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