Loading...
Minutes June 18, 1996426 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 18, 1996 The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, Krueger, and Young. ABSENT: 1. None The Council considered the following in a Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071 1. Joint discussion with Board of Directors of Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. to deliberate and consider the appointments to, contemplated litigation, and attorney/client privileged advice to resolve conflict of interest questions with regard to the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. 2. Considered acceptance of a possible assignment on behalf of a 4B non-profit economic development corporation to be formed by the city from Bill Methenitis, Trustee; the possible lease of the assigned property and discussion regarding terms of the lease relative to the vacant Texas Instruments facility. B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072 1. Considered acceptance of a possible assignment on behalf of a 4B non-profit economic development corporation to be formed by the City from Bill Methenitis, Trustee; the possible lease of the assigned property and discussion regarding terms of the lease relative to the vacant Texas Instruments facility. 2. Discussed the acquisition of property for expansion for the City's landfill. Ce Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.074 1. Joint discussion with Board of Directors of Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. to deliberate and consider the appointments to, contemplated litigation, and attorney/client privileged advice to resolve~conflict of interest questions with regard to the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. 2. The Council considered and deliberated appointments to the position of and duties of the Assistant Municipal Judge. The Council convened into a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 18, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, Krueger, and Young. ABSENT: None City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 2 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance'to the U. S. and Texas flags. 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of May 21 and May 28, 1996. Beasley motioned, Cott seconded to approve the minutes as presented. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 3. Resolutions of Appreciation A. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Mary Jane Pannell. The following resolution was considered: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MARY JANE PANNELL. Brock motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye",' and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Jann Sanders. Ms. Sanders was not present at the meeting. 4. Citizen Reports A. The Council received a citizen report from Marcia Tester regarding "Family Connections" - an emergency runaway shelter for Denton County. Ms. Tester was not present at the meeting. B. The Council received a citizen report from Kelli Reny regarding "Family Connections" - an emergency runaway shelter for Denton County. Ms. Reny was not present at the meeting. C. The Council received a citizen report from Nell Lights regarding problems with her property in the City. Ms. Lights was not present at the meeting. D. The Council received a citizen report from Dessie Goodson regarding various issues concerning the City. 42:7 428 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 3 Ms. Goodson stated that she questioned the need for new police officers in the City. Code Enforcement was a problem and had not done anything about the problems which she had presented to the Department. SPAN was still a problem with issues not being resolved. She was waiting for a response from the City regarding her utility bill. She had a higher bill with one person than with three people in her home. She did not have any leaks and would not pay this type of bill any longer. E. The Council received a citizen report from Christine McAdams regarding paving liens. Ms. McAdams stated that over 20 years ago her street was paved. She was not told about it going to be paved and last year she received a letter for the first time that she owed $2,000 for the paving lien. She did not have that kind of money to pay such a lien. She had even sold some of the property to pay taxes as she had been i11. When she sold that property, nothing was shown about a paving lien. She asked why it was not brought up when she sold part of the property. She sent the City information she could find regarding the purchase of her property and might not have some of the information she needed for removing the paving lien. She needed help with this problem. Mayor Miller indicated that this was an issue which the City had been dealing with and would ask the City Attorney to investigate the situation. Council Member Young stated that he had asked the City Attorney to research the situation to help her with the lien. City Attorney Prouty stated that Council wanted to find a way to legally release some of these liens. The Constitution prohibited the City from forgiving any debt unless there was a legal way to do so. The legal way to do that was to establish that the people had homesteads at the time the lien was assessed. Approximately one third of the liens were verified as homesteads. Ms. McAdams had been sent an affidavit and paperwork so that she could prove up that she had a homestead at the time the lien was assessed. At this time, she could not verify that she had a homestead. Her deed was given by Mr. McKinney on October 23, 1969 which was 2 months after the August 12, 1969 date. MCAdams stated that over 20 years ago, things were done differently. Mr. McKinney carried the note for her and she did not go through a bank. Payment was made to his savings account in the bank. City Attorney Prouty stated staff would work with her to help her try and prove this. The problem was that it had to be established that she resided and had legal title to the property on the date that the lien was assessed in order to establish a homestead. At this time paper work was not received. In order to forgive the lien, it had to be established that she had a homestead. At this point in time, that proof was not available. City of Denton City counCilM~d~s ~ June 18, 1996 Page 4 429 5. Public Hearings A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance to rezone 2.6662 acresfrom the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district to the Office Conditioned ()Ici) zoning district. The property was located on the west side of Lillian Miller, approximately 500 feet south of 1-35E. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 5-1.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that there was a long history of zoning cases on this tract, most of which were office cases which were either denied at the Planning and Zoning Com~ission or Council level. The Council had backup information that the 20%rule was in effect. One of those opposed, Mitch Vexler, verbally withdrew his opposition several minutes before the start of the meeting so that the super maJorityrule was not required. There were a number of conditions which would be in effect. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Rob Rayner stated on April 3 they had had a neighborhood meeting with nine families attending. When this tract was discussed, the major concerns expressed dealt with operating hours, possible smell, lights, and a noise factor. He felt that the neighbors were focusing on general retail and commercial uses but not office uses. The input from the neighbors indicated that they still did not want to have the general retail or commercial type of use. The owners of property were requesting conditional office zoning. Because of that, the. long hours that a possible restaurant might have was eliminated, the smell factor was eliminated as a restaurant would not be there, the lights would bea condition of no direct lighting to the neighborhood, and the noise factor was reduced with an office setting. The list of permitted uses for office eliminated many uses. The property owners wanted to use the property for a professional/administrative office building. The conditioned office zoning would allow for flexible zoning for the property. He asked for approval for the uses and conditions of the zoning. Council Member Young asked if the property owners were going to provide access to Lillian Miller from Conway. Rayner stated that Conway was an easement which had a private road. Mr. Haywood had the flexibility to use Conway to get out to the service road or to Lillian Miller. He had discussed this with a member of First State Bank who indicated that he would be glad to work with Mr. Haywood to see what his needs were in order to make this a positive situation for him. council Member Young asked if he would give access. Rayner replied yes. 43O City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 5 Council Member Beasley stated that Rayner mentioned that these would be offices, typically open from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Would these offices be dentist, real estate, etc. offices. Rayner replied that it would be a traditional office concept which was an 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. office. He could not pinpoint the hours of operation as some real estate office stayed open later than 5:00 p.m. Council Member Beasley stated that people would be coming and going from these offices all during the day. Rayner replied with permitted uses. Council Member Beasley stated that at this particular point in time, First State Bank did not have a buyer for the property. The zoning was requested in order to make the property more marketable. Rayner stated that First State Bank realized through zoning issues, that certain types of zoning would not be allowed in the area.~ From the past denied zonings and conversations with some of the neighbors, it was indicated that offices would be acceptable to the neighbors. Mitchell Turner stated that in 1985 he was a member of a committee responsible for developing the Denton Development Plan. He was familiar of how the document related to this proposal. A major problem had not yet been mentioned which was the traffic congestion on Lillian Miller with the current restaurants and offices in the area. This proposal would add 493 traffic trips per da~_to the traffic on Lillian Miller. If developed as presently zoned, it would only add 240 trips per day. Another area which neede~to be looked at was the density. The corner of I35 and Lillian Miller was supposed to be medium density but it had been developed to the point that it was now high density. This area was identified in the Denton Development Plan as anarea which needed special attention. The Plan indicated that, given the prominence of the southeast planning area and the thoroughfare network in that sector, there were likely to be pressures to locate high to moderate intensity land uses long Teasley Lane, Lillian Miller Parkway, Hobson Lane, I35E and between Loop 288 and Lillian Miller. These pressures were likely to increase as F.M. 2181 was developed as a primary arterial and extended further south to ultimately connect with the DFW Airport. Therefore, the policy of the Plan was to restrict the further intrusion of high and moderate intensity land uses in this area. strip commercial zoning was also discussed in the Plan and was discouraged in a low intensity area such as Southridge. In December of 1985 a similar office zoning proposal was presented to Council. It was denied by the Council at that time 7-0 because of the further intrusion on the west side of Lillian Miller. At that time the Council indicated that the commercial creep on the west side of Lillian Miller needed to stop at the Red Lobster. He hoped that Council would listen to the neighbors. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 6 Council Member Krueger asked when the Denton Development Guide was published. Turner replied that it was published in 1988 with no changes since then. Ray Stephens stated that the Development Guide had not been changed for many years. Council had an obligation to follow the Plan unless it had been changed. The Plan called for a Iow density area and should be closely monitored to keep the particular zoning in place. The Plan mandated strict site plan control within 1600 feet of this particular property. What Hr. Raynor indicated this evening differed from what had been said previously in response to Conway Drive. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and at the neighborhood meeting, it was indicated that Conway Drive would not have access to Lillian Miller. The property on Conway would be provided to abutting owners and therefore that road would not open to Lillian Miller Parkway. He questioned which version was correct. He felt that the Denton Development Plan should be followed. If that should be changed at some time from resid-ntial, th.n h. it should be by u,. of a plann.d development so that the City and the neighborhood would have a definite idea on how the development would proceed rather than leaving it open-ended as it would be now with office-conditioned. The proposal brought erosion into the neighborhood for non- residential uses. Currently Lillian Miller, south of the Red Lobster, was the boundary line for commercial or other types of non-residential types of uses. He asked for denial of the request and to follow the Development Plan. Roland Vela stated that the neighbors were not all in agreement when they met with Hr. Raynor. They had indicated that if an office building was going to be built to serve as a buffer between residential zoning and commercial zoning, it should be zoned as a planned development. The neighbors were afraid of any types of conditions when there was the possibility that other structures might be built. The last time this area was being discussed with regards to a conditioned use, a proposed office building was suggested with gardens, sculpted parking areas etc. What was build was a Jack'in the Box. As long as there was the possibility to change the plans, the neighbors would have a concern of what would be there. He would be in favor of the proposal if it was zoned planned development. Changing the zoning was a betrayal of promises made to the neighborhood in the past. He was asking the Council to stop the commercial zoning where it currently was and to protect the neighborhood. Traffic was also a problem in the area. The right hand lane of traffic stacked up on Lillian Miller. Several years ago a traffic study indicated that traffic was already too heavy in the area. Traffic would be increased with m~r~ recent developments in the area. He requested that the Council not change the zoning as it negatively impacted the neighborhood. B. B. McMenamy stated that traffic problems were a serious problem in the area. The Planning Staff recommended against the proposal even though the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended 452 city of Denton City council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 7 approval. No one had ever tried to sell the property as residential. Vera Gershner presented Council with a petition from individuals in the neighborhood. Those who were concerned were more than just the few people in the room. The notice of the neighborhood meeting went out to property owners within 200 feet of the proposal which were mostly vacant lots. Her perception of the meeting was that the questions from the group showed their concern for development. She did not go away with a hostile feeling as Hr. Rayner assured them that each question would be answered and a copy of all of the questions and answers would be sent to each person present. Nothing had ever been received. Intensity had not yet been mentioned with this proposal and was critical for this location. Individuals within 1600 feet had a right to be a part of the process but those individuals had not been notified of this proposal. Mayor Miller stated that Speaker Cards had been received in opposition to the proposal from R. B. Escue and Hr. and Mrs. Jerry Strader. Jane Graner stated she was the only homeowner whose property backed up to the proposed site. She had a great deal of concern regarding the proposal. Hr. Rayner was trying to compromise on issues with the neighbors but she felt that there was not enough control over what could be developed on the site. She still questioned some of the uses which were allowed. She was also concerned about the lighting of the proposal. It was probably unrealistic to think that the property would be sold residential but a planned development would give more control. The neighbors would feel more comfortable with a planned development zoning. A planned development would provide more control and more security of what would be developed on the property. Council Member Krueger asked about Graner being the only property owner which backed up to proposal. Graner replied correct. The other lots in the area were not sold and there was a crime problem in the area. She hoped that would be corrected when other properties were sold as homes. Vela stated that he lived further from the property than anyone else which was still very close to the proposed property. Clint Ballard stated that he was in the process of building in the area. He had found drug evidence in the area and although the lots were for sale, they would not sell if there was a change in the zoning of the adjacent area. The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal. Rob Rayner stated that he had also worked on the 1995 Denton Development Plan. The Plan in 1985 was done because the market in Denton had grown and changed. That was one of the reasons there City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 8 43 was a brand new Plan Committee. A prior office proposal was very large and it was felt that the highest and best usage was office with a smaller square footage. The proposed uses and conditions would not allow a restaurant as was',allowed in prior zoning proposals. The land owner of the property which was vacant, Mr. Vexler, removed his opposition when he heard the proposal with the conditions and use restrictions. Office conditioned zoning was best for this tract of land. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-133 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY 16 (SF-16) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE CONDITIONED (O[C]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 2.6662 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LILr. IAN MILLER PARKWAY APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF 1-35E; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUMAMOUNTOF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Krueger seconded to adopt the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that this property had a long history. At one point it was envisioned that this property would be a transition use between high residential and lower intensity commercial. Garden homes or townhomes in the area had been suggested. It might be that certain restricted offices would be a good transition in the area. But this proposal grossly exceeded the intensity standard allowed. It allowed metal buildings and inadequate screening. She also felt that the proposal would contribute considerably to the congestion in the area. The citizens of Denton just passed a CIP bond issue so that money could be spent for right-of-way for Loop 288. There was also the issue that people were important and homeowners made an investment as businesses did. She felt that the purpose of the zoning was to make the land marketable for First State Bank so they would not be responsible for marketing the property. She felt that the zoning should be restricted to a single story, limited intensity strip design prohibitions, lighting and signage restrictions. Area property owners had a right to some kind of guarantees that their investments would be protected. Council Member Cott stated that he had heard several times that planned development was on before and then taken off. Robbins stated no that the property had always been zoned SF-16 and not planned development. There had been a number of proposals for various planned developments but they had been denied. Council Member Beasley stated that a traffic study done in 1995 indicated 20,898 cars going through in 24 hours on the south side. 434 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 9 In 1993 a traffic study was not done. In 1993, there were 13,000 trips. That was an increase of 7,000 trips between 1993 and 1995 and it was not known what it was today. She asked if there was any help planned for the traffic. Robbins replied nothing was planned at this time. Council MemBer Beasley stated that she would be voting against the proposal as it was against the Denton Development Plan. She felt the site would be good for offices or condos but there was a need for more control on what would go in that area. Council Member Krueger stated that the CIP bond process included the acquisition of easements for the extension of Loop 288 which would ease traffic in the area. He felt that 85% of the traffic was going down Loop 288 and going on I35. Businesses were not causing the traffic problems in the area. The Denton Development Plan was outdated and was currently being reviewed. This was not the same Council which ten years ago turned down the request on the zoning of the property. There was only one homeowner which was adjacent to the property. First State Bank was a good business and probably had financing on the property in the area. The Bank would. not do anything to harm Denton. This proposal would not harm Denton and should be approved. The City could no longer continue to go on with backyard zoning and could not stop the growth of Denton. There were adequate restrictions on the proposal which would control the development of the property. Council Member Young stated that this property would not provide residential zoning. Office zoning would be acceptable as there would not. be much noise, no pollution, and no smells from an office. It appeared that the neighborhood did not want anything built on the property. Office zonin~ was good zoning for that piece of property. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that several speakers agreed that certain restrictive office developments would be appropriate for the site. The proposal did not have the kinds of restrictions which would be most appropriate for this site. Mayor Miller stated that this land was a transition from a high density use to a neighborhood. The land was currently zoned SF-16 and the owners of the land were aware that it was zoned SF-16. He felt that there was not a major dispute as to whether or not to have office zoning but rather the size of the office, what would that do to the intensity in the area, potential traffic problems and where would the building be located on the site. There was no site plan at this time. Staff had recommended denial while the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. Staff recommended denial on the basis of the size of the office. Robbins indicated that staff did not recommend approval of the conditioned zoning for the site as it was not consistent with the intensity, site plan and separation of strip commercial development areas of the Denton Development Plan. Staff felt the site should City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 435 be developed as a planned development. Mayor Miller stated that there were developers who did not like planned development. There were times when there were other ways to go with zoning rather than with a planned development. However, this area would be good for a planned development. There was a sense of false security that what would be approved might not be what was developed even with the conditions placed on the proposal. When the land was sold, the person who owned the land would be able to develop the land within that frame work. The City was not indicating that it did not want office development but this area needed planned development. Council Member Biles asked if the intensity area to the east of Lillian Miller Parkway was a different intensity area from the proposal. Robbins replied yes. Council Member Biles stated that the staff report indicated that the intensity was 134% over for that project on Lillian Miller given that the site was in Intensity Area 79. If the site were across the street, would it be in the intensity allotment. Robbins replied no that regardless of the Study Area that it was in, if it was in any low intensity area it would be over the allocation. Council Member Biles stated that he was glad that the neighbors agreed that there probably would not beSF-16 housing in the area. The neighbors had accepted that this area would be some type of commercial zoning. Some of the neighbors had stated that a planned development was acceptable and the use was acceptable but they wanted to know the specific layout of a proposal. He understood why the neighbors would want a planned development but felt that the conditions placed on the proposal were close to that. If the property was in a different location, there would be a different intensity area. With all of the conditions of the proposal, he would be in favor of the issue. The planned development would only tell where the footprint of the building would be. On roll vote, Beasley "nay", Brock "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion carried with a 4-3 vote. B. The Council held a public hearing to receive input regarding cable television rates in the City of Denton. Richard Foster, Public Information Officer, stated that Council had received a briefing from staff last week on the cable television issue. A public hearing was scheduled to receive any input from citizens. The Mayor opened the public hearing. 436 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 11 No one spoke during the public bearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Young felt that the rate reduction was a smoke screen in regards to the rates for remote controls. The company was phasing out the remotes and only people with remotes were receiving a reduction. Foster stated that the company was phasing out rental of remotes which would provide a i cent reduction. For new customers or those customers whose remotes did not work, they would have to purchase their own remote. 6. Consent Agenda Brock motioned, Krueger seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: Bid #1910 - Bell Avenue Sidewalk Repair P.O. #65548 - Decision Technology, Inc. P.O. $65777 - IBM B. Tax Refunds Dentex Title Company - $551.63 Dentex Title Company - $540.93 7. Consent Agenda Ordinances The Council considered the Consent Agenda Ordinances 7.A. and 7.B. Brock motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda ordinances. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. A. NO. 96-134 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. (6.A.1. - Bid 91910) B. NO. 96-135 ' AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASES OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (6.A.2. - P.O. $65548, 6.A.3. - P.O. $65777) City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 12 8. Ordinances A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending Article V 'entitled "Hotel Occupancy Tax" of the Finance and Taxation Chapter of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas by amending Section 10-101 relating to the definitions of "hotel" and "permanent resident" and adding "Reporting and Payment Period"; amending Section 10-102 entitled "Levied; A~ount; Exemptions" by amending Subsections (a) and (b); amending Section 104103 entitled "Collection" by deleting Subsection (b); amending Section 10-104 entitled "Quarterly Reports" by replacing with "Reporting and Payment Period"; amending Section 10-109 entitled "Use of Revenue Derived from Tax" by adding language to ensure compliance with Section 351.103 of the Tax Code; and by adding Section 10-110 entitled "Conflict of Laws". The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-136 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ARTICLE V ENTITLED "HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX" OF THE FINANCE AND TAXATION CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY AMENDING SECTION 10-101 RELATING TO THE DEFINITIONS OF "HOTEL" AND "PERMANENT RESIDENT" AND ADDING "REPORTING AND PAYMENT PERIOD"; AMENDING SECTION 10-102 ENTITLED "LEVIED; AMOUNT; EXEMPTIONS" BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b); AMENDING SECTION 10-103 ENTITLED "COLLECTION" BY DELETING SUBSECTION (b); AMENDING SECTION 10-104 ENTITLED "QUARTEPJ~Y REPORTS" BY REPLACING WITH "REPORTING AND PAYMENT PERIOD"; AMENDING SECTION 10-109 ENTITLED "USE OF REVENUEDERIVED FROM TAX"; BY ADDING LANGUAGE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 351.103 OF THE TAX CODE; BY ADDING SECTION 10-110 ENTITLED "CONFLICT OFLAWS"; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract between the City of Denton and Binkley & Barfield, Inc. for engineering services to prepare construction plans, specifications, details, and special provisions for Robertson/Bell bypass. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-137 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND BINKLEY & BARFIELD, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF 437 438 City of Denton City council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 13 FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Binkley & Barfield, Inc. for engineering services for the replacement of the existing culvert on Kerley Street. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-138 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND BINKLEY & BARFIELD, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance adding Section 18-13 to Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances to prohibit the operation of skateboards, roller skates, roller blades or other similar devices on all sidewalks in the area surrounding the City Square. (The Traffic Safety Commission recommended approval.) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that one merchant on the Square had raised a concern about roller blading in the Square area. The Downtown Advisory Board, the Parking Committee and the Traffic Safety Commission all recommended to not allow roller blading in the downtown area. The front streets and back streets of the Square would be included as well as 500 feet in all directions from those streets. Council Member Young asked how many businesses on the Square had been contacted about this proposed ordinance. Svehla replied that not all of the businesses had been contacted directly. The Downtown Advisory Board was used for comments regarding the proposal. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-139 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 18-13 TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF SKATEBOARDS, ROLLER SKATES, ROLLER BLADES OR OTHER SIMILAR DEVICES ON ALL City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 14 SIDEWALKS IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE CITY SQUARE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. Council Member Krueger asked who brought up the problem and why. Svehla replied that Mr. Thomas' had brought up the issue as there had been several near misses to his patrons. Council Member Krueger asked how this was going to be patrolled. Svehla stated that the parking enforcement officers and bicycle officers would enforce the restrictions. Council Member Krueger stated that he was opposed to creating a law which was not controllable. He would not vote against the ordinance but felt it was not enforceable. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye#, and Mayor Miller "aye". carried unanimously. Krueqer Motion E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance designating and establishing a school safety speed zone for I~aculate Conception Catholic School on both directions of Bolivar Street from its intersection with Second Street to its intersection withThird Street; and reducing the maximumprima facie speed limit for said school safety speed zones to twenty miles per hour during certain hours. (The Traffic Safety Commission recommended approval.) The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-140 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AND ESTABLISHING A SCHOOL SAFETY SPEED ZONE FOR IMMACULATE CONCEPTION CATHOLIC SCHOOL; REDUCING THE MAXIMUM PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT FOR SAID SCHOOL SAFETY SPEED ZONES TO TWENTY (20) MILES PER HOUR DURING CERTAIN HOURS; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWOHUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Y0uhg motioned, Krueger seconded to adopt the ordinance. Mayor Miller stated that he had received Speaker Cards from Laura and Tony LaBarbera and Gene and Vicky Herberger in favor of the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brook "aye", Cott "aye#, Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion 440," City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 15 carried unanimously. F. The Counicl considered adoption of an ordinance partially vacating a certain public utility easement recorded in the Plat Records of Denton County at Cabinet I, Page 118, as it pertained to Lot 2R, Block A of the Bell Place Addition. Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this easement was no longer needed. It was originally designed in a planned development in which there would be multiple building to use the line. The property was rezoned and the line was no longer needed. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-141 AN ORDINANCE PARTIALLY VACATING A CERTAIN UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN THE PLAT RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AT CABINET I, PAGE 118, AS IT PERTAINS TO LOT '2R, BLOCK A OF THE BELL PLACE ADDITION, AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt.the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The Council returned to Items 4.A. and 4.B. 4. Citizen Reports A. The Council received a citizen report from Marcia Tester regarding "Family Connections" - an emergency runaway shelter for Denton County. B. The Council received a citizen report from Kelli Reny regarding "Family Connections" - an emergency runaway shelter for Denton County. Marcia Tester stated that she was in the process of developing a runaway shelter in Denton County to provide emergency care for the homeless and runaway teens. Currently they were looking for sites and a non-profit status. The shelter was for short term emergency care. They felt it was important for the community to establish a curfew to help determine the runaways and homeless children who needed help. She felt there was a need for this type of service. Kelly Reny stated that their program had been named as a recipient for a benefit concert for the Oklahoma bombing victims. They were looking to get about $1-2 million for this concert as well as grants and corporation support. The site for the shelter would be located in Denton County and perhaps in the Fry Street area. Tester asked for community support for their project and invited the community to help with the process. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 16 4'4 1 The Council returned to the regular agenda order. G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending Section 25-5 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton to eliminate the requirement that persons soliciting charitable contributions on the public streets or roadways shall not walk on the main travelled portion of the roadway for the purpose of soliciting funds. City Attorney Prouty stated that approximately a year ago the Council amended the City code to incorporate the Council's authority under a State statute to authorize charitable solicitations on the roadway. At that time, the Council placed a number of restrictions on the solicitations. One of those was that anyone soliciting for a charity in the public streets could not walk on the main travelled portion of the roadway. This proposed ordinance would eliminate that requirement. Due to a recent Attorney General's opinion requested by the City, the staff felt that there was a high risk that even the current ordinance could be held unconstitutional because it did not allow non-charities to solicit in the roadway. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-142 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AMENDING SECTION 25-5 "SOLICITING BUSINESS OR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS" OFTHE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT PERSONS SOLICITING CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE PUBLIC STREETS OR ROADWAYS SHALL NOT WALK ON THE MAIN TRAVELLED PORTION OFTHE ROADWAY; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00), OR SUCH A FINE AS IS SET BY SECTION 552.007(a) OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE FOR VIOLATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Cott seconded to adopt the ordinance. Ken Gold stated that this ordinance would eliminate the portion of the ordinance which prevented an individual from collecting funds from the streets. They had been discussing this item for five years. There was not a problem with this in any other city in Texas and he would make sure it would work. Council Member Cott stated that this was a different type of profession and part of getting paid for the job was the reason there wa~ thi~ need. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 442 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 17 9. Resolutions A. The Council considered approval of a resolution amending Policy No% 144.01 "Solicitation in City Facilities" of the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual of the City of Denton to provide for solicitation for United Way and the "Fill-The Boot" campaign by City employees on City time and/or in uniform. City Attorney Prouty stated that were three alternate resolutions for Council consideration. The current resolution presented to Council did not allow charitable solicitation by employees while on duty unless it was allowed by the City Manager as an exception which was usually reserved for hardship cases. The first resolution was the one which the majority of the Council requested which allowed city employees to solicit charitable contributions both on or off duty subject to Section 25.5 for only two charities, United Way or Fill-The-Boot. The second resolution would allow the same type of solicitation fort hose same two charities except only in uniform and not in duty. The third resolution was prepared by the Legal Department because of the concern that by Just limiting it to only two charities and not having restrictions on the hours that employees could solicit on duty might create problems. The first alternative would allow charitable contributions in uniform only but allow employees to solicit for all charities. The second alternative would allow solicitation for charitable contributions both on duty and in uniformfor all charities but would provide for a limit of no more than 24 total on-duty hours per any calendar year. Ken Gold stated that he recommended soliciting on-duty and in uniform. Council Member Biles asked how long the campaign lasted. Gold replied that it was for 8 hours a day for three days at least once a year. Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked how the City Manager felt about solicitation by all city employees for all charities. City Manager Benavides stated that he did not particularly like it but it was the only safe thing to do according to the City Attorney. Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked for the Fire chief's opinion about fire fighters soliciting in uniform and on duty. Ross Chadwick, Fire Chief, stated that he had been involved with three fire departments and it had been the standard practice in all of them to Fill-The-Boot in uniform and on duty. Chief Jez and he had talked about this practice and neither had a problem while on- duty. Chief Jez was concerned that if a police officer would solicit charitable contributions with a badge and gun, it might be perceived as a threat. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 18 443 The following resolution was considered: NO. R96-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON AMENDING POLICY NO. 114.01 "SOLICITATION IN CITY FACILITIES" OF THE PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO AUTHORIZE CHARITABLE SOLICITATION BY CITY EMPLOYEES IN UNIFORM AND ON DUTY FOR SOLICITING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE UNITED,~WAY AND FOR THE "FILL-THE-BOOT" CAMPAIGN;AND PROVIDINGANEFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution with the following changes: insert the conditions that no City employee would be allowed to solicit charitable contributions on-duty for more than 24 hours during one calendar year, no city employee would be authorized to solicit charitable contributions on-duty when it interfered with that employee's regular duties or functions, and in soliciting charitable contributions on-duty, the city employee would comply with all other applicable sections of the Co~e of Ordinances of the City and all other citypolicies, procedures and regulations. He felt it was important to add these conditions as the Council had a duty to the taxpayers to know that the employees would not be doing this for a long period of time. Mayor Miller stated that he was against the motion. He felt that Council had a responsibility that when employees were getting paid, they should be on the Job. He had had calls from taxpayers who supported this up to the point of doing it on city time. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that she would support the option of soliciting in uniform but not on-duty. She had a concern about having fire fighters or any City employees doing something other than what the taxpayers were paying them to do. Council Member Beasley understood that this was done in many places while on-duty but felt that taxpayers wanted the fire fighters to be on-duty. Council Member Krueger stated that this was not the first time City employees solicited on duty for contributions. Other employees solicited for United Way while on-duty. Mayor Miller stated that the difference between the United Way and Fill-The-Boot was that the United Way was only for City employees. Fill-The-Boot was from the public. On roll vote, Beasley "nay", Brock "nay", Cott "aye", "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "nay". carried by a 4-3 vote. Krueger Motion A. 'The Council considered the nomination of Juanita Johnson to the Denton Development Policy Committee. 10. The Council considered nominations/appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. 444 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 19 On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. Nomination to the Keep Denton Beautiful Board. There was no nomination from Council Member Krueger. C. The Council received a nomination from the City Manager to the Civil Service Commission. city Manager Benavides recommended Dennis Stephens to the Civil Service Commission. D. The Council considered nominations to various City Boards/Commissions. The Council nominated individuals to the various Boards/Commissions as indicated in Attachment A. Council Member Biles indicated that as the Council had still not addressed the issue concerning the number of board appointments per. Council Member, he was not prepared to move forward on the item at this point in time. 11. The Council received an update from Municipal Judge Ramsay regarding Municipal Court and a recommendation to consider the appointment of an Assistant Municipal Judge. Judge Ramsay presented a recommendation regarding the appointment of three .Assistant Municipal Judges. A committee was formed to review applicants and to hold interviews with the candidates. The recommendation was a change in the policy from a 20 hour permanent part-time position which would remain unfilled. The Job would not be eliminated but would remain unfilled. At the current time there was no active back-up for any of the judges in the City and there was a need for at least one back-up for the Courts. He was proposing to hire three individuals for Assistant Municipal Court Judges - David Garcia, Erlene Murphy and Kim Cawley. Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve these three nominations. Mayor Miller indicated that an ordinance and contracts would be drawn up to formalize the appointments. Judge Ramsay indicated that he could not offer the positions but needed Council approval to do such. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". carried unanimously. Krueger Motion 12. The Counicl received a report and held a discussion regarding the proposed 1996-2001 Capital Improvement Program. City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 20 ........... 445 Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer, stated that the 1996-2001 Capital Improvement Program was unanimously.recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission included a comment that Council consider increasing funding for future drainage maintenance. He reviewed the recommendations for the general government projects as presented in the back-up materials and in particular the fifth year of the proposal. Howard Martin, Director of Environmental Operations, presented the utility projects which were included in the proposed CIP program. This program had been reviewed by the Publio Utilities Board and was recommended for approval. He reviewed a s-mmary of the electric projects, projects for the Water Department, the wastewater system, solid waste, and fleet services. 13. Vision Update Mayor Miller stated that the Vision Play Group would be meeting this week. 14. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. There were no items from the City Manager. 15. There was no official action taken on Closed Meeting Items discussed earlier. 16. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Biles requested an agenda item to discuss the number of appointments to each board per council member. Mayor Miller stated that Council would be considering that issue during the Planning Session as it was not possible to complete the process for this year's appointments. B. Council Member Krueger requested a variance from Section 16-129 and 16-130 of the Code of Ordinance to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. This would be for a variance for WWMotors on Barthold Road. 17. The Council held a continuation of the Closed Meeting to discuss the following: A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072 Co Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.074 No formal action was taken during the Closed Meeting. 446 City of Denton City Council Minutes June 18, 1996 Page 21 With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ~~.~ WA~?~S SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JAC]~ CITY DENTON, TEXAS ACC0031A