the
minutes.
City Manager Harrell stated that if the minutes were read,
there was reference to a detailed development plan that would
be filed. When that detailed development plan was filed, at
that point, the wall would be shown on that detailed
development plan. The property had since changed hands and was
not developed, and a detailed development had not been filed.
That was the purpose of the verbatim minutes to make sure a
record was made so as not to loose track of that at any point.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if this was something that had to be
dealt with at this time or should it be dealt with when the
rest of PD19 was developed,
City Manager Harrell replied that he felt it was really
Council's option. He understood that one of the options was
the possibility of proceeding with this rezoning and putting it
in this particular PD. But then, institute some kind of
rezoning application for the remaining portion of the PD19 and
putting that in the document at this time rather than waiting
for the detailed development plan.
,City Attorney Drayovitch stated that there was a part in the
minutes of 1987 Council meeting that stated, which was McAdams'
motion, that at the time the detailed site plan for PD19 was
brought before Council, that the matter would be addressed.
She felt that the problem was that everyone thought it 'would
come in one plan. This portion was across the right-of-way and
it would be very difficult to address and impose this
requirement on property that was not here to be discussed
before the Council today. She would recommend against it being
imposed at this meeting.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 14
Council Member Alexander stated he understood Cott's position
was that based on Council minutes and based on the previous
process, that Cott had a legal property right to have the wall
built as PD19 was completed.
Cott corrected "was started"
Council Member Alexander continued that his question for Cott
was would Cott be satisfied, at this point, if Cott was
confident that if the rest of PD19 was started that the wall
would be constructed even if the wall were not constructed at
this point in time while the rest of PD19 was constructed'.
Cott stated if the wall were constructed all at once. Not
portions at a time.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd felt that it needed to be done at a later
date when the rest of the development was considered. He felt
it might be a bit unfair to whoever was the owner of the rest
of PD19 to impose this restriction without at least giving them
the opportunity to comment.
Cott asked Mayor Pro Tem Boyd if he had to wait until the
second and third phases of the development.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd replied that he understood the City Attorney
to say that the City could initiate a zoning matter right a way
to resolve the issue. He felt it needed to be handled prior to
development of the property but after notice to the interested
parties.
Cott felt that it needed to be in some. ordinance within the
next thirty to sixty days.
Council Member Hopkins asked if the Council could instruct
staff or make a motion to place on the agenda a City initiated
consideration of the land adjoining Cott which would show what
was done in the minutes and make it a part of the zoning.
City Attorney Drayovitch replied that Council could direct
staff to place such a matter on an agenda for Council
consideration and at that time or before that time, she could
provide Council with a legal update regarding the legal issues
surrounding the matter.
The petitioner was allowed a five minutes rebuttal.
367
368
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 15
Kaufer stated that the intensity and us
before. There was no change in the nature
a slight shifting around of the legal
boundaries of the PD. He felt that by d
provided a better buffering of the retail
family homes were than it did before, q
was not involved in the current PD16 ex
swap which was needed more for the benefit
them, it brought them in to the fringes of
never had such a requirement in the PD
procedure would be to reconfigure the
swap. The City had a legal right then
hearing on any piece of property in the
proper zoning. He felt the way everyone
to approve the request as presented to
City facilities to be built and the shopp
with the same intensity and same uses J
follow-up action, instruct staff to plac6
an item which allow a public hearing on Pf
discussing the condition dealing with the
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if the peri'
objection to the deletion of the specific
Kaufer replied that it was not the numk
wanted to have but that it was an al
included in the PD. He felt that in or
swap work and for them to get no addition~
the use needed to remain. It had been
time and would rather keep in but also
matter tonight.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Karen Feshari, Urban Planner, stated t!
Council passed and approved an ordin~
Ordinance 73-25 and 73-27 by amending
provide for the correct designation of th~
Planned Development Zoning District PDll
use. In 1986, the Council passed an ordi£
revised concept plan for Planned Developm6
a mixed use development. PD16 as it was
shopping center could at this point in
permit for general retail type uses.
actually narrowed down the types of
permitted on the pmoperty, The property
intensity area. The majority of the s
zoned for general retail type uses. Th~
Commission considered the proposal at its
1991 and voted unanimously to approve the
see a reasonable connection between
concerning the wall issue and did not feel
addresses at that time.
es were the same as
of the PD other than
description of the
)ing the shifting, it
from where the single
he issue of the wall
=ept for by the land
of the City than for
the issue. They had
He felt the proper
D and make the land
to initiate a public
2ity to determine the
could leave happy was
~ouncil, to allow the
ng center to be built
.t always had. As a
on a future agenda,
19 for the purpose of
~all.
loner would have an
[se for auto repair.
~r one use that they
lowed use which was
~er to make the land
1 development rights,
in the PD for a long
~anted to resolve the
at in 1988 the City
nee which corrected
those ordinances to
9.2 acre tract as a
for General Retail
~nce which approved a
nt 19 which reflected
approved as a retail
e, receive a building
The applicant had
uses that would be
was located in a low
.re had already been
Planning and Zoning
meeting of January 9,
request. It did not
he two developments
that it needed to be
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22. 1991
Page 16
Council Member Ayer stated that it was his understanding that
the plan was for the ingress to the fire station to be on the
north side of the library. Did the owners of lot B of the
shopping area have any objections to the City sharing their
driveway. Would that same driveway be used for entrance and
exit of the shopping area.
Svehla replied that when the trucks were leaving, they would
use the driveway on the south. There would be ingress to the
library and/or the fire station to the back side. Staff had
already spoken to the owners. When the land swap was made,
there would be a provision that would allow the City to jointly
use the driveway for the access. It would also detail a cost
sharing arrangement.
Council Member Trent returned to the meeting.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-007
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE DETAILED PLAN FOR 11.20 ACRES OF THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF LILLIAN MILLER PARK-WAY AND TEASLEY LAND; PROVIDING
FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Alexander motioned Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance
excluding auto repair as one of the permitted uses. On roll
vote, Trent "nay," Alexander "aye," HoPkins "aye," Gorton
"nay," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.
Hopkins motioned, Alexander seconded to direct staff to prepare
the necessary documents for Council to redefine the zoning on
PD19. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins
"aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor
Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing and considered
adoption of an ordinance approving a Detailed Plan for the
purpose of constructing a fast food restaurant on a 0.6941 acre
tract of land located north of Colorado Boulevard and west of
Loop 288 and in front of the Target store. Z-90-012 (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval).
369
370
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 17
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Jim Coker, architect for the project, stated that the plan
exceeded zoning requirements with respect to land use.
Council Member Gorton asked the distance from the interchange
of Loop 288 curbside to ingress curbside.
Earl Mardeno assured that the Arby's to be built on the site
would be well maintained and landscaping to exceed all of the
requirements by the City. It will be well maintained and well
run as the existing Arby's already located in Denton.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Karen Feshari, Urban Planner, stated that the proposal
requested approval of a detailed plan for the purpose of
constructing a fast food restaurant located at the northwest
corner of Colorado Blvd. and Loop 288. The proposed
development was located in a Ma~or Activity Center. According
to the Denton Development Plan, these were the largest center
strategically located to encourage the concentration of
commercial retail, office, light industrial and multi-family
housing. The submitted Detailed Plan reflected a fast food
restaurant in an area that had been approved for
retail/commercial type uses.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd felt that the ingress off of Colorado Blvd.
might be too close to Loop 288 in terms of safety and agreed
that the distances Council Member Gorton asked for were
important.
Council Member Trent asked Gorton to restate his question.
Council Member Gorton asked what was the distance from Loop 288
off of Colorado to the ingress into the proposed site.
Council Member Trent stated that the backup materials stated
the distance was 80'
Council Member Gorton asked what was that equivalent to in car
lengths.
Council Member Trent replied about five car lengths.
Council discussion continued regarding the ingress into the
site and concern regarding safety of movement at the site.
Council was also concerned with the sharing of the main
entrance to Target with the proposed Arby's and cars cutting
across traffic to exit/enter Arby's.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 18
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the traffic flow
was designed so that the stacking of cars would occur within
the Arby's parking lot and not in the street. The entrance on
Colorado was strictly an entrance. This was designed so as to
better facilitate movement of the traffic off of the street.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION AND
DETAILED PLAN FOR 0.6941 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF COLORADO BOULEVARD AND LOOP 288;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
$2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Gorton stated that a number of months ago, the
Council had denied a pad site in the mall area for internal
traffic reasons as well as external compounding of the traffic
around the mall. He felt there was a better solution to the
traffic pattern than what was presented. He could not support
anything which would compound the current traffic problem
around the mall. He was not concerned with the use but was
concerned with the traffic pattern.
On roll vote, Trent "aye." Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "nay," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry
"aye." Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
D. The Council held a public hearing and considered
adoption of an ordinance designating the property located at
305 Mounts Street a historic landmark under Article 28A of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (H 90 - 001). (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval).
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Brian Morrison, property owner, stated that the home was worthy
of the preservation due to its age, style and history. He felt
· it would be a benefit to the City by providing solidity to the
neighborhood and appeal to potential newcomers. He and some of
his neighbors were interested in the future seeking to extend
the historic district into their neighborhood.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
371-
372
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 19
Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission had
reviewed the request and both felt it deserved to be designated
a historic site. Persuad reviewed the history of the home.
After receiving historic designation, the owner of the property
would be entitled to a 50% reduction in City taxes.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-009
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, DESIGNATING
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 305 MOUNTS STREET AS A
HISTORIC LANDMARK UNDER ARTICLE 28A OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gorton motioned, Boyd seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda
Hopkins motioned, Ayer seconded to approve the Consent Agenda
as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid 91191 - Fleet Vehicle
2. Bid 91193 - Truck and Dump Bodies
3. Bid 91194 - Digger Derrick and Truck
4. Bid 91198 - High Pressure Hose Assemblies
5. Bid 91204 - 69 KV Circuit Breakers
6. P.C. 911704 - Advance Control Systems
7. P.C. 911705 - Motorola
B. Plats and Replats
Considered the preliminary replat of Lot 1
and additional unplatted land to Lot iR,
Block A, Denton Bible Church Addition
located on the south side of University
Drive near its intersection with
Nottingham. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval).
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 20
Consider the preliminary plat of the R.N.W.
Addition, Lots A, B, and C, Block 1 located
at the southwest corner of Lillian Miller
and Teasley Lane. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval).
5. 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. (3.B.1. - Bid ~1191, 3.B.2. - Bid ~1193, 3.B.3. -
Bid ~1194, 3.B.4. - Bid %1198, 3.B.5. - Bid ~1204)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-010
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT,
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ayer motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the expenditure of funds for purchases of
materials or equipment which are available from one source in
accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such
purchases from requirements of competitive bids. (3.B.6. - PC
~11704, 3.B.7. - PC ~11705)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-011
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
FOR PURCHASES OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE
AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ayer motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Cagtleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
373
374
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 21
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing publication of Notice of Intention to issue
Certificates of Obligation of the City of Denton, Texas.
John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the
ordinance authorized publication of notice of the City's intent
to sell $590,000 worth of Certificates of Obligation. $200,000
of those Certificates would be for roof repair at City Hall and
Central Fire Station. The remaining portion would be the
City's annual vehicle purchase which was similar to a lease
purchase where the City issued the Certificates and the
departments paid back on a three period to the motor pool for
those funds. The notice of intention was for March 5, 1991.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-012
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OF THE
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS.
Hopkins motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption an ordinance of
the City of Denton, Texas, approving a Planned Development
District Detailed Plan for 1.727 acres of land located on the
1-35 service road, adjacent to Wolfe Nursery.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-013
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DETAILED PLAN FOR 1.727
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE 1-35 SERVICE ROAD,
ADJACENT TO WOLFE NURSERY; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SZ,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "nay," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving an interlocal agreement between the City of Denton
and the Texas Municipal Power Agency.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 22
Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, stated that this was an interlocal
agreement between the City of Denton and the Texas Municipal
Power Agency for the purchase of a large circuit breaker. The
breaker would be installed at the Arco Substation. TMPA had
drawn up the specifications and bid for a larger number of the
breakers. There would be a 15% savings by purchasing the
breaker from TMPA.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-014
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY FOR THE PURCHASE 138
KV CIRCUIT BREAKERS FOR THE ARCO SUBSTATION: AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ayer motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance.
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry
Motion carried unanimously.
On roll
Gorton
"aye."
Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the only item he had
was the Work Session item ~3 not discussed earlier.
The Council considered Work Session Item #3 - received a report
and held a discussion amending Article 11, Planned
Developments, of the Zoning Ordinance.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the Planning
Department had been working with the Planning and Zoning
Commission in an attempt to streamline the planned development
process and make it more applicable and easier to use.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that in
May of 1990, staff discussed with the Planning and Zoning
Commission, an amendment to Article 11 which would not require
detailed building footprints in the first step of the PD
process. There was a consensus then, that the provision of
that very detailed information years in advance of actual
construction was very problematic; that many PD's were often
amended several times because of minor site plan amendments;
and that in many cases, requiring building footprint and like
data of such fine detail was not necessary during the first
steps of the PD process. The Zoning Ordinance Task .Force
eon~id~d th~ amondm~nt in November. They took t~timony from
some large landowners and from local developers familiar with
PD's.
375
376
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 23
With the existing system for tracts of 10 acres or more, there
was a two step process involving a concept plan and a detailed
plan. The current requirements for the conceptual phase of a
PD were extremely detailed in nature. Sites of less than 10
acres were currently required to submit a detailed plan. If
the pro~ect were approved at the concept stage, then the
detailed plan had to be approved later by the Planning and
zoning Commission. The proposed system had a three step
process. The ma~or difference between the proposed process and
the current process was that very detailed building footprints,
landscape layouts would not be shown in the first two steps.
The first step would be a general concept stage. It would
include a showing of broad land use categories on a map, a
table of less broadly defined uses, and development standards
for each use. A site analysis of existing land use and
environmental characteristics would be required. The General
Concept Plan would be adopted by ordinance after first seen by
the Planning and Zoning Commission. There would be public
hearings at both the Planning and Zoning Commission and at the
City Council. The second step was the development plan and
would include all of the information required in the General
Concept Plan but would have further details about the specific
land uses on the ground and would have a more detailed table of
permitted uses. Again, the Planning and Zoning Commission
would see the Development Plan first and make a recommendation
to the Council with public hearings at both meetings.
Additional conditions could be added at both steps. Notice to
landowners within 200' of the proposed development would be
give at both of these steps. The developer had the option to
propose any one of the three steps.
Council Member Ayer stated that in the proposed system, the 10
acre rule would not apply.
Robbins replied correct. There would be no limit on the size
of the property that would like to take advantage of the zoning
system. There would not be a development schedule either. The
detailed plan's approval would be valid for 24 months, with
Planning and Zoning granting an extension up to one year.
The third step was the detailed plan. There was no change
from the existing informational requirements as the current
system. It was approvable Dy the Planning and Zoning
Commission with appeal by the developer to the Council if
denied. If 20% of land within 200' was protested, Council must
approve by a majority vote. 200' notice would be given and
public hearing before consideration.
The Zoning Task Force recommended adoption of an ordinance
allowing three steps, not requiring "footprints" in the first
two steps, and eliminated the development schedule. The task
force also recommended that there be no minimum development
size that could be reviewed with the three step process.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 24
Robbins continued that there was a concern regarding the number
of public hearings required during the process. There was a
potential of five or six public hearings. There were three
200' notice provisions in the process if started with the
General Concept Plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that if the developer wanted to short
cut that he could go to the detailed stage.
Robbins replied he could go either skip step one and have the
development plan approved or he could skip to step three. Many
of the larger tracts could not directly skip to step three as
they wouldn't know what would be on the tract a number of years
from now. The process was generally what was wanted to do with
the land, then the development plan with more specific ideas
and then the detailed plan.
Ron White and Don Dillard addressed the Council concerning the
proposed plan. White reviewed the proposed requirements and
approval requirements at each stage. He and Dillard felt that
public hearings at stage three would be restricting
development. Step three was an administration stage - a
compliance matter because all the other details would have been
worked out in steps one and two. White felt that the existing
PD system was too restrictive and cumbersome to get through.
Council Member Alexander suggested time lines for the public
hearings. For example, if ten years passed, without
development, then another public hearing might be required.
Consensus of the Council was
recommendations of the proposal.
to proceed with staff
7. There was no official action taken on Executive
Session items discussed during the Work Session.
8. New Business
The following items of new business were suggested by Council
Members for future agendas:
A. Council Member Alexander suggested returning to a
former practice of taking a break at 9:00 p.m. during the
Council meeting regardless of what the agenda indicated.
B. COUnCil Member Gorton requested a staff report
regarding the issues raised by Carl Young. He would like staff
to look at the issues Young addressed and provide individuals
with those facts.
377
378
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 22, 1991
Page 25
9. The Council then convened into Executive Session to
discuss legal matters (considered action in Dyson v. City of
Denton and considered action in County vs. City), real estate
and personnel/board appointments (considered appointments to
the Building Code Board, Community Development Block Grant
Committee, the Electrical Code Board, the Historic Landmark
Commission, the Human Services Committee, the Animal Shelter
Advisory Committee, the Blue Ribbon Committee for Storm Water
Utility and the Sign Board of Appeals).
No official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
/
3343C