Loading...
Minutes June 20, 1995107 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 20, 1995 The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, June 20, 1995 at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The following items were discussed in Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071 1. Discussed Preston v. Jaqoe & City. B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072 Ce Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.074 Interviewed and considered Regular Part-time Municipal Judge candidate, the selection process, and offer of employment. The Council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, June 20, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council received a briefing regarding the State Highway Projects. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the 1986 propositions included five projects. (1) Teasley Lane from Dallas Drive to I35 which was built shortly after the bond issue was passed. (2) Teasley Lane from I35-E for approximately 2 miles south and east of I35 which was currently under construction. (3) Loop 288 was a project which was presenting some difficulty. Prior to 1991 the City had permission from the Highway Department to do this project. The regulations changed in 1991 when the Intermodial Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 was passed. The city lost funding because the Highway Department's rules changed on how they rated projects. The Council was instrumental in requesting that the Highway Department continue to review this project and it was now in the feasibility and environmental phase. (4) Portions of u.s. 380 were in the bond election. Two signlfican% por%ion~ were right-of-way and construction costs for U.S. 380. Contracts had been approved for portions of U. S. 380 from midway on Locust and Elm past Loop 288. (5) Fort Worth Drive from I35 south to FM 1830 108 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 2 was in the original bond issue. This portion of road was eliminated from the funding as TxDOT had changed its funding policies. Council and staff requested that TxDOT include the portion of Fort Worth Drive from I35 north to Carroll Blvd. TxDOT agreed and the City was able to use bond money and savings from projects to use as a match for TxDOT's funding. There were some additional projects which were included on the list. One of those projects was U. S. 77 to the 76 Truck Stop. In 1988 TxDOT stated that there was a PASS program which would fund major highways and indicated that they would be willing to rebuild U. S. 77 if the City agreed to acquire all the right-of-way needed plus supply a million dollars for construction. After the passage of the 1985 street bond issue, TxDOT rebuilt Elm and Locust south of University. The city had dedicated almost $900,000 for the rebuilding of Elm and Locust which was then used towards the million dollars. The City needed to begin to acquire right-of-way by January 1997. The last projects were congestion mitigation air quality pro~ects with three projects currently out for bid. The City was trying to have the remainder of these projects out for bid by next spring. Council Member Miller stated that the congestion mitigation air quality project did not increase the size of a road but worked on moving traffic along on the current system. Svehla replied that with congestion mitigation air quality projects a four lane road could not be rebuilt into a 6 lane road but an intersection could be improved and signals installed to move the traffic along in a more efficient fashion. Improvements at the University of North Texas were also a consideration. With the construction of the new Arts and Education Center, there was a concern regarding the overpass at Avenue D. TxDOT had advised staff that I35 from the Boeing Overpass to U.S. 380 would be looked at for improvements. That was a long range project and probably no improvements would begin prior to 2000. It was important, however, that the city be involved in that project because once the major investment study was completed by TxDOT, pieces of the project could be started. City Manager Harrell ~tated that th~ Fort Worth Drive project had been a project which the City had been trying to have the State perform for 5-6 years. A public hearing would be held in a week regarding the placement of the road. There would be opposition by abutting property owners regarding the improvements. He wanted to point out the long term obligation which the City had made for this project. There was now funding forthe project and if the City decided to not pursue the project, it would be a long time before the City would have a chance to redo the project. 109 City of Denton City CouncilMinutes ~ < ~ June 20, 1995 Page 3 Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that it was anticipated that the property owners on the portion of Fort Worth Drive north of I35 would have similar negative positions as those property owners south of I35. Svehla replied correct as the same situation occurred south of I35 as north of I35 where many of the businesses were in the highway right-of-way for a parking and movement area. In the past there were also concerns regarding access. The State would be matching the City for dollars and the overpass on I35 would be paid by the State which was a good funding project. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the State was not willing at this point in time to make commitments regarding the overpass at Avenue D. Svehla replied that the State would have to first complete the major investments study before requesting pieces of the project. Council Member Young asked if the Fort Worth Drive railroad bridge was listed in the schedule. Svehla replied that that area was not in the project. The project would go as far as Acme Street and not as far south as the railroad bridge. Council Member Cott asked what the City and citizens could do to support the Fort Worth Drive project. Svehla replied that they needed to be proactive at the June public hearing to express support for the project. 2. The Council received a report and gave staff direction regarding hotel occupancy tax recipient contracts. Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer, stated that at the last Council meeting staff had requested direction from Council regarding the establishment of new contracts for the hotel occupancy tax recipients. Specifically they were needing direction on which recipients to fund, how much hotel tax to allocate, and the length of the contracts. Council had requested further information regarding the qualifying questionnaires completed by the Denton Central Business District Association and the Black Denton Chamber of Commerce. The Hispanic Denton Chamber of Commerce declined funding at this point in time. The Historic Landmark Commission and the Denton Festival Foundation had also supplied questionnaires. Council also requested several funding scenarios for allocation of the tax. Scenario A assumed that the City would 110 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 4 continue to contract with the five current recipients and the tax rate allocation percentages for the new contracts would be adjusted so that the 1995-96 budget for each recipient would equal approximately their 1994-95 budgeted amount. This scenario would allow $35,888 to be allocated to other eligible purposes. The Denton County Historical Foundation would be decreased by .05% for 1995-96. Scenario B assumed that the City would continue to contract with the five current recipients and that the tax rate allocation percentage for each recipient would be decreased by .02% except for the Denton County Historical Foundation which would be decreased by .05%. This allowed $10,140 to be allocated to other eligible purposes. Scenario C assumed that the City would continue to contract with the five current recipients and the tax rate allocation percentage for each recipient would be decreased by .05%. In all three scenarios, the reserve fund and the eligible City expenses did not change. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked about the reserve line item. Fortune replied that that was the amount of money contributed to the City's reserve fund. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked what the reserve was for. Fortune replied that last year the City Council had elected to use some of the reserve fund for a new roof on the Civic Center which was an eligible City expense. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked what was the difference between reserve and eligible City expenses. Fortune replied that in 1991-92, there was approximately 1% of the hotel occupancy funds which was being distributed to the Greater Denton Arts Council building fund. At that time, it was determined that that was not an eligible use for the tax funds. An agreement was made that the City would contribute to the Arts Council, the same percentage which had been contributed out of the General Fund. The City took the portion which had been formally contributed to %he Den%on Ar%s Council and used it for eligible city expenses. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the City was maintaining two separate funds. city Manager Harrell stated that when the contracts were revised by the City Council, Council built in a slight reduction in the $.07 which phased in over a period of time. That Council wanted to establish a reserve fund which would be available to allocate to eligible projects in the future. Those projects could have been 111 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 5 City projects or a special project from another organization. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that that was the purpose of the reserve line item. The eligible City expenses were those dollars which were specifically being allocated to the Civic Center roof. city Manager Harrell stated no that the eligible City expenses were the funds which offset the amount which was paid out of the general fund which was going to the Campus Theater. In order to recover that $.01, there were certain City activities which were eligible for funding. Those were being paid by hotel/motel funds as opposed to General Fund dollars. Mayor Castleberry asked why the civic Center was eligible for Lalor funds. City Manager Harrell stated that under the definition of eligible items under the State law, civic centers were eligible for those types of funds. Council Member Young asked if the Black Chamber of Commerce was included in the funding. Fortune replied no that the scenarios provided an example of what might happen with the current five recipients and how to free up additional funds for other eligible organizations. Council Member Miller stated that the percentage for eligible city expenses would be kept constant as the dollar amount went up. The proposal on June 9th showed the dollar amount remaining constant and the percentage going down. He asked for an explanation of the difference of the two reports. Fortune replied that in that scenario the amounts were kept the same and at that point in time figured scenarios where the percentage would remain the same and how much would be allocated if the budget increased. Council Member Cott suggested that when the Civic Center was due for renovation, a consultant was needed as this was an O'Neil Ford building. Council Member Brock asked how much of the tax could go to a city. Fortune replied that 75% could be used for civic center purposes and the entire amount could be retained. 112 City of Denton city Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 6 Council Member Krueger stated that there was no mention of the excess funds. If the funds went over the allocated amount, the excess funds would roll over into the account and caps would not be placed on the funds. Fortune replied that Council had directed that anything in excess of the funds at the end of the fiscal year could be allocated after October 1 of the preceding year. The scenarios did not indicate that but were merely examples of how to allocate the funds. Council Member Young asked if the Black Chamber of Commerce would be able to receive funds. Fortune replied that that would be a Council decision. According to the information provided, as long as their uses were to promote tourism and the convention industry, they would be eligible for the funds. Council would have to provide staff direction to proceed in that manner. Mayor Pro Tem Biles wanted to be assured that his motion made last week was that the City Attorney would consider the legal analysis and the City Manager, Finance Director and Internal Auditor would consider the financial and budgetary aspects such that there would be a specific percentage allocation of the $.07. A dollar budget amount would be established and if the projected revenue increase for the year was larger, the extra amount would be allocated to each of the contract recipients according to their percentage allocation. That money would be held in reserve so that in the next fiscal year, the organizations would receive the excess funds plus the budget allocation for the new budget year. Fortune replied that that was understood by staff. specifically addressed in the funding scenarios, understanding of the motion. Although not that was an Mayor Pro Tem Biles requested written assurance that that was a legally acceptable approach which satisfied the Charter and State laws. Council Member Cott stated that the Council had not voted on that or the allocations. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that there was a 6-1 vote on the methodology contained in his motion and would be included in the information. His motion did not take into account any particular percentage allocation as the number of organizations had not been identified at this point in time. 1131 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 7 Council Member Cott felt that the extra percentage should not be committed each year as conditions might change in the future. Mayor Castleberry stated that with requests from other agencies it needed to be certain that they were eligible for funds. Council Member Krueger stated that he liked each scenario as other agencies could be included. Over the years, each entity could grow. Council Member Brock felt that the proposal provided by the Black Chamber of Commerce seemed closely related to what the Convention and Visitors Bureau currently did. As this organization was getting started, it might be possible to fund early activities through the budget for the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Council Member Cott felt that a new or old organization had to be held responsible for the money given to them. A system which controlled the dollars was needed. This item was continued during the Regular Session under Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager. 3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the proposed 1996-2000 Capital Improvements Program and discussed the Blue Ribbon Committee. This item was not considered. 4. The Council received and discussed the results supplemental 1995-96 Budget Priorities Questionnaire. This item was not considered. of the The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, June 20, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members Brock, Cott, and Krueger. ABSENT: Council Members Miller and Young. 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 1'14 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 8 2. Citizen Reports A. The Council received a report from Dale Branum concerning pesticide spraying. Council Member Young joined meeting. Mr. Branum stated that the Denton Organic Society was a non-profit member supported community service organization. Their purpose was research and education for organic methods of gardening and landscaping. Their projects involved gathering and sharing information about how to find ways which were safer, saner, cleaner, greener and less expensive than current methods of treating lawns. Council Member Miller joined the meeting. Branum stated that the organization would welcome the Council's support and cooperation of education. They appreciated what Council had done in this area and in the area of recycling. Mike Mizell stated that spraying for mosquitos was more harmful than beneficial. The poison used in the spraying could remain in the environment for up to three months. The impact on the mosquitoes was gone as soon as the spray evaporated or came into contact with a surface. Spraying was not effective in controlling mosquito population and in the long term there was a possible negative benefit as beneficial organisms were being killed. The mosquito population had a natural rise and fall during wet weather. He requested that the City discontinue spraying and work with the organization to develop alternative methods of controlling the problem. Lisa Wickstrom stated that Denton had many beneficial insects and organisms in its soil and spraying was harmful to those organisms. The long term harm outweighed the short term benefits for spraying for mosquitoes. 3. Citizen Requestm A. The Council considered a request from the Greater Denton Arts Council for an exception to the noise ordinance for the grand opening of the Campus Theater, Thursday, July 6, 1995 until 10:30 p.m. and Friday, July 7, 1995 until 11:00 p.m. Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that Jane Jenkins had requested this exception for the grand opening of the Campus Theater. A schedule of events was included in agenda back-up 115 city of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 9 materials. In conjunction with the noise exception was a street closure request. The City Manager could approve a street closure when included with an exception to the noise ordinance. However, the noise exception was still needing approval. Cott motioned, Biles seconded to approve the exception. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered a request from the Pro Youth Rodeo Association for exception to the noise ordinance for the use of a loudspeaker for the purpose of conducting the youth rodeo at the North Texas State Fairgrounds Friday, July 7, and Saturday, July 8, 1995, until 12:00 midnight. Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that the Association was requesting an exception to the noise ordinance for the use of a loudspeaker for a youth rodeo at the North Texas State Fairgrounds. Kruger motioned, Brock seconded to approve the exception. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Hearings A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance to rezone 3.753 acres from the Single Family 7 (SF- 7) zoning district to the Commercial (C) zoning district on property on the south side of 1-35E, approximately 250 feet south of Lindsey Street. (The Planning and zoning commission did not recommend approval with a 2-3 vote on a motion to approve.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that the proposed ordinance would rezone the property from SF-7 to a Commercial district. He reviewed the surrounding zoning and what was currently built around the property as detailed in the agenda back-up materials. Options for the Council to consider included (1) voting no for the proposal which would keep the current SF-7 zoning; (2) approve conditioned zoning; (3) direct staff to prepare an ordinance for a planned development district; (4) zone the property commercial district; (5) return the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an alternative zoning; (6) amend the Denton Development Plan and apply another set of policy criteria; or (7) postpone consideration. There were two options on conditioned zoning. One would be office zoning rather than a 'i16 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 10 commercial zoning district, the zoning could be office. The issue principally in this case dealt with a motel on the site. Motels were an authorized use by right in the office district. That district could be conditioned. Another conditioned zoning could be the commercial conditioned district. The list of uses and the standards as applied to commercial zoning district and the office zoning district were included in the agenda back-up materials. With conditioned zoning, those districts could be made more strict by limiting the number of uses, additional set backs, additional landscaping, etc. The applicant had proposed a series of conditions which were included in the agenda back-up materials. One of the conditions which had been discussed in the past would be to require a site plan. Architectural standards could be required in a planned development condition. In June of 1961, tracts 14 and 34 were rezoned from SF-7 to the Business zoning district. The name of that district was changed later without changing any of the map from the business district to the commercial district. In July of 1961 one of the major revisions to the City's zoning ordinance was made and the City adopted a new zoning map. There was no copy of that map and it was not known if that map changed the zoning on tracts 14 and 34. In August of 1964 there was a zoning case denial on tract 14.5 which was an area owned by the applicants and zoned SF-7. The local business proposal for that site was denied. In January of 1969 another new zoning map and another new zoning ordinance was adopted by the City Council. That was the last zoning ordinance passed concerning the zoning on this property. In April of 1978 there was a subdivision of this property. Before that time tracts 14 and 34 were owned by the same individual and that property was sold without the benefit of platting. In June of 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a proposal for a conditioned zoning district with a site plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the site plan. That petition was not submitted to the Council and was withdrawn by the applicant due to neighborhood opposition. When the zoning case was reviewed in June 1994, the zoning map showed the boundary between SF-7 and commercial. The 1969 map adopted by ordinance indicated a different line. There was no ordinance amending the 1969 zoning line but the maps were changed. Staff's research of the zoning map indicated that by September of 1971, the zoning map was changed but there was no ordinance to go with it. All the zoning case files showed changes in the maps. The zoning case was in a low intensity area and the intensity policy and separation policy was violated. The separation policy stated that proposed nonresidential uses were not allowed within a half mile of another nonresidential use. The infrastructure was in place to support this type of development. The Planning and Zoning Commission indicated that the policy of the plan had been violated and the case should not be approved. One policy indicated the need for a stable and diversified economic 117 city of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 11 base which the proposal satisfied. Another policy in the plan dealt with infrastructure costs. The property all around the proposal was developed and the infrastructure was in place to support the proposal. There would be no public costs associated with the proposal. One of the major policy issues in the plan dealt with residential protection. The applicant proposed to mitigate impacts on the residential area with such proposals as a no build area to the south and a 200' area between the property and a house located to the west. Another policy dealt with preserving vegetation. Vegetation and natural topography proposals spoke to that. There was no site plan at this point in time to analyze the entrance way conditions. The proposed ordinance needed 6 affirmative votes to pass as the 20% rule was in effect plus the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for denial. An option for consideration was to return the proposal to the Planning and zoning Commission to consider another option for the property. Depending on the kind of direction from the Council, the proposal might come back without the 20% rule and with a positive Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation. The Council might consider deleting motel as a permitted use. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Art Anderson, representing the applicant, presented the rules and regulations on how the franchise would be allowed to be operated. In addition to the concerns of the neighbors was the fact that the zoning map for the City of Denton showed for 20 years that the property was zoned commercial with a variety of transactions made based on commercial designation, property appraised and taxes paid on the commercial designation. They had met with representatives of the neighborhood and understood their concerns regarding a hotel/motel use. He felt that many of those concerns were driven by the adjacent facility to the site. The proposal would be a superior and well run facility. There were two commercial uses for the property other than the hotel/motel which might be considered but which had associated problems. The Planning and zoning Commission minutes of June 22, 1994 referred to commercial land already being used and associated concerns dealt with traffic problems, privacy, lighting, etc. Other problems noted dealt with traffic problems, storm water problems and noise from a hotel/motel. The applicant had spent time and effort to address those problems. As a result of the conditions agreed to, the portion able to be developed was moved to I35. There would be a 100' buffer on the southern portion near the current single family Homes and a portion of the property would remain unduv~loped for the immediate future. 118 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 12 Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if the 100' was on the southern end of property. Anderson replied correct. For the purposes of zoning the property, the petitioner had agreed to accept SF-7 zoning on 100' of the southern most portion of the property. From a practical construction standpoint, they agreed to that zoning on that portion of the property. One concern was drainage and the fear that it would be routed back through Willowwood Street. One of the ways that they had tried to address that was to have all of the development on the north, on the other side of the ridge line. The southern portion of the property would not be developed for the purposes of the motel project. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the southern portion of the property would remain grass. Anderson replied yes for the immediate future. He was looking at the specific short term construction project which they had planned. He did not know how the project to the south would be developed. It might be residential but he was not sure. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the existing house on the northwest corner of the property would be the residence of the 24 hour a day property manager. Anderson replied no that that was not part of the project. The 24 hour property manager would be on site in a building next to I35. Council Member Miller asked how the access would be if coming off of I35. Anderson replied that it would be McCormick Street. Council Member Miller asked if uses other than a hotel/motel had been considered. Anderson replied that the problem was that the property was not bought for a long t~rm investment. It was purchased for a specific purpose. They looked at the zoning maps and zoning and it was represented to them that a hotel/motel was allowed in the area. Platting and a building permit was all that was necessary for the project. His client had already paid a $35,000 non-refundable franchise fee for the hotel. There was a concern regarding the cost of a room rental and would the petitioner consider an upgrade to a higher quality hotel. He had agreed to do that which would cost another $15,000 non-refundable fee. His client did a survey, surveyed the market and bought the property for a specific purpose. 119 city of Denton city Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 13 He did not feel that there was a market for other uses of the property except for the use of a hotel/motel. Mayor Pro Tem Biles expressed a concern regarding reliance on maps versus the ordinance issue. He understood that there were two maps found from two zoning cases between 1969-75. Were those the maps which were relied on for zoning. Anderson replied no that there was an official city of Denton zoning map which was in the Planning Department and which was used to determine zoning. For 20 years that zoning map showed the property was commercial zoning. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked when he was first aware of the map and ordinance problems. Anderson replied that he was made aware when his clients hired him to represent the case. He understood that the first time anyone became aware of a problem was after the preliminary plat was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1994. Staff then researched the issue. He disagreed with the statement that no ordinance had been passed rezoning the property. The correct response was that it was not known. A search by staff did not reveal such an ordinance. Mayor Castleberry asked if a neighborhood meeting was held last night as requested. Anderson replied no. This had been a very frustrating case for him. In the zoning cases he had had, his goal was to negotiate on behalf of his clients and still protect the neighborhood. They had tried to do that with conditions in the proposal. Regardless of the conditions offered, the neighborhood did not accept the use of the property for a hotel/motel. He was willing to talk about the conditions with the neighbors, but they were not willing to discuss those as their position was no hotel/motel use. Mayor Castleberry stated that one of the reasons for prior Council action was to try and have the problems worked out. Anderson replied that they did have a meeting but not last evening. This would be a different situation if his client had not bought the property for a specific purpose and specific use and had not expended several hundred thousand dollars trying to develop the property with a ~peclfi~ u~e. Council Members Cott and Brock left the meeting. 120 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 14 Mayor Castleberry stated that he had received a Speakers Card on the proposal from Barbara Miller. She felt that special consideration should be given to the negative impact of additional traffic on the safety of Borman School children who must walk or ride bicycles to and from school as McCormick was the only access to the school. Council Member Cott returned to the meeting. Eric Eaton stated that the controversy involved the rezoning of a parcel of land for the proposed construction of a motel. This motel would abut the backyards of some of the area homes and would have a negative impact on the quality of life on everyone in the Denia neighborhood. This situation had dragged on for a year. During that time, the Denia Area Community Group had on several occasions convinced the Planning and Zoning Commission of the merits of their position. Support of the neighborhood had grown during the past year and the opposition was unanimous in the neighborhood. They were opposed to this particular development program. They felt that the twin goals of sensible development and neighborhood preservation were compatible. Council Member Brock returned to the meeting. Eaton stated that his opposition was based on a combination of factors relating to the nature of the neighborhood environment and the extensive existing commercial development already adjoining the Denia neighborhood. The group was not anti-development but rather pro-Denton. They were not opposed to development of the property but their primary objection was the proposed development of the property. A motel was not appropriate development of the property. Joyce Snay presented slides showing the homes in the area. There were many children in the neighborhood. She suggested an alternative might be to build small single family homes on the property. Another option was to build a building with offices on the bottom and apartments on the top. She had attended all of the neighborhood meetings and was concerned about statements made in regard to trying to work out thQ diffQr~nc~ b~tw~Qn th~ neighborhood and the petitioners. Carol Brantley stated that she wanted to protect the neighborhood from inappropriate commercial development. She was not anti- development but anti-motel. There were five motels in the neighborhood already. Denton had an ordinance which indicated that there was not to be the same business in a half mile distance of the same business. Within a mile distance was the Days Inn, the LaQuinta, the Royal, the Desert Sands and the Radisson. She felt 121 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 15 that the neighborhood did not need more motels with more lights, more noise, more activity. There were many children in area and the residents were fearful with the possibility of increased traffic. The Vision plan for Denton stressed keeping Denton beautiful. The area motels in Denton were not beautiful. She had called several of the motels in the area to find out the occupancy rate. She learned that in order to keep a motel open a 70% occupancy rate was needed. In order to remain open, many hotels rented rooms on a monthly basis. Several motels had a history of changing ownership frequently and with that the value of the motel went down. She asked the Council to not consider passage of the ordinance. Council Member Young stated that Brantley indicated that there were currently five motels in a one mile area. He asked if the children who now went to Borman had any problems or was there a history of problems with traffic. Council Member Miller left the meeting. Brantley indicated that she did not know. Lynn Brooks stated that he would address traffic and traffic patterns in the neighborhood. Currently the entrances and exits on I35 were at minimum standards for the amount of traffic. Because of the layout of the neighborhood, many individuals drove in the area looking for other businesses. Council Member Miller returned to the meeting. Brooks continued that a motel would increase traffic in the area. He showed on an overhead how the traffic would proceed trying to reach the proposed motel. He recommended that Council either deny the petition or deny with a stipulation that an 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. business be on the property. Kathleen Eiland stated that problems with the petition included the intensity of the area. The area was currently overallocated at 117% if the proposed location was left commercial. That did not include the Radisson which was given a specific university rating. The intensity of the neighborhood would increase to 138% if the Radisson were given a proper commercial rating. She would like to have an 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday business in the area. There was also a concern regarding drainage on the property. The application wa~ for the entire portion of p~perty back to the homes on Willowwood for commercial zoning. There was a 5' drop from one part of the property to another. That was a significant drop which presented significant problems to the developers as far 122 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 16 as access. Water and sewer lines were not adequate. The petitioner had indicated that they would not access Willowwood unless necessary. That street was narrow and bumpy and was not a good street for access. Council Member Young left the meeting. Eiland indicated that she did not want a motel in that area. The Traffic Safety Commission indicated that the hotel traffic would be in direct conflict with Lindsey Street. She asked for denial of the application in fairness to the neighborhood and that the petitioner meet with the neighborhood to possibly work out some sort of a compromise. Jennifer Phillips stated that the Denton Development Plan indicated that centers of activity should be encouraged and strip commercial development should be discouraged. She asked if three hotels, a bar, and four gas stations within 6/10tbs of a mile would be considered strip development. The Denton Development Plan indicated that low density neighborhood protection for areas on the fringes of the major activity centers should be protected by measures such as strict design requirements, transportation planning and implementation, land use balance and landscaping. Traffic planning should insure that no local residential streets would be used for general circulation to the centers. Neighborhood service centers were small nodes of nonresidential establishments intended to offer mainly convenience goods and services at the neighborhood level. These centers should be located at least one-half mile from any other nonresidential retail center. Council Member Young returned to the meeting. Phillips requested that the zoning remain single family zoning as indicated by the Planning and Zoning Commission or do some type of conditioned zoning so that another motel could not be built there. John Weber stated that the Denia Area Neighborhood Association was not anti-development but was in favor of neighborhood preservation. If there was a need for another motel in Denton there were better places than in this particular neighborhood. He understood that some money was spent on development of the site but perhaps further investigation needed to be done regarding the proposed site. He questioned why families in the area should suffer with the mistakes of the buyer. He did not want any type of development which would detract from the quality of life in the area and wanted to protect the children in the area. The neighborhood was in the area before the freeway was built. He supported the work being done by the Visions for the 21st Century Committee. Strong neighborhoods was 123 City of Denton city Council Minutes{ June 20, 1995 Page 17 one of the goals of that program. Don Bailey stated that the quality and value of life in the area was of importance to the neighbors. He felt that all franchises were different and there was a need to be cautious regarding grouping them all in one category. He encouraged the Council to vote against the commercial property. Charles Finley stated that he opposed the motel as it was in a bad location. Drainage was a problem in the area and the development would not help that condition. Mary Jo Hill stated that she had lived in her house for 47 years. Originally the property was located in the County and there was no commercial property in the area until approximately 1982. A small portion of Block 13 had a commercial sign on it and Lots 11 and 12 had never been zoned commercial. She opposed another motel in the area. Since an area home burned in September, the neighbors had been anxious regarding the property. She asked that the Council keep the integrity of what was there. Henry Smith stated that the Vision Committee had put together a mission representing all of the neighborhood associations throughout the entire city. In that challenge it was indicated a desire for strong neighborhoods. Did RPS Ventures state or show that they were interested in preserving neighborhoods. The petitioner indicated to the Planning and Zoning Commission that he had many years of hotel experience. During the last eleven months, a preliminary plat had been approved and there was a meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission for the final plat approval. There was a problem with the plat and the developers were given 30 days to present the final plat. That was not done until two weeks prior to 90 days. The neighbors were notified that there would be a meeting for replatting. The Planning Department had indicated that this would be a simple replat and the joining of two pieces of property. At the Planning and zoning Commission it was learned that the joining of those two pieces of property would allow the developers to build a hotel and use a single family zoning as a parking lot. The Planning and Zoning Commission asked the developers to meet with the neighborhood but RPS Ventures refused to do so on several occasions. At the November 30th Planning and zoning Commission meeting the replatting request was denied. Two weeks later a vacant house in the area was burned by a professional. It was not known who hired the professional to burn the house. A professional fire bomb was placed in the house which did not go off. There were two boys who tried to put the fire out. If the fire bomb had gone off, one of the boys would probably have been killed. After the fire, the neighborhood did research 124 city of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 18 regarding the proposal. It was discovered that the zoning map was in error which was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that there was an error. It was found that the property had been placed on a 1969 ordinance. On April 12 the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proper use of the property. It was felt that the ordinance would govern what took place and not the map. The neighbors had a letter from Mr. Nelson, an attorney, indicating that he had taken care of the property since 1965 and there was no commercial zoning on the property. Council Member Young asked Smith if he had stated that he would not mind a hotel such as a Hilton Hotel but not the type of proposed hotel. Smith replied no that there were already 5 motels in the area and the neighborhood should not have to take on another hotel. Bill Miller stated that he did not live within 200 feet of the proposal but did live in the area. Maps were not always correct and should not be relied on in this issue. A map was a guide, not a final document. There were a number of properties of sufficient size which did not abut neighborhoods which would be appropriate for a motel location. He felt that the only reason for a change to commercial zoning for a motel would be if Denton was in a dire shortage of motel space. People in the neighborhood were concerned with long term. It was not known what would happen with the back portion of the property. To get to a motel on that site, an individual would have to get off at a prior exit. If coming from the north, an individual would have to go under the Avenue D bridge and exit as soon as he was out from under the bridge. The next exit would be too far. From the exit, there was a curve in the road and enough trees, that a motel on the site would be difficult to see. An individual would have to drive through the neighborhood to get to the motel. A possible alternate use for the property could be a day time commercial or residential use. Reva Friedsam stated that the commercial line was next to the residential houses. There used to be a city easement in the area but that seemed to be included in the commercial zoning. She was concerned about the future use of the property on the south side of the proposal. Drainage was also a concern in the area. Vicky Walker-Brooks stated that her issue concerned all taxpayers of Denton. In a recent Denton Record-Chronicle article, Molly Ivins wrote about a Takers Law which allowed property owners to sue any government entity if any action they took resulted in at least a 20% reduction in the value of said property. She believed that 125 city of Denton city Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 19 there would be a high probability that a motel in the area would result in a 20% or more reduction. She urged the Council to consider that when voting on the proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that that statute would not be effective until September 1st. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that if Council took any action tonight, the statue would not apply plus there appeared to be an exception to planning and zoning decisions. Tonnie Ramirez stated that the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission of April 12, 1995 indicated that Jerry Drake, Assistant City Attorney, had researched the issue on where the City stood on an issue such as this. In cases where there was a deviation between an ordinance in place and a zoning map, the ordinance governed. He asked the Council to consider those facts before ruling on the situation. Duaine Whitaker stated that over the years many different proposals had been proposed in the area. Ryan Weber presented a chart of the motels in the area. The hotels/motels in Denton were having a difficult time operating at this point in time and there was no immediate market for more hotels/motels in Denton. He felt it was a bad idea to develop another motel in the area. Mayor Castleberry indicated that he had received speaker cards from Sarah R. Bryant and Rachel Mays who did not wish to address the Council but did want to express their opposition to the proposal. The petitioner was granted a five minute rebuttal. Art Anderson addressed some of major issues presented. He felt that the conditions placed on the property were solutions to the concerns expressed by the neighborhood regarding the proposal. The bottom line was that the property was in the I35 corridor and the property had been shown commercial for 20 years. He did not believe that this property would be developed residential. Residential areas and hotel/motels could co-exist. He felt that this tract for hotel use could coexist with the neighborhood and become a good neighbor. An alternative use suggested was for an 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. business which would be incompatible due to more traffic when children were going to and from school. When property owners were buying and selling property, they relied on the official zoning maps of the City. He stated that a staff report indicated that since the zoning map had indicated commercial 126 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 20 zoning since 1975 and there had been no activity changing the analysis, the 117% intensity trip allocation already included the subject property as vacant commercially zoned land. This rezoning would neither increase nor decrease the overall intensity allocation. Ultimately this request was reduced to a matter of fairness. In the period between 1975 and today, a development decision was made and the property purchased. The intensity analysis of this request did not mean anything, therefore staff recommended that the current proposal be approved. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Miller asked how the Radisson hotel was calculated in the figures for intensity. Robbins replied that research indicated that the Radisson was calculated as an institutional use. Council Member Miller stated that the figures did not reflect the actual use of the Radisson. Robbins replied that there was no separation of allocation for the hotel and a separation for an allocation for the golf course. The whole area was included as an institutional use. The intensity allocation would increase if the Radisson were included with its proper use. Brock motioned, Cott seconded to deny the request for straight commercial zoning. Council Member Brock stated that as the Council very rarely denied a zoning request, this was a serious matter. Being in favor of quality economic development did not mean anything, anywhere at any time. The Fantus Study indicated that Denton should create a high quality brand image for a uniqueness of Denton. Owners of modest homes had rights too and property rights applied to homeowners as well as business owners. Denton was a unique community with diverse income levels, education levels, employment levels. It was a group of different kind~ of people who got along very well because they had their neighborhood and their sense of community at heart. In the Vision project, neighborhoods and entranceways were very important. This proposal was a part of both of those areas. She would not take this position to the extent of denying reasonable uses of the property. She was not saying that the property must remain residential. She was saying that it should not be unrestricted commercial. 127 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 21 Council Member Cott stated that the problem he had with the issue was that planning and development was long term and not short term activities. There was a need to do something about undesirable advertising in the area. Council Member Miller stated that there obviously was some confusion regarding the zoning of the property either on maps or ordinances. He felt that the ordinance applied and the issue was one of rezoning the property. The location was not appropriate due to the density issue. He felt there was an appropriate use of the land for restricted office but did not feel that the best interest of the community would be for unrestricted commercial zoning to allow a hotel/motel. The traffic would be a problem due to the layout of the exit and the proposed motel. Office zoning would not be as much of a traffic problem as the users of the offices would most likely be local residents realizing the traffic patterns in the area. He indicated that if the proposal was denied, he would suggest that it be referred back to the Planning and zoning Commission to look at the issue for another solution of uses for the property such as restricted office. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that he had been out to look at the site several times. In an analysis of the points presented pro and con for the proposal, he would have to vote no on the motion. This was interstate frontage which had a value for commercial property. The neighbors had indicated that they did not want lights on 24 hours a day. Most offices had lights on 24 hours a day for security. It might be beneficial to have such a development for security in the area. He shared a concern with the neighbors regarding the motel and club adjacent to the area. One development of commercial property was that when a first class facility was constructed, it some times showed a course of leadership which caused adjoining property owners to follow suit. He had to vote against the motion out of a commitment to a long term Denton. The proposed project would be a positive move for the city as a whole. The proposed conditions #1-9 as indicated in the agenda back-up materials would address the concerns of the neighborhood. Council Member Young stated that as the University of North Texas was going to Division One status and with the building of the nearby speedway there would be the need for motel rooms. There already was a shortage of motel rooms. He understood the neighbors concerns but the City made a mistake on the zoning. He understood the problems of the neighbors with the number of motels already in the area. He wondered if H. Ross Perot were building the motel in the area, would he receive this kind of trouble. He did not feel Perot would. He would vote against the motion. 128 City of Denton city Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 22 Council Member Krueger stated that when he was on the DISD Board of Trustees, they had a similar situation with the development of a new school in southeast Denton near a jail. There were some legal ramifications of this case which were similar to the Pep Boys proposal. He thought that Council Member Brock's reference to the one zoning case denied was that Pep Boys case. He would vote against the motion. Council Member Brock stated that the one case denied by the Council she was referring to was the 9-1-1 proposal. Mayor Castleberry stated that the motion to deny did not require six votes, only a majority vote. A motion to approve would require six votes. Council Member Miller asked for a review of that procedure. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that the protest of the property owners and the denial of the Planning and Zoning Commission was for a zoning change from the SF-7 to commercial zoning. If the Council voted to deny, they were not voting for a zoning change but voting to deny the zoning change. It would have the same effect if the Council voted on the zoning change in favor of it but failed to get six or more votes. Council Member Miller stated that if the motion received more than one vote, it would be the same as the other motion. Prouty stated that if the motion received a majority of four votes, it would be the same as if the other motion failed to get six votes. If the motion was to approve the zoning change to commercial then the statute required, under these circumstances, an affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of all of the Council members or six votes. With the proposed motioned, the Council was not voting to affirm the zoning, they would be voting to deny the zoning so that the statute did not require a three-fourths vote. Council Member Cott asked that the motion be repeated. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that her motion was to deny the petition to change the zoning from SF-7 to unrestricted commercial zoning. Council Member Miller asked that if the motion received three votes in favor and four votes against, what would be the effect on the zoning request. Robbins replied the change in zoning would be denied and would remain SF-7. 129 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 23 Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that if the motion was to deny and that motion prevailed with 4-3 vote it would be the same as if the motion had been to approve and did not achieve a super majority. Prouty replied correct. Council Member Miller stated that his question was if the motion failed on a 3-4 vote, it would be the same thing. Prouty stated that if the motion failed on a 3-4 vote, the Council would not be voting affirmatively and no action would be taken. Council Member Miller asked again that if the motion failed on a 3- 4 vote, what would be the status of the case. Prouty replied that the case would remain the same and another vote would have to be taken on another motion whether that be a motion to approve or to do something else. Council Member Miller stated that the zoning would remain SF-7 unless another motion was made. It would not approve the zoning change and change from SF-7 to commercial. Prouty stated that because of the more than 20% protest of the property owners and because of a denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission that it would take an affirmative vote to approve the zoning change of at least six members. If that were not obtained, then the zoning would remain the same. The motion was not to approve the zoning change. The statute required that in order to do the zoning change six affirmative votes were needed to change the zoning from SF-7 to commercial. On roll vote to deny the petition, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion failed with a 3-4 vote. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if another motion would be in order. Mayor Castleberry asked the City Attorney if another motion could be made or if a reconsideration was required. Prouty replied that a reconsideration was not necessarily required if a new motion was made for something other than denial. The Council could also reconsider the previous motion. Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the application. On roll vote, Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "nay", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion failed 130 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 24 with a 4-3 vote as a 2/3's majority vote was needed for approval. Miller motioned to refer the proposal back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to study the possibility of rezoning the property to office with conditions and to work with the property owner and neighbors to determine if something could be worked out to bring back to the Council at a later date. Council Member Cott seconded. He suggested an amendment to return to Council with a recommendation rather than an ordinance. Brock suggested an amendment to the motion to include direction that the condition be to delete a motel as a permitted use. Miller stated that he would accept that amendment to his motion. Council Member Cott agreed to the change to not return with an ordinance but to return with a recommendation. Council Member Miller stated that he did not agree to that as the Planning and Zoning Commission would only send the issue back with an ordinance if the differences were worked out. Council Member Cott agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the motion was to refer the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission with the understanding that it would omit a hotel/motel condition. Art Anderson, representing the petitioner, indicated that the condition of excluding a motel on the site was not acceptable to the applicant which would require a 2/3's majority vote of the Council for approval. Council Member Cott asked for a clarification of the motion. Mayor Castleberry indicated that Mr. Anderson had voiced opposition to the motion. The Council could still vote on the motion which was to refer the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission but not to include motels. Council Member Cott stated that if the petitioner did not want it and staff went through a lot of work to bring the proposal back to Council, why go through the work. Council Member Miller felt that it would be worthwhile for the Planning and Zoning Commission to look at the proposal and if the owner continued to be opposed to such zoning, it would be a short 13'1 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 25 discussion. He wanted to see if there were other commercial/office uses for the property given its location but not include a hotel/motel. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked for a point of order. Was Council Member Cott withdrawing his second as he disagreed. Council Member Cott stated that he had withdrawn his second. Council Member Brock seconded Council Member Miller's motion. Mayor Pro Tem Biles felt that it would be a waste of staff time if the applicant did not wish to consider alternative zoning as expressed by Mr. Anderson. For the economy of time and the tax payers dollar it should not be pursued. Let the applicant propose a new application for alternative zoning if desired. Council Member Brock stated that the city could initiate zoning changes. Mayor Castleberry replied correct. Robbins stated that the zoning ordinance defined three persons who could initiate a zoning case. Mayor Castleberry felt that if the petitioner did not wish for this motion to go forward, he saw no reason to pursue the matter. Council Member Young stated that the city had made a mistake and allowed the petitioner to spend their money. He felt that if the petitioners were of a different color they would not have had this problem. He was against the motion. On roll vote to return the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "nay", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion failed with a 2-5 vote. B. The Council held a public hearing and considered an ordinance to rezone 8.2721 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Office Conditioned (O(c)) zoning district on property located on the west side of Bonnie Brae, approximately 2,000 feet south of 1-35. (The Planning & zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.) Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that currently a specific use permit was required along with a site plan for a private school to have a use in an agricultural zoning 132 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 26 district. Liberty Christian School had been on the property for a number of years and had gone through a number of expansions. It was felt that it might be more appropriate, rather than to continue with the specific use permit, to rezone the property. The proposal would be a conditioned zoning in an office district. The condition dealt with the list of uses. The permitted use would be a private school and any agricultural use which might also be a part of the office district. There was no opposition to the case and the Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor No one spoke in opposition. Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 95-115 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE CONDITIONED (O(c)) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 8.2721 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BONNIE BRAE, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF 1-35E; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 9. Resolutions C. The Council considered approval of a resolution amending Appendix A of the Denton Development Plan by changing the boundaries for Intensity Areas 77 and 78 defined therein in conformity with the map attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1, by extending the boundary of Intensity Area 78 along the south side of 1-35 E to State School Road, and reducing Intensity Area 77 correspondingly to accommodate the expansion; amending the concept map of the Denton Development Plan to conform therewith. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5-0) 133 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 27 Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this item related to Item 4C on the agenda. This amendment would change this area from a low intensity to a moderate intensity area. If the resolution were approved, Moderate Intensity Area 78 would be extended along I35 and Low Intensity Area 77 would be reduced accordingly. The following resolution was considered: R95-033 A RESOLUTION AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES FOR INTENSITY AREAS 77 AND 78 DEFINED THEREIN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MAP ATTACHED HERETOAND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT 1, BY EXTENDING THE BOUNDARY OF INTENSITY AREA 78 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF I35-E TO STATE SCHOOL ROAD, AND REDUCING INTENSITY AREA 77 CORRESPONDINGLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPANSION; AMENDING THE CONCEPT MAP OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONFORM THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Cott motioned, Biles seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Council returned to the regular agenda order. C. The Council held a public hearing and considered an ordinance to rezone 4.2721 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light Industrial Conditioned (LI(c)) zoning district on property located on the south side of 1-35E, approximately 3,200 feet north of State School Road. (The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was a zoning case within the area which the Council had just amended. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Rob Rayner stated that the conditioned zoning would be easy to do with this particular tract of land. The owner of the property felt that the conditions were acceptable for selling the property. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. 13'4 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 28 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 95-116 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONED (LI(C)) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4.2721 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 1-35E, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF SOUTHRIDGE SHOPPING CENTER, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 1, ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. D. The Council held a public hearing and considered an ordinance to rezone 0.48 acres from the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district to the Office Conditioned (O(c)) zoning district on property located on the northwest corner side of Fulton and Linden Streets. (The Planning & zoning Commission recommended approval 6- 0.) Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that only two kinds of uses would be allowed - office/professional and parking. In the short term, the existing house would be used as an office. It would be possible to build another house on the site but it could not exceed 2,000 square feet. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: 135 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 29 NO. 95-117 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY 7 (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE CONDITIONED (O(c)) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.48 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LINDEN AND FULTON STREETS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Krueger motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pro Tem Biles left the meeting. 5. Consent Agenda Mayor Castleberry indicated that Item 3 had been pulled from consideration. Brock motioned, Young seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. ae Bids and Purchase Orders: 1. Bid #1757 - Underdrain System for Filter #2 at Water Treatment Plant 2. Bid #1758 - Longridge Drainage and Water Improvement 4. Bid #1766 - Capacitors 5. PC #55299 - Boyd Excavation Mayor Pro Tem Biles returned to the meeting. 6. Consent Agenda Ordinances The Council considered the Consent Agenda ordinances 6.A. - 6.B. A. NO. 95-118 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (5.A.1. - Bid ~1757, 5.A.4. - Bid #1766) 136 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 30 B. NO. 95-119 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDSAND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (5.A.2. - Bid #1758, Bid #1765 - Bid #1765) C. NO. 95-120 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (5.A.5. - PC #55299) Brock motioned, Cott seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda Ordinances. Council Member Cott asked where the Longridge drainage and water improvements would be. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the major trunk line would run on Longridge from Teasley Lane to Stonegate. It would split on Stonegate and go either direction on Stonegate from approximately 100' in the southerly direction to 350' to the north. There would also be some smaller systems built to the trunk line or to Teasley from Fairfax and Penbrook. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 7. Motions A. The Council considered a motion to reconsider the direction given staff to prepare a contract to hire the firm of Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks to collect delinquent taxes for the city of Denton. (Krueger) Krueger motioned, Young seconded to reconsider direction given staff to prepare a contract to hire the firm of Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks. Mark Burroughs stated that last week Council voted to send a contract worth approximately $50-60,000 from an Austin based tax attorney firm to a San Antonio based tax attorney firm. His firm was the third finalist which was a Denton based tax attorney firm. 137 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 31 He was in favor of reconsideration of the item but for different reasons. His firm was the best and only firm which should be representing the City of Denton. The other firms were aligned with Denton counsel but those local counsels did not control the tax collection services. He was the only competent Denton tax attorney. His firm offered local expertise and local availability. In a direct comparison with the two competing firms, his firm was highest. His six largest taxing units all out performed the City of Denton in collections. He asked for reconsideration of the vote and to hire his firm. Council Member Miller stated that two years ago when Council went through this process, he was assured by the firm which received the contract, that the local firm would be a hands on firm and would collect the taxes. He understood that Mr. Burroughs was hired to perform those hand on tasks. He asked what was Burroughs' involvement with the collection of the taxes. Burroughs stated that as a member of the firm of Hayes, Coffey and Berry, he was working for the City. A problem arose that they did not receive a delinquent tax roll for City of Denton while working with Hayes, Coffey & Berry. He felt that the intent was to have hands on work but found out that that was not the situation. Mike Gregory urged the Council to vote against the motion to reconsider. Council had gone through a process and heard the various presentations. The numbers and performance had not changed since last week. His firm still had the best people, the best system and collected the most delinquent taxes. He had heard that some Council Members might feel that there had been some misrepresentation of numbers by his firm. No one indicated this to anyone in the firm regarding any alleged misrepresentations and no one had requested any information from their firm. DeMetris Sampson stated that her firm of Blair, Goggan, Sampson and Meeks had a local presence in Denton and had had such since 1986. In addition to the superior job of the collection of taxes, the firm had, in practice, an active and inclusive minority and woman business enterprise program. The decision made by Council last week was prudent based on facts. She urged the Council to vote to not reconsider. Debbie Patton stated that she was the Denton office manager for Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks. Last week Council directed staff to negotiate a contract with Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meek~ to collect delinquent taxes. She asked Council to not change direction regarding political pressure. 1 3 8 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 32 Nancy Primeaux stated that she was the Regional Manager for Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks. Last week she shared comparisons between her firm and the McCreary firm which documented the superior collections of her firm. McCreary collected almost $70,000 less for the City the first year they collected for the City than her firm did during the last year for the City. McCreary's low effectiveness rate resulted in a $35,000 collection shortfall for the City during their first year. This was followed by a $27,000 collection shortfall during the last nine months. Every day the City allowed McCreary to collect delinquent taxes money was left on the table. She felt that the Council had been supplied with figures which were misleading and incomplete. Peggy McCormick stated she stood behind their figures for collection rates. Gary Bennett stated that the figures given to the Council had been independently audited. The firm of Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks was the attorney for the DISD which was pleased with their performance. Nothing had changed since last week and he urged the Council to not change its vote. Curtis Loveless stated that he was aware that since the vote of last week by the Council, at least two Council Member had come under intense political pressure from one of the losing parties. His information indicated that it might have gone so far as to question any future political career of the Council Members either directly or by implication. He felt this type of conduct was an example of the worst characteristics of the political system and urged the Council to not yield to that type of political pressure. He felt it sent a message to the citizens of Denton that City Council decisions could be dictated by these kinds of means. He believed that the firm of Blair, Goggan, Sampson and Meeks was the best firm and could do the best job of collecting the City's tax dollars. He felt so strongly that he would forego any fee during the next two years and would donate his services as he felt this was the best contract for the City of Denton. He asked the Council to not reconsider their prior decision. Richard Hayes stated that when his firm made their presentation two years ago, they indicated that they were the best of both worlds. A local law firm which was known as litigators and the benefit of a statewide collection lawfirm. Last week they had been asked what they did regarding the collecting of the taxes. He indicated that they meet with City staff, preform title research, have court appearances, attend trial settings, etc. It was not true that it was difficult to contact McCreary, Veselka, Bragg and Allen. The firm had an "800" number and a citizen did not have to call Austin 139 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 33 for service. During the last two years this firm had improved the City's collection when compared to the previous law firm. It was true that they had collected less dollars but there was a lesser amount of turnover. Year after year, there had been a decreasing turnover amount in total dollars. They had increased the percentage of what was to be collected. He indicated that he had not participated in any type of political threat and was not building an empire. They felt that they could do the City the best job. Gilbert T. Bragg stated that the involvement of the Hayes firm was very subjective. He could show the time sheets of the local attorneys regarding time spent in local courts. It was not true that his firm was leaving money on the table. The prior firm had left money on the table due to a failure to file a claim. Council Member Krueger stated that he was basing his motion on information which he received after last week's vote by a person he respected a great deal. He was responsible to not only the citizens of his district but also to all citizens of Denton. That responsibility included admitting when mistake was made. It was in his power to rectify any mistake he made. There were certain individuals whom he respected a great deal and when those individuals provided him information and sought his counsel, he did not call it politics. He had made a mistake and wanted to fix that mistake. Council Member Miller asked what information came to light to change Krueger's mind as Miller did not receive any such information. Council Member Krueger stated that he had received information from an individual he respected a great deal and he would not go into details regarding the nature of the information nor the individual. Council Member Miller stated that he intended to vote against the motion as he felt no mistake had been made last week. He felt that the current firm had a better feel for Denton. He stated that he wished he knew this new information as he not heard of anything which would cause him to feel that the Council had not done the right thing. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that he was personal friends with all of the Denton attorneys. He had been badgered at home, at the office and on the phone regarding this issue. Before he cast his vote last week, he had one presentation by the Blair-Goggan firm. He did not have any presentations by the McCreary firm and spoke briefly with the Burroughs firm. As result of the presentations at 14'0 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 34 the Council meeting and as a result of the presentation he heard by Blair-Goggan, he voted and then, based on a number of things heard that evening, he decided that he would verify that he had made the right decision. The best presentation made last week was by the Burroughs firm. He was amazed by the types of number and types of information provided by the Burroughs firm. He checked items such as bankruptcy, foreclosures, and the participation of local counsel in the court room. When talking with judges, the Hayes firm was in the court house and were there in a litigation posture. Based on the figures he used, the percentages of collection had been increasing as result of the McCreary representation. His first vote was cast on the basis of objective criteria and he would vote again based on objective criteria. On roll vote to reconsider, Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "nay", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. Council Member Miller asked what staff direction was needed. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that the current tax contract expired at end of this month but that there was a 30 day extension with a month to month provision. In the negotiations with City staff, there were some changes made over last year's contract. His recommendation would be to extend the current contract until the Council voted on a new contract and until that contract was executed. There would be a need to see if the agreed on firm would agree to the contract provisions. Council Member Miller understood that under the present contract, the rolls would be turned over the first of July. Would this mean that nothing would be processed under the new contract until July i or until the date of the contract, which ever was later. A motion might indicate that in extending the current contract the McCreary firm would not start collections under the new contract on the 1994 taxes until July 5 or until there was an executed contract. Mayor Castleberry asked if there was a provision in the current contract to continue for 30 days. City Attorney Prouty stated that an extension would be needed at least until July 5. Mayor Castleberry stated that there had been a recommended motion to extend the contract with the current firm until July 5, 1995. 141 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 35 Cott motioned, Young seconded to extend the contract with the current firm until July 5, 1995. On roll vote, Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "nay", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. City Attorney Prouty stated that staff now needed direction on which firm to negotiate a contract with and that the McCreary firm not institute collection of the 1994 taxes until July 5 or when an executed contract was completed, whichever was later. Young motioned to hire the firm of Hayes, Coffey and Berry. Motion died for the lack of a second. Miller motioned, Brock seconded to direct staff to negotiated a contract with Sawko and Burroughs for the collection of the 1995-96 year. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "nay", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry !'nay". Motion failed with a 2-5 vote. Cott motioned, Young seconded to negotiate a contract with McCreary, Veselka, Bragg and Allen for the collection of the City's delinquent taxes and to not institute collections on 1994 taxes until either July 5 or whenever a contract was executed. On roll vote, Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "nay", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. 8. Ordinances A. The Council considered an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement between the City of Denton and Deloitte and Touche, L.L.P. for an independent audit. (The Audit Committee recommended continuance of Deloitte and Touche, L.L.P. audit services for the current fiscal year ending September 30, 1995.) Susan Croft, Internal Auditor, stated that this was the fourth year of a five year agreement. The agreement allowed for an annual review of the upcoming contract. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 95-121 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MA/~A~ER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DELOITTE AND TOUCHE LLP FOR AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 142 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 36 Biles motioned, Cott seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute a contract for the collection of delinquent taxes; providing for the expenditure of funds. This item was not considered. 9. Resolutions A. The Council considered approval of a resolution postponing the regular Council meeting July 4, 1995 to July 5, 1995. The following resolution was considered: NO. R95-031 A RESOLUTION POSTPONING THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 4, 1995 TO JULY 5, 1995; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Miller seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered a resolution approving the application of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for plan line funds for construction of water and sewer lines for a Wal-Mart facility near the southeast intersection of Loop 288 and Spencer Road. (The Public Utilities Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.) Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that each year the Council set aside $500,000 for development plan lines. These funds were used to extend water and sewer lines across vacant property to new developments. This funding plan line would be for the construction of water and sewer lines for a Wal-Mart facility near the southeast intersection of Loop 288 and Spencer Road. The following resolution was considered: 143 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 37 NO. R95-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF WAL-MART STORES, INC. FOR PLAN LINE FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WATER AND SEWER LINES FOR A WAL-MART FACILITY NEAR THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF LOOP 288 AND SPENCER ROAD; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Brock seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 10. The Council considered nominations/appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. The following nominations were considered: Airport Advisory Board - Hal Jackson, Rick Woolfolk and Mike Stephens. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Animal Shelter Advisory Board - Veronica Rolen. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Board of Adjustment - Rachel Mays and Ed Terry. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Building Code Board - Willie Hudspeth and Nicholas Eassa. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Cable T. V. Advisory Board - Dessie Johnson - On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Community Development Advisory Committee - Nathaniel Johnson, James McDade, and Roberta Donsbach. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 144 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 38 Downtown Advisory Board - Don Davis, Teri Rheault and Don Hill. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Electrical Code Board - Stuart Cawthon, Fred Reed and Terry Schertz. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Historic Landmark Commission - Brian Briscoe, Bullitt Lowry, Suzanne Byron, Mark Merki, Charlye Heggins and Alan Smart. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Human Services Committee - Wesley Stewart, Catherine Bell, Carol Riddlesperger and Ramiro Valdez. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Keep Denton Beautiful Board - Doug Ebersole, Jean Ross, L. W. Lawson, and Martha Len Nelson. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Library Board - Linnie McAdams. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. Library Board - Jean Greenlaw. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Parks and Recreations Board - Doug Chadwick and Burkley Harkless. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Zoninq Commission - Council Member Cott motioned to table this item until the next meeting for discussion. Motion died for lack of a second. The nominations for Rudy Moreno and Barbara Russell were considered. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 145 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 39 The nomination for Bob Powell was considered. On roll vote, Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "nay", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion was defeated by a 3-4 vote. The nomination for Guy Jones was considered. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Plumbinq and Mechanical Code Board - Frank Cunningham and Dave Reynolds. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The nomination for Karl Martino was considered. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6- 1 vote. Public Utilities Board - Dick Norton. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The nomination for Bob Coplen was considered. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. Sign Board of Appeals - John Weber. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Traffic Safety Commission - Harry Phillips, Brenda Minnis and Jim Hobdy. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Civil Service Commission - Jana Bates. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. TMPA Board of Directors - Bill Giese. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. The Council nominated the following: 146 City of Denton city Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 40 Animal Shelter Advisory Board - Lynn Stucky Board of Adjustment - Bill Colville Cable T. V. Advisory Board - John Kuiper and Candice Liepa Community Development Advisory Committee - Lisa Polack Data Processing Advisory Board - Don Edwards and Anthony Hudspeth Downtown Advisory Board - Bernice Wilson and Bill Thomas Human Services Committee - Roy Davenport and Mary Morimoto Keep Denton Beautiful Board - Frenchy Rheault, Cresha Samford Beattie Library Board - LaKisha Cravens Parks and Recreation Board - Gwendolyn Carter Planning and Zoning Commission Council Member Young indicated that he would like to have the Council reconsider Bob Powell. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that a motion to reconsider would have to be made regarding that nomination. Young motioned to reconsider the nomination of Bob Powell. Mayor Castleberry stated that he could not make that motion was he was not on the prevailing side. Cott motioned, Young seconded to reconsider the vote for Bob Powell. Council Member Young stated that this appointment was important to him. He felt that Bob Powell would be a plus for the Planning and Zoning Commission. He felt that the Council Members who were voting against the nomination were voting against personality and that was not fair. Mr. Powell should have the opportunity to prove himself. Anther reason for voting against the nomination was politics as Mr. Powell was a Republican. Council Member Cott stated that he did not see this as a political issue. Powell had a consistent history of radical moves when on committees and issues. That was the reason he voted against the 147 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 41 nomination. On roll vote to reconsider the nomination of Bob Powell. Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye,, Brock "nay", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. Council Member Young nominated Bob Powell. City Attorney Prouty stated that the nomination could be voted on that this meeting. On roll vote, Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "nay", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion failed with a 3-4 vote. Council Member Young nominated Slick smith to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sign Board of Appeals - Bob Powell and Mark Chew. Traffic Safety Commission - Carolyn Bacon 11. The Council considered nominations/appointments to the Sesquicentennial Committee. The following nominations were made: Mayor Pro Tem Biles nominated Sherri Etheredge, Jane Jenkins and Carl Anderson. Council Member Miller nominated Sherri Turner. 12. vision Update Council Member Brock stated that the action plans were being finalized with presentations to be made in July. 13. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. Council returned to Work Session Item #2. 2. The Council received a report and gave staff direction regarding hotel occupancy tax recipient contracts. Krueger motioned to have staff prepare an ordinance using Scenario A and to hold a discussion at a later date regarding possible new organizations to be included in funding. 148 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 42 Mayor Castleberry asked for a review of Option A. Fortune stated that Option A assumed that the current five recipients would be funded. It would provide them the same budget for the 1995-96 year as they had for the 1994-95 year. The allocation percentage rate would decrease slightly for each organization and would provide $35,888 dollars for alternative uses. City Manager Harrell stated that the next step would be to draw individual contracts for those five organizations following the percentages in Scenario A so that it was expressed that if the estimate went over, it would be rolled over to the following year. Krueger indicated that part of his motion was to return at a later date to discuss how to allocate the excess. Biles seconded the motion. Mayor Castleberry indicated that this would be Option A as shown. Additional agencies would be discussed later. Any excess would go into a reserve fund. City Manager Harrell replied no. A contract would be prepared noting that any excess would roll over into the starting funding level for the next year. Mayor Pro Tem Biles indicated that this would be a two year contract. The first fiscal year the proposed contract would be a set amount predicated on a tax rate of 2.46% of the $.07 which would be 37.71% of the total revenue. For the second year of the contract, an agency would continue to 2.46% or 37.31% of the total revenue. The second year of the contract was not known until the revenue projection was completed. Excess funds would be held in escrow for that organization. The following year, the organization would still receive 37.31% of the projected revenue plus whatever had been exceeded the previous year. If there was a shortfall, the organization would experience the same decline. Mayor Castleberry asked what would happen to the excess after the first year. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that it would be held in escrow for the organization. He questioned what would happen to the excess after the second year of the contract as the City would not have the authority to give the organizations the excess at the end of the second year. 149 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 43 Mayor Castleberry stated that that money would go into a new two year contract. Council Member Krueger stated that if there was a dramatic increase, the percentages could be changed during the second year. Mayor Castleberry stated that he would be more comfortable if the excess was placed in a reserve fund rather than an escrow fund. He was concerned about large current reserves and why the organizations were not using that money. He felt it would be creating a bigger reserve. Council Member Miller stated that the current groups were concerned about reducing funding and not about the caps. There would be a 7% reduction in their budgets. He understood that their concerns were with the cuts and not so much with the cap. Council Member Young wanted make sure that the Black Chamber of Commerce would receive funds. Council Member Krueger stated that that would be discussed in a future session. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that he had heard three objections to the preliminary proposal. The first was that there was not enough time to review the contract. The second that there would be a decrease in funds and the third was the dollar budget cap imposed rather than a percentage of the dollars. Mayor Castleberry stated that the motion guaranteed the five organizations listed. At a later date Council would discuss other groups which might be included in the funding. The Black Chamber of Commerce was not specifically indicated at this point in time. On roll vote, Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. 14. There was no official action taken on Closed Meeting Items discussed earlier. 15. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Young stated that the City had received $250,000 worth of grants for the COPS program to hire 3 police 150 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 20, 1995 Page 44 officers. He indicated that he wanted 3 Black officers hired with that money. City Manager Harrell stated that the City was governed by Civil Service rules and could not guarantee that that would happen. B. Council Member Miller requested a study regarding the opening of the recreation centers for late night basketball. C. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked for a report on the Civil Service process and an update on the changes in process and how that impacted the City's decision making capabilities and options. D. Council Member Brock asked for a report on spraying for mosquitoes. E. Council Member Brock asked for more information regarding the access to Loop 288 for Taco Bell. 16. The Council returned to the Closed Meeting to discuss the following: ae Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071 1. Discussed Preston v. Jagoe & City. B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072 Ce Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.074 1. Interviewed and considered Regular Part-time Municipal Judge candidate, the selection process, and offer of employment. Council reconvened into open session and took the following action: Biles motioned, Young seconded to give authority to the City Attorney's Office to waive any conflict of interest to the Council in the matter of Preston v. Jaqoe and the City of Denton. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Biles motioned, Young seconded to authorize the Director of Human Resources and the Mayor to negotiate a contract for a regular part- time municipal judge at $26 per hour plus benefits with Judge Robin Ramsey. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Mo%io~ carried unanimously. i N~iFE~WALTERS BOB CASTLEBERRY/~AY~~- TY SECRETARY MAYOR ~/ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS