Minutes June 6, 1995037
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
June 6, 1995
The Council convened into Closed Meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 1995
at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members
Chew, Cott, and Krueger.
ABSENT: Council Members Miller and Biles.
1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Considered action in Frances Rodqers v. City of
Denton.
2. Considered action in Disheroon v. Scott, et.al.
B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE
Sec. 551.074
1. Discussed the appointment process fOr part-time
Municipal Judge.
Council Members Miller and Biles arrived during the Closed Meeting.
~The Council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, June 6, 1995
at 6:00 p.m. in the city Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members
Biles, Chew, Cott, Krueger and Miller.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a report regarding the city's request for
proposals for delinquent tax collection services and gave staff
direction.
Jon Fortune, Chief Finance officer, stated that each October the
City billed taxes for that year. Those taxes became delinquent as
of February 1st of the preceding year. Those citizens not paying
their taxes as of that date received a letter in February, March
and May in an attempt to collect the money due. As of July i those
accounts still not paid were turned over to a delinquent tax
collection firm for collection. The current contract with
McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen would expire as of June 30, 1995.
It was standard procedure to request new bids for delinquent tax
collection services when the delinquent tax collection attorney
contract expired. Six firms responded to the request for proposal.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 2
Selected firms would make presentations at the next Council
meeting. The back-up information contained a summary of each of
the responding firms. Final selection of a firm was scheduled for
June 13th and contract approval was scheduled for June 20th. A
history of the City's actual collection rate as of September 30th
was provided to the Council. The City's collection rate had
increased during the last five years which meant that the amount of
money which remained at the end of each year was decreasing. A
summary of each firm which had responded to the request for
proposal was noted. The summary included information such as
whether the firm met the general requirements of the request for
proposal, whether the firm had adequate software for the job,
number of staff on each firm, closest office location, whether the
firm was affiliated with local counsel, extent of the practice,
total number of current clients, and EEO employer status.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that recent legislation was passed
concerning anti-affirmative action and asked if that applied only
to State contracts.
Acting City Attorney Mike Bucek stated that he would research that
information for Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that part of the contract indicated that
the City would pay 15% of the amount of delinquent taxes.
Fortune stated that the taxes collected would have a 15% penalty
and interest clause plus a monthly interest charge. When a citizen
paid the taxes to the City, he paid that penalty and interest and
the City would then reimburse the particular collection attorney
for that amount.
Council Member Biles stated that Council had a memorandum which
indicated that over the last six years there was an increasing
collection rate. Which of those six years had the City been
represented by the McCreary firm.
Fortune replied that the City had been represented for the years
1992-93. 1992 was only half of a year as that was the year the
City changed firms. The prior firm had six months to collect on
accounts in suit at the time the firms were changed.
Council Member Biles asked who was the firm presently representing
the DISD.
Fortune stated that it was Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks.
City of Denton City Counci~inu~es ~ ~
June 6, 1995
Page 3
Council Member Biles asked if when the DISD filed a suit in its tax
collection procedure, were other taxing entities notified of that
suit or by statute, would the other taxing entities be involved in
the same law suit.
Fortune replied correct.
Council Member Biles stated that the numbers might not reflect
total service as there might be a cross of the two entities.
Fortune stated that when the DISD firm filed a suit and if the
account was also delinquent for City taxes, the city would
automatically be joined in the suit.
Council Member Biles stated that the case might be that one or
other of the two firms which had been representing the city might
have taken the lead either by representing the City or the DISD.
The numbers would be a composite as a result of joining of forces.
Council Member Cott stated that there were three entities from
which taxes were collected in the City of Denton. One had nothing
to do with the other at a given point in time because the factors
were different and were not coordinated. The fact that a firm
could collect in another city had nothing to do here. The City had
a firm which had improved every day with that tax collection.
There was no method of direct comparison and such a comparison
should not be done. He felt that the City should stay with the
current firm.
Council Member Miller stated that the Council went through this two
years ago and felt at that time that it would be in the best
interest to review this contract on a regular basis.
Miller motioned, Chew seconded to ask the firms of Blair, Goggan,
Sampson & Meeks; M¢Creary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen; and Sawko &
Burroughs to make presentations to Council on June 13th. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Chew "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
with a 6-1 vote.
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
the proposed 1996-2000 Capital Improvements Program.
Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer, stated that the capital
improvements process began each February with the distribution of
a budget priorities questionnaire to the Council. At that same
time, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Public Utilities
Board held a joint public hearing to receive citizen input and
04O
city of Denton city Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 4
comments regarding a proposed capital improvements program. This
information was used by staff to make a recommendation to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for the General Government portion
and by the Public Utilities Board for the utilities portion of the
CIP. Final recommendations were made by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on May 31, 1995. The recommendation was to recommend
the CIP as recommended to the Planning and zoning Commission by the
Executive Team for the general government and by the Public
Utilities Board on the utilities side with the condition that all
of the comments made in regards to the discussion of the program be
included with the capital improvements. Council typically adopted
the first year of the five year plan. As the years proceeded,
staff could recommend new projects for the fifth year. This year
the following projects needed to be restructured: Myrtle Street
paving and drainage, Collin Street paving and drainage, and Eagle
Drive drainage. These projects did not change the funding
scenarios of any of the early years. The second change in this CIP
from the previous CIP was the purchase of Loop 288 right-of-
way/Phase I and Phase II. This project was placed in the plan due
to a slight growth in property values plus a minor restructuring of
the debt for the first two years.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that in a memorandum to the Planning and
Zoning Commission from Kathy DuBose it was indicated that the
additional funding was made possible by the increase in property
values with a change in debt repayment structure. She asked for an
explanation in the change of the debt repayment structure.
Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the
possibility of issuing debt later in the year was considered. The
debt could be structured so that only an interest payment was due
the first year and not a principle payment. With that slight
savings, it was possible to open up enough funding.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the remainder of the additional
money would come from the increase in property values.
DuBose stated that there was a slight increase. The figures were
based on an estimated 2% growth and last year there was an
approximate 4 1/2% growth.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if because more money might be available
would more extensive work be done on Eagle Drive.
DuBose replied no. Only the phasing was ~hanged and not any of the
figures.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if Eagle Drive needed to be done first.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 5
Jerry Clark, City Engineer, stated that the exiting system was half
the size which was needed. There was bad flooding in the area and
the need was to do the drainage first.
Council Member Miller asked if there was money from prior bond
issues for the Loop 288 project.
Clark replied that funds were originally passed for the section
from U. S. 380 to I35.
City Manager Harrell stated that the City had bond authority for
that section of road.
Council Member Biles stated that based on the May 31st minutes of
the Planning and Zoning Commission, individual comments were
listed. No where in the minutes did it contain a motion and a vote
on the CIP.
Fortune stated that on page 14 of the minutes, Commissioner Schertz
motioned that the Commission present to the City Council each
Commissioner's comments and their recommendation regarding the CIP
stated by each individual member.
Council Member Biles stated that the Commissioners did not adopt
the CIP program.
DuBose stated that the Commission recommendation was to approve the
CIP and attach with that their comments to the Council.
Council Member Biles stated that the minutes did not reflect that.
The thoughts of the Commissioners, as indicated in the minutes,
did not substantiate the position of the CIP. Repeatedly in their
comments, the Commissions felt that they had inadequate preparation
time, backup and documentation to consider the CIP. Their second
concern was drainage. No where in the minutes was there a motion
or a vote to accept the CIP. What the Commissioners did indicate
was that they wanted their comments heard by Council. Those
comments stated that the Commissioners were inadequately informed
and what they wanted was drainage. He asked if he was misreading
the minutes.
DuBose stated that he might not have all the information from the
minutes. She clarified three times at the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting that the document would go forward,
incorporating their comments.
Council Member Biles stated that he had talked with three
Commissioners regarding the CIP. On page 3 of the 1995-96 CIP, the
'042
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 6
last line item was Loop 288 by-pass right-of-way. That was the
only place where that item appeared. Three Commissioners had
indicated to him that the CIP book presented to Council was not
what they thought they were getting. He had a problem with what
was being presented to Council.
City Manager Harrell stated that the Charter requirement indicated
that the Planning and Zoning Commission had to submit to the City
Manager a CIP program 90 days prior to the start of the fiscal
year. That requirement had been made. It was staff's understanding
that although individuals were still having concerns regarding the
CIP which were expressed to the Council, the Charter obligation had
been met in the recommendation of the CIP submitted to Council. If
that was not the case, then it needed to be clarified and the
Planning and Zoning Commission needed to make changes necessary to
the document to be comfortable as a group on what was being
submitted to the Council. If necessary, the document needed to be
referred back the Planning and Zoning Commission for
reconsideration.
Council Member Krueger felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission
did not approve the document. What was indicated was that a motion
was made to approve the CIP as recommended by the Executive Team
and the Public Utilities Board. He had also talked with two
Planning and Zoning Commissioners who related their frustration
regarding a lack of time to look at each line item. He felt that
the report was difficult to follow and was concerned about the
priorities.
DuBose stated that the discussions also indicated that at this
point, the City did not have the bond authority to go forward with
this CIP. The Council would probably appoint a Blue Ribbon
Committee similar to the 1986 bond election. That committee made
recommendations to the Council regarding particular projects and
the timing of the projects.
Council Member Krueger suggested referring the document back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and to request specific
recontmendation~ where they approve or disapprove the item~.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock suggested that since there were some questions
regarding the CIP and as there was time to refer it back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission should take another
look at the document. In effect, theory was being discussed as the
City had no money to ~pend on capital improvements until there was
a bond election. That bond election had to be approved by the
public. There would be many opportunities to rearrange priorities
and to accept public input.
043
City of Denton City Council~Minutes i~.~?
June 6, 1995
Page 7
DuBose pointed out that at the request of the Commission, an
additional meeting was held to review the CIP.
Council Member Miller felt that the document should be returned to
the Commission for further consideration. If there was some
confusion, it should be clarified. He suggested a summary of those
capital improvements which already had bond funds as it would be
helpful to know what had already been authorized.
Council Member Biles felt that the Commissioners did not have
enough time to review the documents in order to make decisions
regarding the CIP.
DuBose stated that Commissioners Norton and Cochran had made some
of the statements assuming that something had been deleted from the
CIP. They felt that something had been taken out of the CIP to
allow something else to be placed in. That was not correct. Every
year, the fifth year of the CIP was added and not the entire
documents. Much of the information was not new information but
merely the fifth year was new.
City Manager Harrell stated that the first page under the General
Government tab indicated bond money already sold and with existing
funds. A second column indicated authorized but unissued bonds
which were bonds which the citizens had given approval to issue but
had not been sold yet. The last column was a long list of
unauthorized unissued projects. Those projects needed citizen
approval.
Council Member Cott noted that there were many absentees during the
Commission procedure which might have caused some of the confusion.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the consensus of the Council was to
return the CIP document to the Planning and zoning Commission for
reconsideration.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding possible purchase of Denton's cable
television system.
This item was considered during the Regular Session under
Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager.
The Council convened Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City
Council on Tuesday, June 6, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
04;
city of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 8
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Council Members Chew, Cott, and
Miller.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Biles and Krueger
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock joined the meeting.
2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of May 9 and
May 16, 1995.
Miller motioned, Chew seconded to approve the minutes as presented.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Chew "aye",
and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Council Members Krueger and Biles joined the meeting.
Mayor Castleberry presented the following proclamation:
National Garden Week
3. Resolutions of Appreciation
A. The Council considered a resolution of appreciation for
Virginia Bruce.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. RA95-014
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR VIRGINIA BRUCE
Cott motioned, Chew seconded to approve the resolution.
On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Bil~ "aye", and Mayor Castleberr¥ "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Castleberry presented the Yard of the Month awards to:
La Colina Apartments
A1 and Darlene M~Natt
Herb and Mutt Ferrill
Caitlyn, Brenda and Nim Ashley
Roshaun and Sheilah Bell
City of Denton city Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 9
B. The Council considered a resolution of appreciation for
Eldon Lew Hawes.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. RA95-015
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR ELDON LEW HAWES
Chew motioned, Cott seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Citizen Reports
A. The Council received a report from Wilbert Bryant
regarding the lighting for the basketball courts at the North Lakes
Recreation Center.
Mr. Bryant was not at the meeting.
B. The Council received a report from Nell Lights regarding
the flood plain and her property located at 514/516 E. Prairie and
509 Maddox.
Ms. Lights was not at the meeting.
5. Citizen Requests
A. The Council considered a request from Julia LoSoya for an
exception to the noise ordinance for a band concert at the North
Texas Fairgrounds until 12:00 midnight on Friday, June 30, 1995.
Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that Ms. LoSoya
had requested an exception to the noise ordinance. The City
Council had granted a prior exception to Ms. LoSoya with only one
call received during the event. Ms. LoSoya had other concerts at
the Fairground with no exceptions to the noise ordinance. Those
concerts had several complaints.
Council Member Cott asked if the noise complaints were identified
or anonymous.
Rolen replied that the calls were received at Central Dispatch with
no indication of a name from the caller. The calls were well
documented regarding type of call, time of dispatch and response.
046
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 10
Council Member Cott felt that the organization should be given
another chance as some times the calls were false.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that at times when citizens had called
her about disturbances at the Fairgrounds, she had gone out and
found that they were not false calls. Some calls were legitimate
and were concerns.
Krueger motioned, Brock seconded to approve the exception. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
6. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance rezoning .6148 acres to a General Retail (GR)
zoning district, from an Agriculture (A) district. The site,
contiguous with an existing GR district, fronted on the southbound
1-35E service road, approximately 280 feet northwest of Teasley
Lane. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 7-
0.)
Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that
this was an addition to the general retail district. The
anticipated use would be for a hotel but was not the explicit use
indicated. There was no site plan presented but the motel was the
anticipated use. The proposal was located in moderate activity
area as shown on the Denton Development Plan. Zoning was
consistent with the policies associated with a moderate activity
area.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Jim Dewey stated that the anticipated use of the property was for
a motel on the site. He was available for questions from Council.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked about exits and entrances for the
proposal.
Jerry Clark, City Engineer, stated that there would be a shared
access on I35 with a vacant lot and a shared access with the Shell
Station on Teasley Lane.
City of Denton City Council Minutes~ ~-
June 6, 1995
Page 11
047
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if the access would only go on Teasley
with the rebuilding.
Clark replied correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock expressed concern regarding adequate access.
Clark replied that the shared drives would eliminate the need to
have three driveways in a row in the area.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-103
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO GENERAL RETAIL (GR) ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR A 0.6148 ACRE
TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF INTERSTATE
HIGHWAY 35E, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET NORTHWEST OF ITS
INTERSECTION WITH TEASLEY LANE (FM 2181); PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Cott seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance rezoning 38.429 acres from the Planned Development
(PD-70) and Agriculture (A) zoning districts to the Commercial
Conditioned [C(c)] zoning district on property located on the
southeast corner of Loop 288 and Spencer Road. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this would be a conditioned zoning with no associated site plan.
There would be a number of uses allowed with the zoning but it was
anticipated that the site would be used for a Walmart SuperStore.
The proposal was located in the southeast urban center according to
the Denton Development Plan's concept map. An urban center was an
area which was planned for the highest concentration of commercial
and employment centers. The use was consistent with the Denton
Development Plan. The conditions listed limited the uses in the
district but the allowed uses were consistent with commercial
zoning south of the location.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
048
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 12
Tom Galbreath indicated that he was representing the existing owner
of the property. Walmart was proposing to develop the property for
a superstore. This larger Walmart would add a grocery store with
a larger store area for general merchandise. He reviewed the
details of the dimensions and layout of the proposed store plus the
traffic flow for ingress and egress to the property. The proposed
layout of the property would save several large oak trees on the
property. Water and sewer service would have to be extended to the
property. Drainage would flow from a small area on the road system
to the west of the property to a pipe system into dedicated
retention ponds. He felt that the proposal would present no
problems with the surrounding property owners.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the water line would be extended at
city expense and the streets would be at the builder's expense.
Galbreath replied correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked about a reference to a Mrs. Myers who had
concerns regarding the proposal.
Galbreath stated that Ms. Myers was made aware of the zoning and
had called Walmart directly. She had expressed concerns with the
uses of the property. Uses which were restricted included sexually
oriented businesses, go cart tracks, dance halls when the primary
business was the sale of alcohol, etc.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked how long Walmart had been dealing with
the City in this development.
Galbreath stated that they had started looking at the site in
October/November. The Walmart executives wanted to make sure that
this was the right site and took a longer period of time to
evaluate the site and other sites. Once they had settled on the
site, Denton had been one of the faster cities they had worked with
in terms of what could be done to help, what meetings were
necessary, etc.
Council Member Co%t asked about the possible expansion of the super
store.
Galbreath replied that in the past Walmart had always reserved
property in the rear or side of the store for possible expansion.
Walmart had since stopped allocating that area for future
development.
No one spoke in opposition.
City of Denton City Council MihUt~S'~
June 6, 1995
Page 13
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-104
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 70 (PD-70) AND
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND USE DESIGNATIONS
TO COMMERCIAL-CONDITIONED (C(c)) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATIONS AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 38.429 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LOOP
288 AND SPENCER ROAD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FORAN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Cott motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote,
Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye",
Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance rezoning 2.004 acres to a Single-Family Seven (SF-
7) zoning district, from an Agriculture (A) district. The site was
located on the northwest corner of Hinkle Drive and Haggard Lane.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 7-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this would be a single family development which would adjoin an
existing single family development. The intensity allocation would
be less with this development.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Council Member Miller left the meeting.
The following ordinance was considered:
O5O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 14
NO. 95-105
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO SINGLE FAMILY - 7 (SF-7)
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONAND USE DESIGNATION FOR A 2.004
ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HINKLE
DRIVE AND HAGGARD LAND; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
7. Variances
A. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-124 (f)
3 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning
drainage for the proposed Diamond H Ranch. The 41.241 acre tract
was located on the south side of Jim Christal Road, at Egan Road.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0 with
the condition that adequate easements be dedicated on the
associated plat.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the next five items on the agenda dealt with exaction variances
associated with the subdivision and land regulations. An exaction
was a standard in the subdivision ordinance which required a
developer to build certain infrastructure or dedicate easements or
right-of-way for certain public improvements. There was a specific
and separate variance process which the Council was associated
with. This dealt with tax payers dollars and who should build the
improvement.
Council Member Miller returned to the meeting and Council Member
Cott left the meeting.
Robbins continued that the first variance dealt with a very large
lot subdlvi~ion with only one house to be d~veloped on the lot.
The first variance was to the requirement to build underground or
piped drainage improvements. The standard was that if water could
be carried in a 48 inch pipe, then piping had to be built.
Understanding that only one house could be built in the
agricultural zoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission felt that
it would be beyond reasonable benefit to require that the
underground piping be provided and recommended the variance. The
standards for approval of an exaction variance were that the
imposition of the standards were so excessive as to be confiscatory
City of Denton City Council Minutes.~
June 6, 1995
Page 15
051
or that it exceeded any reasonable benefit to the property owner.
Brock motioned, Miller seconded to approve the variance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-114 (5)
and (17) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations
concerning perimeter paving and sidewalks for the proposed Diamond
H Ranch. The 41.241 acre tract was located on the south side of
Jim Christal Road, at Egan Road. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval 7-0.)
Council Member Cott returned to the meeting.
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
exactions dealt with the perimeter street paving of Jim Christal
Road and associated sidewalk improvements. The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended a complete variance. Improvements for the
street were estimated to be $66,000 and $11,000 for the sidewalks.
In previous cases, a figure had been estimated for the cost of
street perimeter paving on an average lot with 60' of frontage.
Staff had recommended $5400 of improvements be made. The Planning
and Zoning Commission decided that that would not be appropriate in
this case. They amended a general development plan which was
associated with property to the east of this proposal. The
amendment to that general development which would apply to the rest
of the development was that the developers of the rest of the land
would be responsible for the improvements along Jim Christal Road.
Council Member Cott expressed a concern regarding the variance
relating to the sidewalks. The City needed to make up its mind if
it wanted sidewalks or not.
Robbins replied that the regulations did not require a fee but
required that the improvement be made or fees in lieu. That was a
developer option.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that in this case it would not be
practicable to have sidewalks on this site.
Brock motioned, Krueger seconded to approve the variance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
with a 6-1 vote.
052
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 16
C. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-124 (f)
3 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning
underground drainage improvements for the proposed Happy Valley
Addition. The addition was located on the IH-35E frontage road,
between Teasley and Sam Bass Roads. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended a partial variance 6-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
a development plat was being processed for this location. A
development plat was a different form of platting than a
subdivision plat. A development plat included a site plan.
Conditions associated with the request were that two drainage
easements would carry the runoff. The drainage improvements would
be made in the easements rather than in the pipe system.
Council Member Biles left the meeting.
Brock motioned, Chew seconded to approve the Planning and Zoning
recommendations. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott
"aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-114 (17)
of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning
sidewalks'for the proposed Happy Valley Addition. The addition was
located on the southbound IH-35E frontage Road, between Teasley
Lane and Sam Bass Roads. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended denial 7-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this was a variance for sidewalks which were required to be built
along I35. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial
of the variance and to construct the sidewalks. The cost was
$3,000 for the sidewalks and the Commission felt that was not in
excess of the cost for the property. There was a sidewalk
currently adjoining the property and two associated properties
would be probably be developed in the near future which would allow
the sidewalks to link up.
Brock motioned, Chew seconded to follow the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the request for a variance.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Chew "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
City of Denton City Council~Minutes ~.~
June 6, 1995
Page 17
053
E. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-114 (17)
of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning
sidewalks for the proposed Milam Creek Ranch, Phase One. The 26.1
acre site was located on the south side of Milam Road (F.M. 3163)
east of Interstate 35. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval 6-1.)
Council Member Biles returned to the meeting.
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this was a request for a sidewalk variance to the internal street.
Under current regulations, because the proposed subdivision was
further than 8,000 feet from an existing City of Denton water line,
perimeter street paving along Milam Road and the perimeter sidewalk
in the same area was not required. But perimeter sidewalks were
required on one internal street. The Planning and Zoning Commission
considered the facts that the sidewalks would not connect on the
perimeter, that the lots were very large, that it was a
considerable distance from any existing pedestrian destinations and
felt that it exceeded the reasonable benefit to the' development.
At the same time, the Commission directed staff to consider those
same variables in an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which
might not require any development under those kinds of conditions
to have to build internal sidewalks.
Mayor Castleberry noted that the property was in the City's
extraterritorial jurisdiction and not in the City limits.
Krueger motioned, Biles seconded to approve the variance.
Council Member Miller asked if there were any conditions associated
with this variance.
Robbins replied that there were no conditions associated with this
variance. There was an issue which the Planning and Zoning
Commission had discussed with the developer which dealt with deed
restrictions. That restriction would convey information to
potential buyers and owners that the City of Denton would not build
a sidewalk.
Council Member Miller asked how that was included in the variance.
Robbins replied that it was not included in the variance and was
not a condition of the variance. The Planning and Zoning
Commission had an understanding that rather than an ordinance
requirement that would occur and anticipated that it would be
included on a plat which would be later reviewed by the Commission.
There was no legal binding for that condition.
O54
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 18
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
8. Consent Agenda
Brock motioned, Chew seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
Bid #1736 - Annual Solid Waste Analytical Testing
Interlocal Agreement - Houston-Galveston Area
Council of Governments
Contract - Alan Plummer and Associates
9. Consent Agenda ordinances
The Council considered Consent Agenda ordinances 9A. - 9C. Biles
motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinances. On roll vote,
Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye",
Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
A. NO. 95-106
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (7.A.1. - Bid #1736)
B. NO. 95-107
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL TO
AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS GOODS AND SERVICES;
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. (7.A.2. - Interlocal Agreement)
C. NO. 96-108
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTONAND ALAN PLUMMERAND ASSOCIATES
TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED RELATING TO THE PLANNING,
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPOST FACILITY AT THE CITY'S PECAN
CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT; PROVIDING OF THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (7.A.3.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 19
055
10. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting
competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for
public works or improvements. (Bid #1706)
City Manager Harrell stated that this item normally would have
appeared on the Consent Agenda but since it was complex, it was
listed alone.
Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, stated that this bid was for the
renovation of City Hall West. It was recommended that the award be
given to the lowest bidder of OWC Construction Company in the
amount of $375,745. The bids did exceed the original estimates but
funds were available for the full project as presented.
City Manager Harrell stated that this was the second major building
scheduled for renovation as listed in the City's space plan. The
first was the Denton Municipal Complex which provided for changes
in space allocation for the city departments. It was hoped that
the bid for the fire sprinkler would come in at a lower cost than
what was received. It was the intent to try and negotiate with the
bidder to make modifications to the system to reduce the cost of
the sprinkler system.
Council Member Miller stated that all the renovations would be
internal and would not deal with the exterior of the building.
Shaw replied that there would be nothing exterior other than
additional landscaping.
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the Historical Landmark Commission had reviewed and approved
exterior alternatives to the building. Certificates of
appropriateness had been issued for windows which might be
installed. Those might not be part of this particular package.
Council Member Cott asked if the cost over run was in the sprinkler
system.
Shaw indicated that the total bid was $375,745. It was anticipated
that $262,000 would be for the base bid but was received at
$303,000. The fire sprinkler bid was anticipated to be $55,000 and
was received at $72,000.
Council Member Cott asked if the sprinklers were included in the
bid.
'05
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 20
Shaw replied that originally there was $317,000 for the project
including the sprinklers and the bid came in at $375,000.
Council Member Cott asked why the sprinklers were needed.
City Manager Harrell stated that the building had a great historic
value and the philosophy of the City was to sprinkle when
improvements were done to such a building.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the purpose of approaching this in
this manner was to be able to negotiate the fire sprinkler system.
City Manager Harrell stated that it was anticipated that the cost
should be lowered through negotiations with the supplier. It also
appeared that there was much construction activity going on at this
time and bids seemed to be coming in higher than originally
estimated.
Council Member Cott asked if the bids were too high, why not wait
a year and rebid the project.
City Manager Harrell stated that the bids would not be any better
a year from now.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that it was the Council's policy that
the City would conform to the requirements placed on private
entities. One goal was to bring the building up to city code. It
was an important principle to set an example for others in the
City.
Council Member Krueger stated that the City did not have to
sprinkle this building but was doing so to show that the city was
willing follow the requirements. The amount of money for the
sprinkler system was equal to the cost of two fire fighters. He
did not believe that it was necessary to spend that much money to
make a point.
Mayor Castleberry stated that it was not a case of making a point.
The building did not have to b~ ~prinkl~red. It was a case of
preserving and protecting an important City historic building.
Prevention was much better than cures in some cases. The ordinance
did not apply to this district but the City should follow the
requirement.
City Manager Harrell stated that if a privat~ party was doing the
proposed renovations, they would not have to install the sprinkler
system. If a private party was building a new structure, they
would have to install the sprinklers.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 21
O57
Council Member Krueger felt that this was being done to make a
point and the City could not afford to make such a point.
Mayor Castleberry stated that other public buildings in Denton
would be sprinklered in the future.
Council Member Cott stated that he could see that the sprinkler
system would protect the building but not the contents.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-109
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE
AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Miller seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "nay", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
with a 5-2 vote.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting the parking of vehicles on certain portions of North
Elm Street. (The Traffic Safety Commission recommended approval.)
Jerry Clark, City Engineer, stated that this was a request from
Larry Harberson who had a business in the area. The intent of the
ordinance was to not have cars opening doors into the lanes of
traffic.
Council Member Cott asked where parking would be once restricted
from the street.
Clark replied that there was adequate on-site parking in the rear
of the building.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-110
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROHIBITING THE
PARKING OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF NORTH ELM STREET;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PEN;LLT¥ NOT TO
EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND
DECLARINGAN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton city Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 22
Chew motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting the parking of vehicles on certain portions of
Londonderry Lane. (The Traffic Safety Commission recommended
approval.)
Jerry Clark, city Engineer, stated that this was an existing policy
zone in which the no parking was enforced by policy rather than by
ordinance. All the area landowners were contacted regarding the no
parking and no one was in opposition to the signage.
Council Member Cott asked where the parking would be.
Clark replied that this was an existing no parking zone and that
there was good on-site parking in the area.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-111
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF LONDONDERRY LANE; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE
NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Chew seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
with a 6-1 vote.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting the parking of vehicles on certain portions of West Oak
Street. (The Traffic Safety Commission recommended approval.)
Jerry Clark, City Engineer, stated that this was also an old policy
zone put into place without an ordinance to enforce the no parking.
Both property owners approved the existing no parking zone.
The following ordinance was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 23
NO. 95-112
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF WEST OAK STREET; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT
TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
prohibiting the parking of vehicles on certain portions of Avenue
B. (The Traffic Safety Commission recommended approval.)
Jerry Clark, City Engineer, stated that this was an old policy zone
in place without the existence of an enforcement ordinance.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-113
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF AVENUE B; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO
EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH;
PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Krueger motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
11. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution adopting
Policy No. 106.06 "Response Time and On-Call Duty".
Tom Klinck, Director of Human Resources, stated that this
resolution would authorize implementation of a new policy for
employees to respond and be available after normal duty hours. The
policy would formalige the current practices and policies within
the City and would ensure that the City was in compliance with
State and Federal regulations. The policy set minimum response
times and on-call responsibilities, particularly in emergency
06O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 24
situations. The policy would ensure that employees with the proper
knowledge and expertise would be available for response. The
policy provided that each department director would set procedures
based on the nature of the service provided and to ensure fairness
and consistency across organizational lines. The city would be
required to pay overtime for any work extended beyond 40 hours per
week. There would be no budget impact as the overtime hours were
already included in department budgets.
Council Member Miller asked if this was the current policy and the
resolution would formalize that policy.
Klinck replied correct especially with current regulations.
Council Member Biles asked why a minimum of two hours was being
provided instead of perhaps one hour.
Klinck replied that that was a balance with people being restricted
by phone. Research showed that most calls took more than two hours
when called out. Rather than paying someone to sit and wait to be
called, it was preferred to pay about what the minimum call out
would be. That would allow the employee to leave home and still
respond in an effective manner.
Council Member Biles stated that in most circumstances, if someone
had to unlock a door for an event and it could be done in a much
shorter period of time, why not pay for an hour of work instead of
two hours of work.
Klinck replied that those were normally scheduled activities which
were already anticipated in advance. Department directors would
have the opportunity to schedule people for some events which would
eliminate some overtime work. This policy was referring to
emergency situations when there would be a need to respond to a
power outage, etc.
city Manager Harrell stated that this was a trade-off, recognizing
that when an employee was assigned to an on-call status there were
~om~ re~triction~ on that employee and his activities. Having a
minimum period which was not excessive would be a recognition that
if the employee had to go out on a call, he would be compensated
for that work.
Council Member Cott suggested deferring this item for a week to
work out a base budget and what the contingency would be. This
would provide what the policy would cost the City.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 25
Klinck replied that the overtime contingency had already been built
into the budget and this policy would formalize what currently was
done. There would be no budgetary impact as the dollars were
already built into budget.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-029
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICY NO. 106.06 "RESPONSE TIME AND ON-
CALL DUTY"; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Miller motioned, Brock seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
with a 6-1 vote.
Council considered Item #12.
12. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance canvassing the
results of the run-off election held for District One on June 3,
1995.
City Secretary Jennifer Walters presented the returns of the
election.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-114
AN ORDINANCE CANVASSING THE RETURNS AND DECLARING THE RESULTS
OF THE RUNOFF MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF DENTON ON
JUNE 3, 1995.
Chew motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
13. 'Oath of Office for District One Council Member.
Jennifer Walters, City Secretary, administered the Oath of Office
to Carl Gene Young, Sr. - District One.
14. Election of a Mayor Pro Tempore.
Cott nominated, Young seconded David Biles for Mayor Pro Tempore.
062
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 26
Brock nominated Jack Miller for Mayor Pro Tempore.
On roll vote for Biles for Mayor Pro Tempore, Miller "nay", Young
"aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "nay", Biles "aye", and
Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote.
Council returned to the regular agenda order.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution approving
an ordinance format to be used in granting to persons responsible
for annual events which had demonstrated a history of past
responsible compliance with the City's noise ordinance, exceptions
to the limitations imposed by Section 20-1 (c) (2) of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, with respect to hours of
operation of an amplified loudspeaker system, pursuant the
provisions of that section.
Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that on an annual
basis several organizations came before the Council to request
exceptions to the noise ordinance for the use of amplified sound.
At the March 28, 1995 work session staff presented a draft
ordinance which would allow for multiple year exceptions to the
noise ordinance to organizations which consistently served the
public interest and demonstrated responsible use of amplified
sound. The ordinance format included in the back-up materials
would have to be adopted for each organization or event requesting
the special exception. The resolution would adopt the policy to
allow for these multiple year exceptions.
Council Member Krueger asked for the definition of multiple years.
Rolen stated that multiple years as outlined in the ordinance
format was defined as granting the exception for no more than 3-5
years.
Council Member Krueger stated that he wanted a specific number of
years.
Rolen replied that that would be a decision of Council. The
ordinance was a format. For each organization requesting an
exception, the Council would use the format to set limitations such
as specific weekends, the number of years, etc.
Council Member Krueger asked what would be the criteria for setting
the number of years for ~he exception.
Rolen stated that the ordinance prepared for Council was a draft.
Council could decide to grant exceptions for a specific number of
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 27
063:
years for each organization requesting the exception. The format
provided the flexibility to place qualifications/criteria on each
organization.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the purpose of the ordinance was to
allow annual events to not have to come to Council each year for an
exception which made it easier on the organizations.
Mike Bucke, Acting city Attorney, stated that the ordinance was
drafted following the direction of Council. If an organization had
only been to Council for three previous years, the Council might be
concerned about providing a five year exception. If an
organization had been to Council for six years, the Council might
want to give that organization a five year exception. The format
gave the Council the flexibility to deal with different types of
situations with various organizations.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated the Council would be requiring an
organization to request single exceptions for three years. After
that, they would be eligible for this type of exception. He had a
concern with flexibility in the wrong area. A 3-5 year time period
might be sending out a wrong message if not all organizations
received the same amount of time for the exception. He felt there
needed to be a fixed period of time.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the number of prior years were
considered for the request. The proposal helped organizations
which would not have to spend time for this type of request.
Council Member Miller stated that the ordinance did not talk about
setting the hours for the events and felt that parts of the
ordinance needed to be clarified. Sunday hours were different and
should be included in the ordinance. A specific period of time
would be beneficial.
Council Member Krueger noted a section in the ordinance indicating
a time frame.
Council Member Miller stated that some exceptions had multiple days
and nights with different hours. He felt that it was not the
intent of the ordinance to give blank authority to go to midnight.
Council Member Biles stated that the indicated times in the
ordinance were merely suggestions and not set limits.
Acting City Attorney Bucke stated that the entire ordinance was
merely an example for Council consideration.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 28
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-030
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING AN
ORDINANCE FORMAT TO BE USED IN GRANTING TO PERSONS RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANNUAL EVENTS WHICH HAVE DEMONSTRATED A HISTORY OF PAST
RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE,
EXCEPTIONS TO THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY SECTION 20-1 (c) (2)
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, WITH
RESPECT TO HOURS OF OPERATION OF AN AMPLIFIED LOUDSPEAKER
SYSTEM, PURSUANT THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION.
Young motioned, Krueger seconded to approve the resolution.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if Young would consider amending his
motion to include changing the times listed in the ordinance to
blanks.
Acting City Attorney Bucek stated that the Council was only voting
on the resolution and not on the ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that he was trying to clarify the format
of the ordinance. He asked Young to consider amending his motion
to change the number of years for the exception to three years.
Council Members Young and Krueger agreed to the changes.
Council Member Miller suggested changing the wording to state "a
format to be approved by the Council". The resolution could be
approved subject to Council approving a format at a future meeting.
Council Member Young did not agree with that amendment as suggested
by Council Member Miller.
Miller motioned to amend the main motion to change Section Three of
the format to state" a format to be approved by the Council"
taking out the wording of "attached hereto".
Council Member Biles felt that everything in parenthesis was not
part of the format but were examples which would be changed by
Council when considered for a specific example.
Brock seconded the amendment to the main motion. On roll vote,
Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueg~r "nay", Brock "aye",
Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion failed with a 3-4
vote.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 29
065
On roll vote of the main motion, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott
"aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor
Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
15. Vision Update
Council Member Brock stated that the recent Cabinet meeting
scheduled presentations for the action teams to be made in
July/August. This meant that concrete proposals were close to
being completed.
16. Miscellaneous matters from the city Manager.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles left the meeting.
Council considered the Work Session items not discussed earlier.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding possible purchase of Denton's cable
television system.
Richard Foster, Public Information Officer, stated that the cable
television ordinance indicated that the City had the right-of-first
refusal to purchase the system at or above a certified offering
price being made by a third party when the system was on the market
for sale. The City had 90 days from date of notification to
exercise that right. Sammons Communications had entered into an
agreement to sell its North Texas Area Cable Systems to Marcus
Cable of Dallas. A letter from Sammons Communications indicated
that the value of the Denton cable system was approximately
$27,931,160. Council had the right to match the price offered by
Marcus for the system.
Council Member Cott asked what the City could sell the system for.
Foster replied that he did not know.
Council Member Cott felt that it might be good to see what other
potential offers could be gotten for the system.
Miller motioned, Krueger seconded to decline the offer of right-
of-first refusal. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott
"nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried with a 4-2 vote.
066
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 30
City Manager Harrell continued with Miscellaneous Matters:
A. COG was hosting its 29th annual general assembly meeting
on June 23rd. The meeting consisted of two parts - the general
luncheon plus a work session for newly elected Council Members.
This was a good general session for newly election officials to
attend to receive information.
B. The first meeting in July was July 4th and Council needed
to consider postponing the meeting to possibly July 5th. The time
frame was such in the budget that a meeting was needed.
Consensus of the Council was to change the July 4th meeting to July
5th.
17. There was no official action taken on Closed Meeting Items
discussed during the Work Session.
18. New Business
The following items of New Business were suggested by Council
Members for future agendas:
A. Council Member Brock asked for an item on the July 13th
work session to discuss whether or not to appoint a Blue Ribbon
Committee for the bond election issue.
B. Council Member Brock asked for an update on new
legislation regarding controls on the local level such as property
rights laws.
C. Council Member Brock asked for information regarding the
Council's Adopt-A- Spot.
D. Council Member Krueger requested a work session item
regarding a change in the noise ordinance policy regarding
construction work.
council Member Young stated that he was not in favor of a Blue
Ribbon Committee as there were no projects indicated for District
One.
Council Member Brock stated that the Committee would be looking at
projects and holding public hearings regarding the proposed
projects.
E. Council Member Young asked for a report on the curfew
hours at Fred Moore Park and the ban on alcohol at Fred Moore Park.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
June 6, 1995
Page 31
087
F. Council Member Young asked for a report on removing the
COPS program from southeast Denton and transferring it to
Southridge.
G. Council Member Miller asked for a study session on the
proposed storm water district.
19. The Council returned to the Closed Meeting to discuss:
A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Considered action in Frances Rodgers v. City of
Denton.
2. Considered action in Disheroon v. Scott, et.al.
B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE
Sec. 551.074
1. Discussed the appointment process for part-time
Municipal Judge.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
FE~ WAL~.RS
S~CRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACC00288