Loading...
Minutes February 16, 1993234 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 16, 1993 The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller. ABSENT: None 1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal matters (considered action in litigation styled Fritz v. City of Denton, considered action in litigation styled Hunter v. City of Denton, considered action in In Re: Flow), real estate (considered acquisition of an option to purchase land on Foster Road), and personnel/board appointments. 2. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the regulatory framework for the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that several weeks ago Council had asked for a briefing regarding the Community Development Block Grant Program and the HOME program and the rules and regulations governing the use of funds. Barbara Ross, Community Development Coordinator, stated that there was a citizen participation requirement under CDBG guidelines. The requirement was to have at least one public hearing regarding funding. This past year there had been two public hearings. At the public hearing, it was required to provide information regarding the amount of funds available and how the citizens would like to see the funds used. Information must also be provided on how the funds were used in the past. Comments from the citizens were provided to the CDBG Committee and to the Council. The regulations require that citizen comments be taken into consideration when allocating the funds. Council Member Miller asked how many people attended the public hearings. Ross replied approximately 20 at both sessions. Less than five of those twenty were actual residents of the neighborhoods. Notices were sent out and in one neighborhood, flyers were places on the residences in an attempt to get more citizen involvement. Council Member Brock asked if the notices were only in English. Ross replied no that the notices were in English and Spanish and a translator was available if needed. Ross continued with the national objectives which included elimination of slum and blight, meeting an urgent community need or be a benefit to low and very low income families. Seventy percent of the funds must be spent 235 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 2 for low to moderate income families. Eligible activities included acquisition of real property, disposition, public facilities and improvements, private owned utilities, clearance, public services (15% cap), interim assistance, relocation, and loss of rental income. Council Member Brock asked for examples of public services. Ross replied those would include service agencies such as HOPE, Kid Connection at MLK, and the Pre-Natal Clinic. Additional eligible activities included removal of architectural barriers, housing rehabilitation, new housing construction, code enforcement, historib preservation, commercial or industrial rehabilitation, special economic development, home ownership assistance, planning and capacity building, and program administration. Council Member Perry asked if there was a carryover into other areas or duplicating other activities such as in economic development. Ross replied that economic development with CDBG dollars would have to be used for job creation for low income individuals. City Manager Harrell stated that the businesses would have to demonstrate that they were creating jobs for low income individuals. Ross replied that HUD was encouraging micro industries which would be assisting low income individuals to begin their own businesses. She continued with the reporting requirements which included CHAS, GPR, labor relations, MBE & WBE, Federal Transaction Report. HUD monitoring included rehabilitation, financial programmatic, environmental, fair housing, labor relations, and state programs. Ross detailed a chart of the expenditures for the department and a chart comparison with other area cities on how CDBG funds were used. The City currently did not have any funds available for the HOME program. Activities included acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, moderate and substantial rehabilitation. The city was not a participating jurisdiction and thus received funds from the State rather than from the Federal government. Eligible activities included acquisition, new construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation. HOME matching requirements included a 25% match for rental assistance and rehabilitation and a 30% match for new construction. Forms of the match included cash contributions from nonfederal resources, value of fees, taxes, etc. that were waived, value of land or real property, infrastructure investment, value of site preparation, construction materials donated or voluntary labor. Restrictions/affordability requirements included 236 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 3 the requirement.that with rehabilitation or acquisition of existing rental housing, the period of affordability varied depending on the per unit subsidy amount. Under $15,000 was 5 years, $15,000 - $40,000 was for 10 years and over $40,000 was for 15 years. For new construction or acquisition of newly constructed owner occupied housing, the unit must remain affordable for 20 years. City Manager Harrell stated that Council might-want to discuss at a future meeting the procedures used in the past for funding decisions and determine if they wanted to make any changes in those procedures. 3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the application of the City's Subdivision and Land Development regulations within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and gave staff direction. Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that the current extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City extended for three and one half miles from the corporate city limits. The ETJ line extended beyond the "Greater Denton Planning Area" as defined by the Denton Development Plan. The ETJ line also extended beyond the area (Certificate of Convenience and Necessity) for which the City was authorized to provide water and wastewater service. It was proposed to divide the ETJ into two areas. Division I would be an area outside the city limits. Division II would be outside the boundaries of Division I. The City subdivision regulations would apply to the city area and to the area immediately outside the City limits within regulatory line. The Denton County platting and subdivision standards would apply to the outlying areas. There were three reasons associated with this proposal. The first was based on an estimate of the City's population in the year 2020. The Greater Denton Planning Area would accommodate a total population of 182,592. This figure was in excess of the 2020 population projection. The area within the proposed regulatory line had the capacity based on current density standards to adequately accommodate future development at least to the year 2025. A second reason dealt with the development horizon in the ETJ. If development were not going to occur until twenty to thirty years from now, most of the paving, drainage and other facility/service infrastructures might need to be upgraded, repaired or replaced even when constructed in accordance with City specifications. A third consideration dealt with the fact that certain areas located in the ETJ might never be incorporated in the City in the future. Due to a time constraint, this item was continued during the Regular Session under Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager. 237 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 4 4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding activities involved in preparation for the 1986 bond election. This item was considered during the Regular Session under Miscellaneous Matters from the city Manager. The Council convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller. ABSENT: None 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the Planning Session of January 12, 1993, the Regular Meeting of January 19, 1993 and the Work Session of January 26, 1993. Hopkins motioned, smith seconded to approve the minutes as presented. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 3. The Council considered approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for Paul Beadle. The following resolution was considered: No. RA93-003 RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF PAUL BEADLE Perry motioned, Smith seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 4. The Council considered approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for Lewis Wayne Murphey. The following resolution was considered: 238 City of Denton city Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 5 RA93-004 RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF LEWIS WAYNE MURPHEY Smith motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 5. Public Hearings A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning a 32.045 acre tract located on the east side of Country Club Road, approximately 920 feet south of Hobson Lane, from the Agricultural district to the Single Family 10 district with conditions. Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the 20% rule was not in effect at this time for this proposal. Options available to the Council included approval of the ordinance with a single condition that abutting lots be at least 13,000 square feet, Council could direct staff to prepare an ordinance with additional conditions and direct that it be put on the next regular agenda, Council could continue the public hearing or consider the ordinance without a public hearing. Other options included amending the ordinance and passing that amended ordinance, denying the petition, or delaying consideration to a future date. The developer had made a proposal to the Forrestridge neighborhood on February 4, 1993. That proposal included the elimination all alley ways and increased lot sizes by the amount of the alley ways, the building of an eight foot high wooden screening fence along the 336.24 foot east boundary where the proposal abutted Forrestridge which would be built during the development phase, including in the deed restrictions a provision that the minimum square footage would be 2100 square feet for all single story homes and 2300 square feet for all two or one and one half story homes built on the most easterly 12 lots in the subdivision. The application was made on August 20, 1992 with the Planning and Zoning Commission holding a public hearing on October 14, 1992. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled consideration due to neighborhood concerns. The Commission held another public hearing and considered the case after a neighborhood meeting on November 5, 1992. On November 11, 1992 the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to the Council which was the proposed ordinance before Council. On December 8, 1992, Council held a public hearing on the case and tabled the discussion to allow for further negotiations between the developer and the neighbors. After the second neighborhood meeting the developer proposed the above 239 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 6 conditions. This proposal was in a low intensity area and the proposal was consistent with the intensity allocation for the area. The issue around which some of the conditions and the discussions had most recently revolved dealt with good site design transition. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Clif Todd had completed a "Request to Address Council" card but yielded to Dick Kelsey. Dick Kelsey stated that he was representing Clif Todd for the zoning of the property. He felt it was important to remember that zoning was being considered and not platting at this time. At this point, the only item to consider was the highest and best use of the property consistent with the overall development plan and with the individual staff plans. Staff had indicated that the proposal met all of those requirements. Within the Southridge development, there was SF16 zoning which faced directly into SF10 zoning. South of Southmont, the zoning phased from PD16 to SF10. This was not an inconsistent zoning application. This was not a zoning application which required a great deal of transition. This was not a transition use, it was a transition emphasis. No change was being made of the use. The property had been vacant for a long time. Residential lots were needed in Denton. Realtor's had indicated that there were not enough single family residential lots available. The staff policy was for diversification. The original zoning application was for SF10 and apparently the residents in Forrestridge were upset over that zoning. The developer had met with the residents on several occasions and had agreed to eliminate the alley ways and incorporate that square footage into each lot, had agreed to fence part of the property and to place deed restrictions on the property. Potentially the development could add $14 million to the tax base of the City. The reduction, percentage wise, from Montecito to SF16 was a 2/3rds size reduction. The reduction of the proposal was approximately 18%. Council Member Miller stated that the developer would be willing to put an 8' fence next to Forrestridge, eliminate the alley ways, and have deed restrictions on 10 lots which abutted the property. Kelsey replied yes that the developer had agreed to those conditions and that the deed restrictions would be for the first 12 lots working eastward from the boundary with Forrestridge. Council Member Miller asked if the developer had a problem with placing those restrictions in the zoning approval. Kelsey replied no. 24O City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 7 Council Member Miller asked if there were plans for development of other parts of the property. Kelsey replied that all of the property would be zoned at one time as single family residences. It would all be developed at one time as it was not feasible to develop it in stages. Clif Todd, developer of the property, indicated that the proposal was for two stages of development. The first phase would be west of Country Club Road near the drainage ditch. Kelsey indicated that the second phase would be in the area under discussion. Council Member Miller asked if there were any plans for the size of the homes in the first phase; Todd made a reply from the audience which was not audible. Council Member Perry asked if the stipulations, from the developer were voluntary. Kelsey replied yes that Mr. Todd had elected to work with the homeowners and staff to satisfy the requirements in area. Mayor Castleberry asked with the elimination of alley ways, were the lots next to Forrestridge slightly larger. Kelsey replied that they would be 13,000 square feet plus. Mayor Castleberry asked if that affected the balance of the lots or were they still SF10. Kelsey indicated that the two adjoining lots were 13,000 square feet and then the lots went to 12,000 square feet. Todd indicated that the lots would be a little over 12,000 square feet. Mayor Castleberry indicated that the' smallest lot would be near County Club Road and would be an SF10 lot. Kelsey indicated that the lots across from Country Club Road were originally platted as SF10. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the increased size affected the 12 lots from the alley ways and were those the lots which would be more like an SF12 lot. 241 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 8 Kelsey replied that there were two lots which were back-to-back which were 13,000 square feet and ten lots which were 12,000 square feet and the rest were 10,000 square feet. Council Member Smith asked if the deed restrictions of the 2100 square feet applied to all lots or only the ones next to Forrestridge. Kelsey indicated that they would be 2100 square feet for single story homes, 2300 square feet for two story homes on the 12 lots which were closest to Forrestridge. The others would be from 1800- 2000 square feet depending on the individual situation. Sam Rosson stated that he was in opposition to the proposal. He asked Council to consider the continuity and integrity of the neighborhood. There was diversity in the area. He felt the Council needed to look at long term goals versus short term goals. The short term goal would be that the City could immediately profit by approving the proposal with additional taxes on the roll. That was not necessarily the best policy for the City. The long term aspect was that if the zoning were held, there would be a larger lot and a better buffer between the existing homes and the new homes. In this request, the developer could win but could not lose. The homeowners who had been paying taxes in the City would lose the property values in the area. Amy Quate urged the Council to remember several items. The first was that hundreds of citizens had voiced strong opposition to the proposal. The second was the approval from the zoning staff might have been based on insufficient criteria and both the developer and the proposal appeared unprofessional and not capable of producing a viable product. The neighborhood had diversity in types of property in the area and in residents living there. In every case where SF10 abutted SF16, development was cut off. She questioned the credibility of the proposal and development as she had been sent a letter with no business name, no signature, and no return address on it. She urged the Council to deny the proposal. Jerry Browder stated that he lived near the proposed development. He did not stand to lose equity as the home had declined in value since he purchased the home. He was concerned about the value of his home as were his other neighbors. The developer wanted to increase his profits and felt this would cost the neighbors and himself money after development. In regard to the deed restrictions, he had learned that the developer, until approximately two-thirds of the lots were sold, had complete ability to give variances in terms of the designs of the homes. Browder asked for restrictions to be made in the zoning rather than 242 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 9 in the deeds. Mr. Kelsey made the point that SF16 and SF10 adjoined each other in Southridge and Southmont. Those SF16 lots had less value, up to now, than the value of the lots and property in Forrestridge. He felt one reason was that S¥10 did not adjoin the property. The park property which the City had purchased originally had zoning which began with SF16 and reduced down away from the Forrestridge subdivision. He stated that he would like the City to require the property on the 32 acres begin adjoining Forrestridge be SF16 lots. John Traube stated that he was part of the petition drive to keep the current zoning. There was a need for more lots but the need was for larger lots rather than smaller lots. A longer term consequence was the land next to the proposed development. If the proposed development were zoned SF10, the adjoining land would probably also be zoned SF10. If restrictions were added, he suggested putting them in the zoning conditions rather than with the developer. Dick Fulton stated that he was concerned with the shortage of larger lots in Denton. The only other area for lots of this size was on Ryan Road at Forrestridge. If SF10 became part of the section west of Forrestridge, it probably would stay SF10. There was a need for SF16 lots in Denton. There was a lot of difference between an SF10 and an SF16 lot. He asked about the specification of the width of the alley. Kelsey replied that the alley was 15 feet wide which would be added to the lot sizes. Fulton continued that he was in favor of maintaining the SF16 lots rather than SFiO lots. Council Member Brock asked Fulton for his opinion on what impact the building of Forrestridge had on home values in Montecito. Did the smaller lots of Forrestridge diminish the value of homes in Montecito. Fulton reDlied that the homes in Montecito were older which probably affected the value rather than the lot size. Perry Slack stated that early in the process, they had been told that there was no transition between SF10 and SF16. The residents had asked for a buffer such as SF13. There were ways to develop SF16 or SF13 so why did there have to be SF10. This proposal would cut prime property in two sections and never again would there be anything more than SF10. He felt that the next step might be to reduce the SF10 to SF7 in the area. The residents had nothing City of Denton city Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 10 other than lot size to protect the value of the property. He might be in favor of a smaller lot with a greater priced home placed on it. Beautiful trees would be destroyed with the smaller lots. Council Member Smith asked if Fulton had any concept of how much a tree buffer would be left between Forrestridge and the development. There seemed to be many trees on the east part of the development. Slack replied 20% of the lots would be 13,000 square feet and greater. Fourth-fifths of the lots would be smaller. When driveways and foundations were included, there would not be much footage left. On his lot, he lost many trees when his home and driveway were built. Mayor Castleberry stated that a proposal had been made to have SF13 lots on the east with deed restrictions for 2100 square foot minimum housing. Was that acceptable to Slack. Slack replied no. It would be acceptable to have a natural break for Phase I at the drainage ditch which wouldbe good for SF10 and zone from the ditch in SF13 with SF16 on the Forrestridge side. That would be a better configuration. Mayor Castleberry stated that the proposal was that the 12 lots closest to Forrestridge would be SF13 with no alley and with the fence. The deed restrictions would be a minimum 2100 square feet for a one story house and a two story house would be slightly larger. Was that acceptable for the neighborhood. Slack replied that in his opinion it would not be. Mayor Castleberry stated that the proposal indicated that SF10 homes would be 1800 square feet with a two story house being slightly larger with the drainage between the two, was that acceptable if it were in the deed restrictions. Slack replied that a number of people indicated that that would be acceptable. If the SF10 were done first, the rest could wait. Kelsey stated that what the developer had proposed and agreed to was that the 2 lots which abutted Forrestridge would be SF13, the next 10 lots (five on each side) would be SF12, and everything else would be SF10 which would be on the Country Club road side. Slack stated that the 2 lots to be designated as SF13 lots had a 20' easement on the back of the property. The next 6 houses on each side would be 12,000 square foot lots and then it dropped back to 10,000 square feet after that. He asked what was to keep changes 2 4'4 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 11 from SF10 occurring once zoning was completed. Robbins replied that with the proposed ordinance, there was SF10 zoning with one condition which was the first two lots could not be any smaller than 13,000 square feet. That would be a zoning condition which would be enforced. Those lots would have to be platted that size. Slack stated that that was not satisfactory. There had been two meetings on this proposal and the concessions from the developer amounted to very little. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins questioned whether Council should proceed with the public hearing and then have questions at a later time. Virginia Ramsey stated that they were building a home on Rolling Hills and asked the Council to take the opposition into account. The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal. Dick Kelsey stated that the developer had been giving all the concessions and homeowners had not done any giving. There was no demonstration that there was any difference between the SF16 lots and SF10 lots in Southridge. There was no indication that the values were lessened. There was a fear that people would not be able to maintain their property values because of a smaller lot and a smaller home. Forrestridge was a two-thirds step down from the Montecito lots. The design of the subdivision did not have any traffic in the area. Diversification was not a question. It was a question of "not in my backyard". There was nothing wrong with SF10 lots and was not a refection of anything other than diversity. People needed a diverse market place. Comments regarding downzoning were not true as the property was never zoned. He urged Council to do what the job was and that was to zone the property in the highest and best use for which it was suitable according to the master plan and according to the plan which applied to everyone in the City. He asked for approval of the zoning. Council Member Miller asked about the effectiveness of deed restrictions and asked if the developer would be willing to make the conditions a part of the zoning. Kelsey replied yes. Council Member Miller stated that if that were done then the Planning Department would require that it be adhered to whenever a lot would be developed. 245 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 12 Kelsey replied that the staff might want to address whether it wanted to be burdened with those details but once the deed restriction was filed, it would be applicable once one lot was sold in the subdivision. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the petitioner was willing for zoning restrictions to be put into the ordinance, then it appeared to her that rather than doing the home size why not do SF13 or SF12 on lots to where street butted out. If the lots east of that could be SF12 and the two SF13 and the developer was willing to compromise with the square footage, then why not compromise with 5 lots that would be SF13 or SF12. Kelsey replied that he felt that the developer had gone as far as he could in regard to lot size. The developer had agreed to SF13 in the adjoining 2 tracts and 12,000 square foot lots for next lots. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the developer was not adverse to 12,000 square foot lots in next 5 lots. Kelsey replied that the developer had agreed to that. There would be two 13,000 square foot lots with the next 5 lots being 12,000 square foot lots. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if that could be put into the ordinance. Debra Drayovitch, city Attorney, stated that it was her understanding that that was the intent with the list of conditions offered by the developer and they could be included as a condition to the ordinance. Kelsey replied that the developer did not have a problem with that aspect. City Manager Harrell stated that the SF10 zoning ordinance would apply with the one condition from the Planning and zoning Commission which dealt with the two adjacent lots being SF13. The Council could add a second condition that the next five lots on each side would have to be a minimum of 12,000 square feet. Council Member Perry asked if the final ordinance would include the fence plus the deed restrictions. Mayor Castleberry asked about the square footage. Kelsey replied that it could be incorporated into the ordinance. 246 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 13 He had a problem with how that would come before staff and how staff would follow up on that. Mayor Castleberry asked Mr. Slack if this would be a workable solution. Slack replied that it would be workable but objectionable. Mayor Castleberry asked Slack if he felt it was a good solution to the problem. Slack replied that in his opinion it was not a satisfactory solution. Mayor Castleberry asked if there were equal ground where the developer and residents could agree on. Slack stated that in his opinion the developer and homeowners would not reach agreeable conditions. It would be postponing the homeowners agony if the Council would not decide at this meeting. Amy Quat stated that she had taken a petition through her neighborhood requesting that the zoning be the same as the current zoning in Forrestridge which was SF16. She went to all homes and all homeowners supported the SF16 zoning. Mayor Castleberry stated that Mr. Kelsey could respond to the comments. Kelsey stated that he felt the developer had given as much as he could. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Miller asked if there would be a problem for staff to regulated the size of the homes on the lots. Robbins replied that it would not be a problem. Council Member Miller asked that if the property were platted with the two lots as 13,000 square feet, the 10 lots as 12,000 square feet and the balance as 10,000 square feet, would that be a problem for the staff. Robbins replied that it would not be a problem. Council Member Brock asked if the elimination of the alley ways and the incorporation of the space into lot size was guaranteed. Would 247 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 14 that have to be added as a condition. Robbins presented the proposals which could be added. City Manager Harrell stated that the discussion held thus far and the representation of the developer would be a fourth condition which would specify five lots proceeding westward would be a minimum of 12,000 square feet. Robbins replied yes plus another condition which had not been listed was the square footage of the houses. Miller motioned, Chew seconded to approve the zoning with changes incorporating restrictions of the size of houses to be built on the lots to be 1800 square feet for a single story home, 2000 square feet for a two story home on the lots exclusive of first 12 lots to the east. Those lots would be two 13,000 square feet, the next 10 lots would be 12,000 square feet with the zoning restriction of single story home no less than 2100 square feet and for two story of no less than 2300 square feet and that the other conditions that were agreed to in terms of the fence be included in the restrictions. The alley ways would be eliminated and that land be used to increase the size of lots in that amount. Council Member Perry suggested having staff prepare the ordinance as set forth by Council Member Miller and have Council consider that ordinance to better ensure that all of the conditions were in place. Miller amended his motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance as was proposed and put on the next agenda to include those conditions. Chew agreed with the change in the motion and seconded that change. city Attorney Drayovitch asked staff to clarify several points to be sure all were in agreement with the conditions. She asked what was the development phase for the building of the fence. Was it prior to the start of the development or when was it proposed. Robbins stated that it would be built with first house. Todd stated that he agreed to build the fence when the second phase was built. city Attorney Drayovitch stated that the property was not platted so the alley ways on the proposed site plan would be difficult to enforce as to the increased lot size. 248 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 15 Robbins stated that it could be noted that there would be no alleys in this zoning district. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins suggested that the requirement for the fence indicate that it would be built prior to any actual lots being developed in Phase II. Robbins suggested that the condition state that before a house was built east of the drainage area. Kelsey stated that the building of the fence would be a matter of timing. If the fence were done before dirt work was done, it could be damaged. There was an orderly phase during construction at which the construction of the fence would be appropriate. He felt that would be after the utility work and the development of the 20' easement was complete and the lots were graded. Todd suggested that the fence be put up before a building permit was granted. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the fence would be built prior to any building permits being issued. Kelsey stated that it could be prior to east of the drainage line. Council Member Brock motioned to amend the main motion to require the $ foot fence be masonry rather than wood. City Attorney Drayovitch asked if she wished to include in her amendment that it be constructed before any building permits were issued for houses to be built east of the major drainage ditch. Council Member Brock replied yes. Hopkins seconded the amendment. Council Member Brock indicated that with a wooden fence there always was the question of maintenance. She realized that a masonry fence was more exDensive but it also enhanced the value of the property being developed. Kelsey stated that that type of fence could cost as much as $20,000 more than a wooden fence. A masonry fence could be a great deal of expense to maintain. He asked Council to reconsider that item. Council Member Miller stated that a masonry fence could work both ways. Some masonry fences could be problem as far as cost was concerned to maintain. 249 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 16 Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that as Southmont was developed, it was found that brick was too expensive so brick pillars were used every so many feet to keep the boards from shifting. Council Member Perry asked the City Attorney and Mr. Robbins if it were necessary to detail the fence. The fence was a condition that the developer had agreed to. Was the Council within its bounds to require a masonry fence. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that similar conditions were imposed by Council with such projects as Pep Boys. She was not sure that the fence was specified to be masonry. Robbins stated that Pep Boys proposed the masonry fence. Kelsey stated that the developer would accept a fence with brick pillars to tie in the wood fence. They wanted to know what to build. The lots would be sold and the owner would have to maintain the fence, not the developer. The Council voted on the amendment to the main motion regarding a masonry fence. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "nay", Hopkins "aye", smith "nay", Chew "nay", Perry "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion failed with a 2-5 vote. City Attorney Drayovitch recommended that the later part of the amendment as to when the fence was to be built be incorporated in the form of an amendment. Brock motioned, Perry seconded to amend the main motion that the fence would be built before any building permits were issued for the lots east of the main drainage ditch. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The Council voted on the main motion. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "nay", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. Council considered Item 7.B. 7. Ordinances B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a contract with the County of Denton for the establishment of a Central Counting Station for the May 1, 1993 City Council Election. 25O City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 17 City Manager Harrell stated that this item followed the direction of Council regarding various options for the May 1 election. Council desired to approach the County with the possibility of County Clerk Hodges assisting in the elections as had been done in the past. The City Secretary would still be responsible for conducting the election and dealing with the administrative affairs of the election. The County would tabulate the ballot cards and supply the voting equipment. It had been clarified with the County Clerk that he would have control over the Central Counting Station. The County Clerk had been very receptive to the wishes of the Council. The Commissioners had not yet signed off on the contract but it was on their agenda for that evening. The following ordinance was considered: No. 93-024 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTONAND THE COUNTY OF DENTON FOR A CENTRAL COUNTING STATION OF BALLOTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Miller motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance ordering an election to be held in the City of Denton, Texas, on May 1, 1993, and if a runoff election was required, on May 29, 1993, for the purpose of electing Council Members to Places 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas; designating voting places and appointing election officials; and providing for bilingual notice of the election; ordering that the punch card electronic voting system be used. City Manager Harrell stated that this ordinance would officially call the election and establish voting places. There were three items he wanted to point out to Council. On page 2, Item 1 noted a space for an alternate judge for the central counting station. He asked Council to delete that provision at this point in time. Staff would return with a name at a later date. The second item dealt with the polling places in the ordinance. The ordinance specified the traditional polling places the City had used in the past. The May 1 election would really be different from a traditional City election as there would also be a County election on an educational constitutional amendment and a senatorial election. The County Commissioners desired to make the polling 251 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 18 places unified in order to accommodate the voters and were willing to change their polling places to match the city's at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center, Fire Station 4, and North Lakes Recreation Center. There would be two sets of voting activities occurring in those facilities but would not be the same ballot. One exception was the Denia Park Recreation Center. The Commissioners felt that voter participation would be better at the Southmont Baptist Church and that it would be a better voting location. They were requesting the Council to change the designation for District 4 from Denia to the Southmont Baptist Church. The final item was the date for the runoff election. The ordinance indicated that it would be the 29th of May. There were no Saturdays available except for the 29th in the time frame allowed by the State Election Code. The 29th of May was Memorial Day weekend which might present a problem. The Council could move the runoff date to a day other than a Saturday if it so desired. Council Member Brock questioned whether the County was required to hold their election by precincts. Tim Hodges, County Clerk, stated that the governor had signed a proclamation waiving that restriction. Council Member Brock stated that then for the city of Denton there would be only those four polling places. Hodges replied that the County would match the City so that the elections could be advertised as unified voting. This would be done countywide to facilitate voters. Council Member Chew stated that there would be time to get the change precleared and that it would not disenfranchise any voters. Council Member Perry asked what was wrong with Denia. Kirk Wilson, County Commissioner, stated that most of precincts were more accessible than Denia. Denia was out of the way for most of the residents in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that voters east of Fort Worth Drive voted there anyway and people were used to voting there. To vote with the County made sense. Council Member Perry stated that he wanted it a matter of record as to why to the city was moving the Dolling Dlace. He wanted clarification on that issue. Council Member Brock stated that Parvin Street was very hard to find if someone did not know the route. 252 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 19 Council Member Smith stated that part of purpose for the move would be to increase voter turnout by making it easier to get to the polling place. The following ordinance was considered: No. 93-025 AN ORDINANCE ORDERING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ON MAY 1, 1993, AND IF A RUNOFF ELECTION IS REQUIRED, ON MAY 29, 1993, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PLACES 1, 2, 3, AND 4 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; DESIGNATING VOTING PLACES AND APPOINTING ELECTION OFFICIALS; PROVIDING FOR BILINGUAL NOTICE OF THE ELECTION; ORDERING THAT THE PUNCH CARD ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM BE USED; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance with the amendments of holding the runoff date on May 29 if necessary, to move the District 4 polling place to the Southmont Baptist Church, and to omit the blank for the alternate judge for the Central Counting Station. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The Council returned to the regular agenda order. 5. Public Hearings B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of ~n ordinance rezoning a 1.2777 acre t~act from an Agricultural zoning district, to a Commercial zoning district with four conditions, C(c). The tract was at the southeast corner of Milam Road (FM3163) and Interstate 35. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at its meeting of 1/27/93 by a 6-0 vote.) Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this was a re~oning for a part of the p~operty which was currently in the City. This was a conditioned zoning in which the uses were noted in the ordinance. The uses would be only for those currently in effect. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. 253 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 20 The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: No. 93-022 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO COMMERCIAL (C-c) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION WITH CONDITIONS FOR 1.2777 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILAMROAD (FM3163) AND INTERSTATE 35; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "a~e", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 6. Consent Agenda Mayor Castleberry indicated that Item #6.A.3. had been pulled from consideration. Council Member Chew asked that Item #1460 be pulled for special consideration. Council Member Chew stated that he was concerned on how the specifications had been developed for Bid #1460. Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, stated that Jack Jarvis, Fleet Maintenance Superintendent, and he had gone over the bids from last year and made changes to include a larger size vehicle. They reviewed the specifications provided by the manufacturers (General Motors and Ford). Once the comparisons were made to be sure that they were not arbitrarily eliminating any particular bidder the bids were then mailed and staff waited to hear if anyone had concerns regarding the bids. If there were no concerns expressed, no addendums were included in the bids. After the bids were received, they were evaluated and a recommendation made to Council. Council Member Chew stated that he had a concerns in that some of the specifications on this bid could not be met both with the anti- slip rear end and the anti-lock brakes. When it looked like there was a $1.25 difference between a local dealer and a non-local dealer it concerned him. He asked if there were a way to do more work on particular specifications with type of bid. He knew that GM products would come with the anti-lock brakes where Ford could not produce a vehicle with the anti-slip rear end and the anti-lock brakes. At one time Council had talked about legislation to favor 254 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 21 businesses in the City. He felt the Council needed to pursue that legislation. Shaw replied that it was the City's full intent to solicit local bids as much as possible. Upon evaluation of the bids, staff had considered rejecting all bids and purchasing off the State contract. On the Ford bids only one local dealer chose to eliminate the anti-lock brake. One other dealer, Denton Motors, included the option as did the dealer from Decatur. Council Member Chew was correct in that Ford did not offer anti-lock brake and the traction lock differential. They did offer an optional anti-lock brake system which featured traction assist. There were numerous terms presented by each manufacturer for the same concept. The specification used a generic term "traction lock" and stated that it would be for police usage. Staff highly encouraged all bidders to call attention to any proprietary specifications. Other bids had had addendums sent out in order to keep the specifications generic. The dealer did not call this to staff's attention until the bids were opened. The traction lock was a mechanical locking situation that accomplished the same thing as a traction assist. The traction lock was an $85 option and the traction assist was a $591 option. The agenda backup materials indicated that $506 was arrived at by subtracting $85 from $591. If $506 were added back into the Bill Utter bid, it was still was the third highest bid. The local Chevrolet dealer did not participate in the bidding but would assist with the service. Only warranty work was done in an outside facility and the rest of the maintenance was done in-house. Shaw shared Council's concern regarding doing business with local businesses. Perhaps a pre-bid conference in the future would help to eliminate the problem. State legislation was needed for a local option. Council Member Miller felt that a pre-bid conference was a good idea for future items such as this. Hopkins motioned, Chew seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: Bid #1460 - Police Sedans P.O. #32573 - Denton Motors, Inc. B. Plats and Replats 1. Considered approval of the preliminary plat of Lot 255 City of Denton city Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 22 1, Block A, Eagle Picher Addition being a 10 acre tract located on the west side of 1-35W south of Airport Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at its 2/10/93 meeting with a 6-0 vote.) 7. ordinances A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. (6.A.1. - Bid #1460; 6.A.2. - P.O. #32573) The following ordinance was considered: No. 93-023 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Chew motioned, smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an Escrow Agreement with Flow Regional Medical Center, Inc. City Attorney Drayovitch recommended adoption of the ordinance which culminated the enforcement of the arbitrator's decision. The following ordinance was considered: No. 93-026 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN ESCROW AGREEMENT WITH FLOW REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 256 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 23 E. The .Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Resource Management International, Inc. for performance of services relating to a long-range power supply study. (The Public Utilities Board recommended approval.) City Manager Harrell stated that at the last study session Council had reviewed a power supply study as proposed by staff and as recommended by the Public Utilities Board. The following ordinance was considered: No. 93-027 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC., FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES RELATING TO A LONG-RANGE POWER SUPPLY STUDY; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 8. Resolutions A. The Council considered approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) for a grant to fund a household used oil collection program. Bill Angelo, Director of Community Services, stated that several months ago a grant was submitted to the NCTCOG to establish a collection system for used oil and a public education program on what to do with used oil. The collection facility would be near the Service Center and a public information brochure would be done indicating places to take used oil products. Oil and oil filters were no longer acceDted at the landfill. Council Member Brock asked if the City would only be collecting the oil and then a commercial entity would pick it up and dispose of it. Angelo replied correct. The following resolution was considered: 257 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 24 No. R93-009 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR A GRANT TO FUND A HOUSEHOLD USED OIL COLLECTION PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the resolution. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered approval of a resolution designating certain officials as being responsible for, acting for, and on behalf of the City of Denton in dealing with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, for the purpose of participating in grant programs for South Lakes Park. Janet Simpson, Park Planner, stated that in July a proposal was submitted for a $500,000 matching grant for the Phase I development of South Lakes Park. The City had been notified that the funding had not been approved. Of the 55 projects which were submitted, 25 were funded. The City was 29th on the list. A meeting with the Texas Parks and Wildlife staff indicated it was a good project. The city could not gain any other points by adjusting the projects. Points could be added by redistributing some of the site preparation dollars for the dirt work for the building, playground, etc. That had been done and had been redistributed into each facility. Another area staff was working on was with the Denton Independent School District for a cooperative agreement. The City would allow the DISD classrooms to use a small area of the park as a test garden, for ecology and biology studies, and for horticultural studies. In return the DISD would provide help in identifying plant material, ecosystems, wildlife identification, and ultimately develop brochures and field guides. This type of cooperative agreement scored a minimum of four points which would enhance the possibility of receiving the funding. In order to keep the community informed, a community meeting would be held at Southmont Baptist Church on February 25, 1993. Council Member Perry stated that he liked the idea of an agreement with the DISD as it provided an opportunity for education for the community. The following resolution was considered: 2 5 8 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 25 No. R93-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS DESIGNATING CERTAIN OFFICIALS AS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR, ACTING FOR, AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY IN DEALING WITH THE TEXAS PARKS & WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE GRANT PROGRAMS; CERTIFYING THAT THE CITY IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER SUCH PROGRAMS; AND DEDICATING THE PROPOSED SITE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION USES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, Smith seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Sammons Communications, Inc. to delay the restructuring of the cable television service until such time as Sammons Communications, Inc. had rebuilt and upgraded its cable television service system. (The Cable T.V. Advisory Board recommended approval.) Bill Angelo, Director of Community Services, stated that the item had been discussed with Council at a prior work session. Since that time staff had been working with Sammons to finalize an agreement which would delay their restructuring of the cable channels until the completion of their rebuild. There was area of concern remaining with the agreement. This was on page 2 of agreement, Section 2B1. The City would like the sentence to read "for the term of this agreement". The Sammons attorneys had a problem with that wording and staff was still trying to negotiate that point. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the agreement in the Council backup included the language which the City would like to use. This language was taken out by the Sammons attorneys. She recommended an addition to the resolution which would allow the City Manager to execute an agreement with Sammon~ which substantially conformed to the attached agreement. Both sides agreed to the concepts and principles of the agreement. All that was needed was to get the correct wording for both entities. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked how that motion would be worded. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the Council would move to adopt the resolution with an amendment to Section 1 to provide that the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an 259 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 26 agreement whichsubstantially conformed to the attached contract. Council Member Chew asked if enough time had been allowed to look at the agreement in order to pass it at this time. City Attorney Drayovitch replied that staff was satisfied with the agreement except for the one minor wording in the agreement. Council Member Perry asked what Sammons was objecting to in the contract. Angelo replied that their main objection was to the sentence in Section 2B1 where the city had listed "for the term of this agreement". Their attorneys did not want the phrase and Angelo felt that their attorney felt that the City could, after the agreement expired, retroactively challenge that agreement. City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the agreement with the questionable wording was not in the Council's packet but rather was on their desks. The Mayor indicated that Council had received a speaker card on this item. Joe Dodd stated that the main point regarding this issue had been missed. In all of the surveys he had seen regarding cable companies, the main concerns dealt with selection availability and price. The converter box was not the prime issue except for the cable company. The concern was about selection and price. WTBS and WGN stations were added to the package to inflate the value. What should be in the life line package would be the weather channel and CNN Headline news which carried local news. Local advertisements were sold on that channel which would lower the cost of the service for this package. What would be established as basic would probably be that area of cable which the City would be allowed to regulate. He urged the Council to do nothing. Don't override the provisions of Senate Bill 12. The following resolution was considered: No. R93-011 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TO DELAY THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. HAS REBUILT AND UPGRADED ITS CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE SYSTEM; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 26O City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 27 Hopkins motioned, Perry seconded to approve the resolution with an amendment to Section One instructing the City Manager to execute an agreement which substantially conformed to the attached contract. Council Member Miller asked why there was no 24 hours news station in basic tier. John Enlow, Sammons Communications, stated that it seemed that the intent of law was that cable systems establish a level of service which included access and broadcast channels. That level of service would be priced close to what it cost to provide. He believed the intent was to establish a level of service which was uniform across the county which included at least the broadcast and access channels. This would avoid the problem of trying to regulate many different basic cable packages. The basic package included all the access and 'broadcast channels as well as CSPAN. A problem with the process was the speed in which decisions had to be made. The intent was to establish a low cost package which would include broadcast and access channels. Council Member Miller asked if this was consistent with what was being done in other locations. Enlow replied yes that it was similar with other systems in this area. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", "aye", Chew "nay", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. Smith "aye". D. The Council considered approval of a resolution suspending the proposed effective date of the proposed rate schedules and service regulations of Texas Utilities Electric Company; providing that the rate schedules and service regulations of said company shall remain unchanged during the period of suspension; providing for notice hereof to said company; and finding and determining that the meeting at which this resolution is passed is open to the public as required by law. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilitiesl stated that on January 22, 1993 Texas Utilities filed a petition of statement of intent to increase electric rates. There were approximately 700- 800 customers in the City of Denton, the majority were in mobile home parks. TU had asked for 15.3% increase effective February 26th. They had also filed their intent with Public Utility Commission which would be reviewing documents. Denton had four options with this request. The first option would be to approve the rate and move forward with implementation on February 26th. 261 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 28 The second option would be to deny the rate increase. A third option would be to relinquish the City's original jurisdiction over rates to the Public Utilities Commission. A fourth option would be to suspend the implementation of the rates pending the Public Utilities Commission's review. Two years ago Council took action to suspend implementation until the PUC review which was staff's recommendation for this request. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked for the philosophy of why the City did not allow the PUC to make the recommendation and give them original jurisdiction. Nelson replied that he was not sure what that might mean in terms of service levels in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the City was bound by the actions of the PUC. Nelson replied that the City might not be bound by their actions but it would take a substantial amount of evidence and work to do something different than what they would recommend. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that the City would not be financially able nor desirous of trying to stop the rate implementation. She still did not see the advantage of the City remaining involved in the process. city Manager Harrell stated that detailed research was done two years ago regarding this issue. There was a concern that if the City relinquished jurisdiction, it might not be a temporary action and that there might be implications for all matters in the future. Mayor Pro Hopkins stated that this action would prevent TU from implementing any rate increase. Nelson replied that it left the jurisdiction with this Council to decide whether to implement the rates or not. City Manager Harrell stated that this was the procedure used last time when Council suspended the rate increase. TU filed a bond with the PUC and went ahead and raised the rates. After the hearing process, the bond would be used for a refund if the increase were not granted or if not as much of an increase were granted. James Loveday, TU Electric, stated that under the PUC Act, any electric company which came before them had the right to place rates under bond. They used that procedure with the last proposed increase due to the length of the process. It applied to the 262 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 29 customers in Denton as well as all other cities served by TU. The following resolution was considered: No. R93-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS SUSPENDING THE PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES AND SERVICE REGULATIONS OF TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY; PROVIDING THAT THE RATE SCHEDULES AND SERVICE REGULATIONS OF SAID COMPANY SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE HEREOF TO SAID COMPANY; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Miller motioned, Chew seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 9. The Council considered and adopted an annexation schedule with regard to the proposed annexation of 3.85 acres located east of 1- 35 and south of Milam Road (A-61). Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this was an annexation of property at Loves Truck Stop. The schedule included dates for instituting and final approval for the annexation. Smith motioned, Perry seconded to approve the schedule. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Miller "aye", Hopkins "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 10. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. Mayor Castleberry indicated that Council would return to the Work Session items not completed earlier. 3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the application of the City's Subdivision and Land Development regulations within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and gave staff direction. Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that the regulatory line was drawn outside the City limits and inside the ETJ. The proposal was 263 City of Denton city Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 30 to apply the City's Subdivision Regulations within the regulatory line and the Denton County Subdivision Regulations outside the regulatory line. Council Member Perry asked how far east would be the provisions. Persuad replied that the regulatory line would go to the lake on the east side. Council Member Brock stated that reference had been made that the County would inform and consult with the City on plats. If someone presently built outside the ETJ, were they required to plat with County. Persuad replied no the City did not see plats outside the ETJ. They did have to plat with the CoRnty. Council Member Miller asked if this had been discussed with the County. Persuad replied that Jerry Clark had discussed with County staff the details for the monitoring of platting activities in all areas. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt this was a positive forward step. She always felt it was unfair to the distant ETJ residents to have to comply with the City's regulations. The Council repeatedly had to deal with variances in the ETJ and this proposal would help solve some of those problems. City Manager Harrell stated that if the Council approved the concept, it would help the relationship with the County and communications with County development. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the ordinance. council considered Work Session Item #4. 4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding activities involved in preparation for the 1986 bond election. Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant, stated that the back-up information provided a synopsis on the timetable followed for the 1986 bond election. Tuck reviewed that information and timetable with the Council. The Subcommittee did a lot of the work regarding the issues. Election activities were summarized and were included in the agenda back-up materials. All options were passed at the election on December 13, 1986. 2 City of Denton City Council Minutes February 16, 1993 Page 31 11. There was no official action taken on Executive Session items discussed during the Work Session Executive Session. 12. New Business There were no items of New Business suggested by Council Members for future agendas. 13. There was no Executive Session held during the Regular Session. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned 10:45 p.m. CIndY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, TE~ ~ ACC000E6