Loading...
Minutes November 21, 19955¸4 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 21, 1995 The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 1995 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young. ABSENT: 1. None The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting:. A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071 1. Considered settlement in Cohaqen, et al. v. City of Denton. B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072 C. Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.074 1. Received a management report on executive search firms to conduct a recruitment and placement of a City Manager. The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 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. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Resolutions of Appreciation A. The Council considered approval of appreciation for Leonard Braughler. The following resolution was considered: a resolution of RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR LEONARD BRAUGHLER On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye,,, Biles "aye"~ and Mayor Castleberry ~taye~ carried unanimously. · Motion City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 2 B. The Council considered approval of a appreciation for Danny Jenkins. The following resolution was considered: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR DANNY JENKINS resolution of On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 3. Citizens Reports A. The Council received a citizen report from Carl Williams concerning a Citizens Police Review Board. Mr. Williams was not present at the meeting. B. The Council received a citizen report from Billy Braswell concerning the waiver form for the City of Denton Youth Basketball Program. Mr. Braswell expressed concerns about the waiver form for the Denton Youth Basketball program. He felt the second paragraph of the form was unjust as the Parks and Recreation Department was funded by the taxpayers and the fact that youth basketball charged a fee in order to pay for the program. His son was denied the right to play as he would not sign the waiver. He would not sign a waiver which indicated that his child would be left in the care of someone who could afford to be negligent and no one would be responsible. He asked the Council to remove that clause from the waiver form as it was an unjust clause. Council Member Krueger asked Mr. Braswell if his son played basketball last year. Braswell replied that his son played two years ago. Council Member Krueger asked if Mr. Braswell had to sign the waiver form two years ago. Braswell indicated that he did not sign that particular form two years ago. Ed Hodney, Direotor of Parks and Recreation, stated that the Parks and Recreation Board heard Mr. Braswell speak at their last meeting and understood Mr. Braswell's concerns. The Park Board felt that this was not a matter it could address but rather needed to be 56¸ City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 3 addressed through the Legal Department and/or the Risk Management Department. The Board felt that perhaps it might be possible to rewrite the waiver language to make it more user friendly. It also questioned whether it was possible, from a policy standpoint, to compare costs of what it would cost to operate the program with a waiver in effect as opposed to operate the program without a waiver. Council Member Krueger asked how old was the document. Hodney stated that this was a new document which was not in effect before this year. Council Member Krueger asked if everyone at the recreation centers had to sign this waiver before participating in programs. Hodney replied that anyone who registered for a class or registered to play in a league was suppose to sign a waiver of liability. Council Member Krueger asked about the difference in liability between open play with no supervision, when this waiver was not signed, and the liability in a supervised program. Hodney replied that he did not know as it was a legal or risk management question. The waiver was required for all organized programs but not for a drop-in use of the facility. Council Member Krueger asked if the same waiver was required for the adult programs. Hodney replied yes that it should be a requirement for all organized classes and programs. Council Member Young stated that the waivers did not stand up in court. He did not see why there was such a strong waiver. He questioned whether the wording could be changed on the waiver. City Attorney Prouty stated that there were two issues associated with the waiver. One was the second paragraph of the waiver which released all claims that an individual or a child might have for any injury incurred as a result of any negligence whether caused by the City or otherwise. There was also a hold harmless agreement which indicated that the individual would indemnify the city against any claims resulting from any injury any other party might have coming from this activity. This was done as a risk management concept of risk avoidance. If it was the city's policy to have the participants assume the risk and to have them indemnify against the City's and their negligence such as premise liability, the document 57 City of Denton City Council~Minutes!~ ,~ November 21, 1995 Page 4 would have to be changed to release against the individual's own negligence. That was a policy matter for the Council to resolve. The intent of the waiver was to both release the City from any liability and also have the City indemnified against any injuries which might be caused by the individual to another individual participating in the program. Council Member Brock felt that this was an issue the Council needed to discuss as a regular agenda item. Mayor Pro Tem Biles suggested that the issue be placed on a work session so that the city Attorney could examine the language of the waiver and brief the Council on the legal issues. Council Member Cott asked that the City Attorney examine whether a parent could sign insurance rights away on a minor child. Council Member Young asked if Mr. Braswell's child would be allowed to play basketball without signing the waiver while the Council studied the issue. Prouty stated that until there was a change in the policy, the child could not play as everyone else was required to sign the release. 4. Public Hearings A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance rezoning a 0.36 acre tract from the Single Family - 7 (SF-7) district to the Planned Development (PD) district and approval of the Detailed Plan for property located at 1920 N. Bell Avenue. (The Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval 4-3.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that originally there was opposition from 35% of the area land owners. That figure had changed and was now at 16%. Six votes from the Council was no longer needed to approve the proposal. The proposal was for a Planned Development District from a Single Family-7 district. The Planned Development District in this case was much more restrictive than the Single Family district because it required that only the foot print of the existing house and the foot print of the garage apartment remain the same. The Traffic Safety Commission granted a variance for a circular drive. The Council could override the variance with an amendment to the ordinance if it did not approve of the variance. The change in zoning would allow for a second living unit. One issue associated with the planned development was that it was only four feet from City of Denton city Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 5 the fence and there was no single family zoning district which would allow a living unit that close. However, this was an existing structure whose roof line had been changed to allow for more area inside the building. Conditions associated with the planned development were that no more than one tenant would be able to occupy the unit, and the north and east windows would have to be altered to obscure the view of neighboring homes. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Annette Wheldon stated that she was a neighbor of the proposed property. There were garage apartments and rental units present in the area when she moved to the area. This was not something new to the neighborhood and the garage with the room above it had been there for many years. The proposal was to rent the room above the garage and she and many of the area neighbors did not have an objection to that. The property was well maintained and this would not hurt the neighborhood. She felt another issue was one of private property. A property owner should be able to reasonably use that property without the interference or approval or disapproval of the neighbors. She felt the request should be granted to rent the existing garage apartment. Margaret Ambuehl stated that she lived across the street from the proposal. The Pollocks had only a positive influence in the neighborhood and had made substantial improvements in the area. The garage apartment was done very well and she asked the Council to consider their request. Bruce Pollock stated that he and his wife had owned the property for five years and this summer remodeled the property. They hired a general contractor to remodel the home. He was issued a permit to do the work in May of 1995 and continued to work through August. They felt that by hiring a general contractor all building codes, inspections and policies would be followed. It was even specified in the contract that all work would be done to meet City codes and regulations. When they discovered that the garage apartment needed to be rezoned in order to be rented, they began the rezoning process. At no time did they falsify their intentions. It had been asserted by some individuals opposing their rezoning of the property, that he had misled the City in his intentions or the former condition of the garage apartment. A neighbor incorrectly stated that she had spoken with the previous owners and that no one had ever lived in the garage apartment. He had a letter from the previous owner indicating that two of his ~on~ lived in the garage apartment while in high school. One individual in opposition did not even live in neighborhood. There was some concern with additional parking requirements of one tenant. He owned only one 59 City of Denton City Council~Minutes':~ ~'~ November ~1, 1995 Page 6 vehicle. The minutes of the Planning and zoning Commission, which paraphrased him, indicated that they had three vehicles and also indicated that his children drove. His children were three and six years old. The approval for a circular drive was a separate safety issue due to the difficulty entering Bell Avenue. The garage structure was there when the home was built. The contractor did not increase the square footage of the structure nor did he change the footprint of the building. He raised the roof line on the east side to put in a kitchen area and small bathroom. The total square footage was the same. He agreed to frost the glass on the east and north side of the apartment. His intention had always been to rent to only one individual. Council Member Cott asked if there were separate papers for the garage apartment and for the house. Pollock replied that the general contractor did all of that paperwork. Mary C. Gay stated that she did not live within 200 feet of the property but was in opposition to the proposal. Zoning was important to people buying homes. This was a single family zoning neighborhood and she felt that this proposal would be an encroachment on that zoning and would open the door for others in the neighborhood to build garage apartments on the back of their lots. She felt this was spot zoning and could not find anywhere in the zoning regulations where planned development zoning would cover this situation. Section 35-1 stated that a variation from the standards established by the ordinance would not be granted to relieve a self created or personal hardship nor for a financial reason. She felt that the proposal would devaluate the property. Mack Gay, Jr. stated that he owned and rented the adjacent property. He was concerned about the spot zoning aspect of the proposal. The City had approached the area for creating a historical district in the area. Traffic was a problem in the area and to add additional families and residents would add to the problem. He asked the Council to not support the proposal. Mrs. A. V. Robles stated that she was a resident of the area. A planned development was not the remedy for this situation and the rezoning request was a case of spot zoning. Approval of this change would set a precedent and open the door for other future developments. She requested Council consider the problems of spot zoning and the adverse impact on the neighborhood before voting on the proposed change. City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 7 Ophelia Sparks stated that she had lived in the neighborhood for fifty-seven years. The Pollock's garage structure looked out and down on the back part of her property. The structure was previously a gabled roof garage with a small storage area above a downstairs workshop. By changing the roof line, the owner had converted the storage area into a small poorly designed apartment. This conversion was done without a change in zoning and no building permit was obtained to create the apartment. Following a complaint to City Hall, Greg Mitchell red tagged the location. When he made an on-site inspection, he was given false information that a garage apartment had previously existed there. On that basis, Mitchell issued a building permit to alter and repair a garage apartment. A garage apartment never existed there. There was only a work shop with no plumbing. Charles Kragel confirmed her statement to Mr. Mitchell and the permit was voided. Mr. Pollock was told that he could not use the space as a rental apartment unless he applied for rezoning but in the interim the apartment was advertised for rent. The visual impact of the structure was unsightly as the building was much larger than the surrounding area. The apartment could not be seen from the street but could be seen from surrounding neighbors. The building was used as a shop and not as an apartment. The former owner indicated that the area was used as a study room but there was no plumbing to the room. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that Ms. Sparks' concern was if Mr. Pollock rented out the property but would not have an objection if a family member resided above the garage. Ms. Sparks replied that originally she thought the area was going to be a family room for the Pollock's. Mayor Castleberry indicated that he had a Speaker Card from Mr. A. V. Robles indicating opposition to the proposal but not wishing to speak. Mr. Pollock was allowed a five minute rebuttal. Pollock stated that he was also opposed to spot zoning; however, this was not an example of spot zoning. There were many garage apartments, rental properties and duplexes in the area. His proposal would not alter the character of the neighborhood as there were many garage apartments in the area. He felt he was doing the correct procedure by hiring a general contractor to do this project. When he bought the property it was mentioned to him about the potential income from rentals. He did not build a garag~ apartment but merely remodeled an existing structure. The circular drive was for safety reasons and was a separate issue. His proposal would not affect the character nor historic nature of the 61¸ City of Denton City Council~Minutesi~!?i~ ,~~ November 21, 1995 Page 8 area. This proposal did not qualify as spot zoning as supported by the Assistant City Attorney. The proposal would not add any traffic to the area. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Cott motioned, Young seconded to deny the request. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if there were any other garage apartments on North Bell between Sherman and university. Pollock replied yes. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if they were rental units. Pollock replied correct. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked where they were located. Pollock located the apartments on an overhead map. Council Member Miller asked how and why a building permit was issued on this property to renovate the garage. Robbins replied that the general contractor made a building permit application to renovate an existing garage apartment and on those terms the permit was issued. After that there were complaints raised and before the final inspection was done, an inspection was done which indicated that construction was proceeding which would change the way the building was designed. The two issues were what was the real use and how would it be built. Based on those issues, the permit was voided and the zoning application process started. Based on the information supplied by the general contractor, it was assumed that this property was a non-conforming use. Council Member Krueger asked who decided what was non-conforming. Was a structure not a home unless it had plumbing. Robbins replied in this case, it was when the plumbing was put in. There was an area designed for sleeping, living and the addition of plumbing. The construction of the plumbing made it another unit. Council Member Krueger stated that if there was electricity and gas in an attic portion of a garage with a stove and refrigerator but no running water, it would not be a house. Robbins replied correct. There were two items which could be added to a structure which might make it a separate unit. City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 9 Council Member Krueger asked who made that determination and where was that written down. Robbins stated that the Chief Building Official made that determination and the standards of what comprised a unit were in the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance. Council Member Miller questioned if the use of a planned development was a usual procedure in a residential neighborhood. Robbins replied that it was unusual but the only zoning district allowed in which this type of activity with a detached unit on a lot, was a planned development district. The only district which allowed a set back as narrow as four feet or less, was a planned development district. Council Member Miller asked if someone could take a vacant lot in the area and do the same request for planned development for development of something other than SF7 based on this request. Robbins replied yes but the issue would be whether it should be approved. This proposal only took the existing structure and changed the roof line. Council Member Miller asked if the circumstances of the request had been known would the building permit have been issued. Robbins replied no. Council Member Brock stated that the other garage apartments in the area were legal non-conforming uses as they were already there when the present zoning was adopted. They were non-conforming to the zoning ordinance but were legally grandfathered in. The question was if this was an appropriate use to approve right now in spite of the diversity in the neighborhood. Council Member Young felt that this was spot zoning and would change the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if the planned development was required because the proposal was for rental property. Robbins replied no. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if Pollock wanted to put his child in a bedroom over the garage, even though it was detached from the house, a planned development would be needed. City of Denton City Council Minutes ~ November 21, 1995 Page 10 Robbins replied no. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the distinction was because it was a rental property. Robbins stated that the distinction was that in a single family district, there may be four unrelated people occupying a structure. Bedrooms with plumbing did not have to be part of the house but when it was occupied by more than four unrelated individuals, then it could be a second unit. If someone other than Pollock's family occupied the structure, as now designed with plumbing, with the use and the way it was constructed, it became another unit. City Manager Harrell stated that the difference came from the way the garage unit had been converted. It now had plumbing, a stove, etc. and now met the requirements and the definition of a dwelling unit. If there were three people living in the main house and a fourth unrelated person occupied the apartment like it was before the plumbing and a stove and had to go to the main house for those functions, it would be allowed. But when there was the combination of converting it to a dwelling unit and then have an unrelated individual occupying the location, that was the problem. Cott motioned, Young seconded to call the question. On roll vote, Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "nay", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion failed with a 3-4 vote. Council Member Brock stated that there had been past issues similar to this when an individual wanted to create an apartment within a house for a relative. The definition of a separate dwelling unit indicated a kitchen would be present. Robbins replied that that was part of the definition. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that he had a problem with the planned development. He questioned if the planned development was the only way to accomplish the objective of a rental property because it would be a rental property to an unrelated individual and was a stand alone unit. Robbins replied correct. Council Member Miller stated that this was a difficult situation bU% he would vote for the motion on the basis of his ~on~e~n about land use and the potential impact of the use of planned development for other requests. city of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 11 Council Member Krueger indicated that he had a problem with the term used "legally non-conforming". He also had a problem with the definition of a kitchen and how it constituted part of the requirement for a dwelling structure. Council Member Young left the meeting. Council Member Krueger stated that the issue dealt with a situation where a City staff member was denied a permit based on an assumption of what a separate dwelling was. He felt that that assumption was incorrect. Council Member Miller stated that there was a legal definition of a non-conforming use. Robbins replied that it was a situation where there was an existing use and the property was annexed and zoned or the rules changed. Basically it occurred when the rules changed after the zoning was in place. council Member Young returned to the meeting. Council Member Krueger stated that that was exactly what the situation was in this proposal. Cott motioned, Young seconded to call question. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5- 2 vote. On roll vote of the motion to deny the zoning request, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance for a specific use permit for Sterling House, a nursing home or residence home for aged (assisted living) on 6.3855 acre~ in the Agricultural (A) z~ning district. The subject property was Lot 1, Block 1, of the Gateway Addition, and was located on the west side of Hinkle, one hundred feet north of Meadow Ridge. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and D~v¢~pmen~, ~tated that this was a request for a specific uss permit in an agricultural zoning district for an assisted care facility. Many homes in the neighboring subdivision were built within four feet from the back 65¸ City of Denton City Council Minutes' November 21, 1995 Page 12 lot line with a short setback. The applicant changed the layout of the facility and placed the parking lot on the north side. There were some landscaping issues which were discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission which recommended approval with the condition that additional trees being planted. The Planning and zoning Commission determined that the criteria needed to approve a specific use permit had been met. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Dan Gassett stated that he would be available to answer any questions regarding the proposal. The facility would provide an assisted living facility for the elderly as long as the residents were ambulatory. Council Member Miller asked if there were plans for the back part of the lot. Gassett stated that there were no specific plans at this time but could be another facility similar to this one. Council Member Cott stated that in the last few weeks there had been many applications for assisted living facilities. He expressed a concern about having a great number of people in a relatively small amount of space. He asked that staff follow through with a standard for this community as to what the community was willing to accept for this area of housing. How many people should go into such units. Gassett stated that the facility would have a residential look as well as a residential feel. There would only be 37 units in this facility and each unit would have a kitchen with a microwave. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 95-236 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A NURSING HOME OR RESIDENCE HOME FOR AGED (ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY) ON 6.3855 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HINKLE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED FEET NORTH OF MEADOW RIDGE DRIVE, PLATTED AS LOT BLOCK 1, OF THE GATEWAY ADDITION, AND CURRENTLY ZONED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUMAMOUNT OF 66¸ City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 13 $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young 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. 5. Variances A. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-114 (17) [sidewalks] of the Code of ordinances relative to the proposed Clampitt Addition. The 10.00 acre tract was located on the east side of F.M. 2164, approximately 4,000 feet north of Loop 288. (The Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was an exaction variance. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval as the cost of the sidewalk would be greater than the benefit. Krueger motioned, Brock seconded to approve the variance. 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 variance to Section 34-124 (f) [concrete channel] of the Code of ordinances relative to the proposed Clampitt Addition. The 10.00 acre tract was located on the east side of FM 2164 approximately 4,000 feet north of Loop 288. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 7- 0.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that the applicant proposed to divide the 10 acres into three single family residential lots. The existing channel would be left in a natural condition and a detention tank would be constructed. A drainage easement wide enough to contain a 100 year flood would also Be ~e~ca%ed. Krueger motioned, Cott seconded to approve the variance. Council Member Young requested an amendment for a condition that a drainage easement be dedicated to contain a 100 year storm. Council Member Krueger stated that that had already been considered and the variance had been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He did not want to change his motion. City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 14 Mayor Castleberry stated that that requirement was already a part of the variance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 6. Consent Agenda Council Member Krueger requested that Item 6.B. be pulled for consideration. Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, stated that Item 6.B. was an extension of an interlocal agreement with Denton County for the purchase of police vehicles. The City had an interlocal agreement with Denton County and had purchased the City's police vehicles for the past two years off of bids solicited by the County. Council Member Krueger asked who was the lowest local bidder. Shaw replied that there was only one local bidder, Bill Utter Ford, because Chrysler and General Motors no longer built police cars. Council Member Krueger asked for the difference in price between the Denison firm and the local dealer. Shaw stated that the recommendation was for Hillside Ford in Denison. The difference in the base bid without the options was $16 per unit and with the options was $43 per unit. Council Member Krueger asked if the city had to go to Denison to get the vehicles. Shaw replied no that they were delivered to the City's Fleet Vehicle Center. Council Member Krueger stated that the City needed to take the best available bid but not necessarily the lowest bid. Shaw stated that the wording of the law was that the award would be made to the lowest and best bid for the cities. It used the term lowest and most responsible for the counties and the Attorney General had ruled that these two terms were the same. Council Member Krueger mia%ed that it then wa~ what would b~ the definition of responsible. 68 City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 15 Shaw stated that the definition of responsible was dealt with by the Attorney General in several rulings. The Attorney General had ruled several times that the location or the contribution that a bidder made to a community could not be considered as part of the determination of lowest and best bid. Council Member Krueger asked where these vehciles would be serviced. Shaw stated that they would be taken to the local dealers for warranty service. Denton Motors and Bill Utter Ford solicited the City's business on a regular basis. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that a low bid had to be accepted. The Attorney General had ruled on several occasions that a local bidder could not be used in that consideration. A responsible bidder was one which was capable of delivering the project or doing the work and included such factors as financial ability of the bidder, previous contracts and how that bidder preformed. The only way to determine that a bidder was not responsible was to find that the bidder did not perform well on other contracts or did not have the financial ability to deliver the product. Council Member Krueger stated that there was a difference in some of the items offered by the local vendor which were not offered by the other vendor such as a full size spare tire. Shaw replied no that the specifications required a conventional spare on all the vehicles. There was no exception taken to the bid from Hilltop Ford. City Manager Harrell stated that throughout the years there had been this kind of difficulty on any project when the price was close and there was a local vendor who was not the low bidder. Based on the City Attorney's recommendation and State law, the Council had consistently followed that law and awarded the low bidder. From time to time, the Texas Municipal League considered an amendmen% to the State law which would allow ~oun~ils to have more leeway to look at the location of vendors when awarding contracts. With this particular case it was important to point out that the Council was agreeing with the interlocal agreement with Denton County. The low bidder in the interlocal agreement was Hilltop Ford. If the Hilltop Ford bid was not accepted, the only recourse would be to reject the contract and not agree to have this done with Denton County. The City would have to then rebid the cars before any dealership could be considered. The problem with that was that it was near the end of a manufactured year. It would be City of Denton City Council.~MinUtes'' November 21, 1995 Page 16 impossible to rebid and award a contract this year thus not buying police cars this year. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if delivery time could be used for a determination of best and responsible bid. Shaw stated that time was not an issue for delivery. Brock motioned, Cott seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. A. Bids and Purchase Orders Bid #1802 - Distribution Transformers Bid #1814 - 69 KV SF6 Circuit Breakers Bid #1828 - Teasley Lane Median Irrigation B. Interlocal Agreements 1. Denton County - Police Vehicles 7. Consent Agenda Ordinances Council considered Consent Agenda Ordinances 7.A. - 7.C. Miller motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda ordinances. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. A. NO. 95-237 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. (6.A.1. - Bid #1802, 6.A.2. - Bid #1814) B. NO. 95-238 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (~.A.3. - Bid ~1828) City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 17 C. NO. 95-239 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF DENTON TO AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS DENTON COUNTY CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF. VARIOUS GOODS AND SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (6.B.1.) 8. ordinances A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance renaming Payne Drive to Windsor Drive. (The Planning and zoning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission recommended approval.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was the second consideration for this issue. Council asked staff to contact members of the Payne family which resulted in a letter of opposition from M. E. Payne. This was a petition from the residents in the Westgate area who had experienced a problem with service delivery from more than one entity. This was not a precedent setting issue. There was potential confusion with a future exit in the area. As the family still owned land in the area, there would be other opportunities to name another street Payne. The following resolution was considered: NO. 95-240 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE RENAMING OF PAYNE DRIVE TO WINDSOR DRIVE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Brock motioned, Miller seconded to approve the recommendation of the two Boards and rename the street to Windsor Drive because of consistency and convenience. There would be no addresses to change and the area was confusing to unfamiliar drivers. Council Member Young disagreed with the name change as the Payne family was a pioneer family in Denton which made many contributions in Denton. The street name was in their honor and changing the name would be taking that honor away. Mayor Castleberry stated that he was not in favor of the motion. It would be a good point to honor a family in Denton by keeping the name of Payne. 71 City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 18 On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an engineering services agreement between the City of Denton and Gutierrez, Smouse, Wilmut and Associates, Inc. for Cooper Creek Drainage Basin rehabilitation and design. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that approximately a year ago, several residents came before the Public Utilities Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding sewer overflows on Stewart Road. Rehabilitation money was included in the CIP and in the Utilities budget for this project. This would be the engineering contract to begin the full rehabilitation. Mayor Pro Tem Biles left the meeting. Nelson continued that some work had already been done. Last year a smoke test was done to determine any leakage which provided a place to begin the work. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 95-241 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND GUTIERREZ, SMOUSE, WILMUT & ASSOC., INC. FOR COOPER CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN REHABILITATION AND DESIGN; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Cott motioned, Miller seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving two hour parking restriction on Elm, Cedar, Pecan, and McKinney Streets directly adjacent to City Hall West and to provide for customer parking 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday heading east approximately 250 feet. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this was a change in parking around City Hall West. Several City departments had been moved to that building and in an attempt to provide more parking for citizens, a two hour parking limit was suggested around the building. city of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 19 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 95-242 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, WHICH PROHIBITS THE PARKING OF VEHICLES FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS ON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF ELM, CEDAR, PECAN AND MCKINNEY STREETS AND CERTAIN PARKING SPACES ADJACENT THERETO AND CITY HALL WEST BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 AM THROUGH 5:00 PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 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. Young motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 9. Resolutions A. The Council considered approval of a resolution supporting settlement of issues affecting TMPA cities and amending the power sales contract; directing the Mayor, City Manager, and Denton's TMPA Board Members to work diligently on behalf of this compromise. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that this agreement had four major components. The first dealt with an amendment to the TMPA Power Sales Agreement which would allow each of the four cities to make future power production supply decisions on their own. Presently the contract mentioned full requirements and without a special activity, the cities were unable to do that. The second component dealt with how much of the TMPA power and energy each city would receive. Denton had received 22% in the past and would be changed to 21.3%. The third component dealt with the savings anticipated from the change to western fuel. It was anticipated that there would be approximately $30 million worth of savings per year. This compromise would ask the TMPA Board to set the rates as low as possible to keep the money in the ci%ies% The cities would then set up some type of fund to use in the future to offset future debt service increases. Mayor Pro Tem Biles returned to the meeting. Council Member Krueger left the meeting. Nelson continued that the fourth component stated that each city was responsible for its percentage of future TMPA costs. The greatest advantage of this compromise was the $750,000 reduction in 73 City of Denton City Councii MinUtes November 21, 1995 Page 20 power costs from TMPA. City Manager Harrell stated that the agreement, in similar form, had been approved by Greenville and Bryan and was on the agenda for the Garland City Council. Council Member Krueger returned to the meeting. The following resolution was considered: NO. R95-076 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS SUPPORTING SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AFFECTING TMPA CITIES AND THE AMENDMENT OF THE POWER SALES CONTRACT; DIRECTING THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, AND DENTON'S TMPA BOARD MEMBERS TO WORK DILIGENTLY ON BEHALF OF THIS COMPROMISE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Miller motioned, Young 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 Member Young left the meeting. 10. The Council considered a motion to confirm the appointment of a Fire Chief. City Manager Harrell presented the appointment of Ross Chadwick as Fire Chief. Council Member Young returned to the meeting. Biles motioned, Brock seconded to confirm the appointment of Ross Chadwick as Fire Chief. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 11. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction concerning selecting an executive search firm to assist the City Council in recruiting and selecting a city manager. Tom Klinck, Director of Human Resources, stated that the City had solicited proposals from several execu%ive search firms for this process. Each of those proposals had been analyzed and he asked for Council's desire of which firms to interview. 74¸ City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 21 Miller motioned, Brock seconded to interview the firms of Jensen, Oldani and Cooper; the Par Group; and Anderson and Associates. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 12. The Council received an update from the Acting Municipal Judge regarding the Municipal Court of Record. Judge Ramsay stated that he was working on a survey of the progress of the Municipal Court which should be completed soon for Council review. He had assigned several directives and court rules to reduce time and effort in work load. He had made a policy change for failure to appear which did not require another bond be posted for another court date. There were 150-200 warrants which still needed to be processed. The citation format was changed to allow for language for the option for the City to contract with the DPS to collect unpaid tickets. Parking citations would be reduced from a fine of $15 to $10. The parking citations had a list of fines on the front but the print was very small and difficult to read. It would cost $1,800 to reprint the ticket books to reflect the new fine for over limit parking. He suggested the parking officer hand strike out the $15 amount and write in the $10 amount. He asked Council for guidance. The court docket was already set for January and they were working on trial dockets for January, February and March. 13. The Council considered nominations/appointments to the City's Boards, Commissions and Committees. B. C. D. Keep Denton Beautiful Board Traffic Safety Commission Sign Board of Appeals Joint Tax Abatement Committee Mayor Pro Tem Biles nominated Fjola Jeffries to the Keep Denton Beautiful Board. Council Member Kruger nomlna%ed Derrick Har%sfleld %o the Traffic Safety Commission. Council Member Brock did not have an appointment to the Sign Board of Appeals at this time. City Manager Harr~ll stated that according to the joint tax abatement policy, there was a joint committee made up of representatives from the County, DISD and the City. This committee made recommendations to the appropriate bodies regarding tax 75 city of Denton City Council ~MinUt~s ~ November 21, 1995 Page 22 abatement. The policy indicated two elected representatives and one representative from each jurisdiction who was a staff member. The previous representatives were Council Members Hugh Ayer and Bob Gorton and City Manager Harrell. Miller motioned to appoint Council Member Brock, Mayor Pro Tem Biles and Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, to the Committee. 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. 14. Vision Update Council Member Miller stated that there had been one Cabinet meeting after the public presentations at which the strategy boards were reviewed. There would be another meeting soon to begin working out the program for the implementation of the Vision projects. Council Member Cott left the meeting. 15. Miscellaneous matters from the city Manager. A. City Manager Harrell expressed his appreciation to the Council for all the support and encouragement given to him over his years of service he had with the City of Denton. 16. The following action was taken on Closed Meeting Items: City Attorney Prouty asked the Council to make a motion to authorize a settlement offer in the Cohaqen v. City case as discussed in Closed Session. Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to authorize the settlement offer. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 16. New Business The following items were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Young asked for a work session item regarding the sewage and water problems on B~id~ Str~t and a review of the City's annexing policy regarding water and sewer services. City of Denton City Council Minutes November 21, 1995 Page 23 B. Mayor Pro Tem Biles requested a work session item regarding the Municipal Court's citation books. C. Council Member Krueger asked for information regarding the layout of the land annexed by the truck stop, particularly the west side of I35. He wanted to know when it was annexed, what was grandfathered, how many fines and violations had been paid and issued from the point of annexation to present. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned 10:40 p.m. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACC002D2