Minutes March 25, 1997413
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Ma~ch 25, 1997 I"
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, March 25,
1997 at 5:30 p.m. in the civil Defense Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members
Beasley, Biles, Cott, Durrance, and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. The following items were discussed in Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071
B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072
Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, March 25, 1997
at 6:00 p.m. in the city Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members
Beasley, Biles, Cott, Durrance, and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a status report from the Development
Policy Committee regarding the presentation of the Denton
Development Plan at the proposed public meetings and the related
schedule and gave staff direction.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Council appointed
a committee of 23 members which began work last April. Public
meetings would be held the first two weeks in May to receive input
regarding the proposed Denton Development Plan. Richard Foster,
Public Information officer, had supplied the Council with
information regarding the different types of ways that the public
would be made aware of the meetings. Some of those included the
utility billing system, flyers to churches and service
organizations, notices in the newspaper, etc. The Committee would
be discussing the draft plan and the proposals for the plan.
Mayor Miller stated that the Council would be hearing from members
of the Development Committee. The purpose of this discussion was
to look at the process of placing this information before the
public. The Council would have an opportunity to review the
proposal after the public meetings.
Larry Luce, speaking for the Development Committee, highlighted the
plan's proposals. There were two previous development plans for the
City. One was done in 1981 and one in 1986. The plan in 1981 had
a high priority for economic development. It also sought to
preserve the quality of life. It talked about the preservation of
existing neighborhoods and balanced growth. The 1986 development
plan kept some of those features. It again strived for balanced
414
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 2
growth through "nodes" of projected growth. It also talked about
compact growth and architectural design standards such as
landscaping, signage and historical landmark preservation. It re-
emphasized economic development with criteria such as the assets
economic development could bring. The current Committee kept some
of both of those plans. It kept the striving for balanced growth
and the economic development. It tried to strengthen the
preservation of existing neighborhoods and the quality of life and
the aspects of compact growth. The previous plan of 1986 had small
nodes of growth to attempt balanced growth in the north and the
natural growth in the south. Economic incentives were aimed at
balancing Denton. The Committee wanted to preserve the quality of
life for residential neighborhoods which already abutted
thoroughfares and gave notice that commercial development would
seek to develop along thoroughfares in the future. Any future
neighborhoods which were planned along the thoroughfares would have
to be aware of that fact. The proposed plan was a thoroughfare
density plano The Committee tried to look at the future of Denton
and determine where the market forces would dictate where
development would occur. This differed from the node concept in
that the nodes took certain small areas with restrictions of how
much development could occur in that area. A certain given area
under the old plan was only allowed so much traffic. The proposed
plan recognized that the higher traffic would be on the
thoroughfares and thus the higher density development. The
proposed plan maintained the planning and zoning process. The
proposed plan was more realistic of the economic life in the City
of Denton and addressed those things which would allow Denton to
move ahead in the future. More detailed presentations would be
given at the public meetings for input. Copies of the plan would
be available for the public and questions and feedback would be
received from the public about the plan. The feedback would be
taken from the public and anything the Committee felt was germane
to the plan would be incorporated.
Council Member Cott stated that he did not see a very specific new
and a very specific old definition of neighborhood preservation in
the plan. As development occurred on the fringe or close to
neighborhoods, it changed quite a bit. He recommended that
everyone have the same terminology.
Lute stated that that was a point of considerable discussion in the
Committee meetings. "Neighborhood" was not an easy term to define.
The Committee felt that the buffering between densities would be
provided. The Plan was not the place to go into that level of
detail. There already was a landscape ordinance which would
address some of those concerns. The Plan was to express a
philosophy, not a de%ail.
Council Member Biles stated that Luce indicated that the Committee
would be holding meetings after the public meetings.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 3
415
Luce stated that one meeting was currently scheduled after the four
public hearings to incorporate the input from the public.
Council Member Biles stated that if the Committee heard a number of
issues repeatedly expressed, it would be open to incorporate some
of those issues.
Luce stated that the Committee was open to new ideas.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the schedule as
presented.
2. The Council received an update, held a discussion and gave
staff direction on the Infill Policy.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that last
October the utility staff brought this issue before the Council.
It was a project which the Public Utilities Board had been working
on for a long period of time. At that time, there were several
questions regarding the proposal, some of a legal or technical
nature.
Jill Jordan, Director of Water and Wastewater, stated that some
citizens had a misconception that they paid property taxes in
Denton and therefore were entitled to have water and sewer lines
extended to their property. In fact, property taxes did not pay
for water and sewer service. That was what the water revenue paid
for. There was a need for another type of funding mechanism to
address the need for infill. It was not through the property
taxes. The existing policy stated that the developers/owners would
install, at their own expense, water and sewer main extensions,
lift stations or other necessary facilities required to serve their
developments.
Council Member Young stated that if a citizen was in an area within
the city limits where there was no sewer service and he wanted to
hook up to the City sewer, he could dig from his home to the city
lines.
Jordan stated that in a sense that was correct. The policy stated
that the homeowner or developer had to pay for the extension of the
water or sewer line to his property. There were a few exceptions
to that. One was a Development Plan Project which included
commercial or industrial projects which would provide an economic
development benefit to the City. If certain criteria were met,
then the City would pay for the cost of extending the water/sewer
lines to that proposed industrial/commercial development. The
second exception was to help individuals through special
extensions. Those would be provided to single-family residences
where the resident would pay 60% of the cost of the extension and
the City would pay 40% of the cost of the extension. The resident
416
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 4
was not entitled to any pro-rata reimbursement and there was a
limitation on how far out the city would go. Basically, the
developer or citizen had the responsibility for the extension of
the water/sewer line.
Council Member Young stated that he felt there was a 75-25% cost.
Jordan stated that that was the proposed policy. The existing
policy was 60-40% for a single family residence. The resident would
pay 60% of first 100 feet, 10% of the cost for the next 200 feet
and 0% for the remainder up to 600 feet.
Council Member Young asked how much the citizen would pay if the
percentage was 75-25%.
Jordan stated that the proposal was a 75-25% plan. The 60-40% plan
was not widely used due to cost impacts. There was a desire to look
at having a different program for infill. The purpose would be to
promote compact growth within the City. Projects for the infill
policy would have to promote public health, public safety, economic
development or provide service to economically depressed areas.
Funding for the program would be from unused Development Plan Line
funds if that money were not used in any given year. There were
two scenarios for infill. The first was a residential infill.
That would apply to residents within the city limits and projects
would be funded in a first-come, first-served basis. The City
would pay 100% of the cost up front and the citizens who were
participating in the project would reimburse the City 25% of the
total project. If the citizen's cost exceeded 90% of the on-site
cost, the project would not qualify for the infill program. On-
site costs were the cost of those improvements which were in the
streets, alleys, etc. adjacent to the property. A test for this
program would be that citizens would pay 25% of the cost but if the
cost exceeded 90% of on-site costs, the project would not qualify
as it would not meet State law.
Mayor Miller stated that if one home wanted the extension, there
would be little or no on-site costs.
Jordan stated that if there was just one home which wanted the
extension and it was trying to do the entire subdivision, it would
not qualify. If a project cost $100,000 then 25% would be $25,000.
The test would be if the on-site costs were at least $28,000 to
meet the test of the 90%.
Council Member Biles stated that using that formula, the further
away from existing facilities, the better chance a Droject had to
qualify.
Jordan stated no, it would be less likely to qualify. On-site costs
had to be large compared to off-site costs.
city of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
417
Mayor Miller asked if on-site costs included two or more property
owners. It would be the cost related to that project so that the
fewer the homes the less likely it would be to qualify.
Jordan stated that it had more to do with their willingness to
participate. If there were many homes and the project cost was
$100,000, the more people to participate the more the cost would be
divided. It was the total dollar amount spread out for those
agreeing to the project. A connection fee would be established
for those citizens who chose not to participate in the original
project. This would be a voluntary project and not a forced
project. The 75% split was decided by staff and was based on an
evaluation of the cost to the residents for water and sewer
improvements. The City Council could change that percentage amount
if it so desired. The only limitation was that it could not be
greater than 90% of the on-site cost.
Council Member Young asked if the numbers would be the same for
water or for sewer.
Jordan stated that the costs were the same for sewer and water.
Council Member Young stated that Council could change the
percentage to 15-85%.
Jordan replied correct but could not charge more than 90% of the
on-site costs. The second scenario was for commercial infill.
Commercial projects had to demonstrate an economic development
potential. Projects had to be interior to 1-35 and Loop 288.
Staff would identify areas within that area which needed water or
sewer, the Pubic Utilities Board could make recommendations to the
city Council and Council could then approve the projects. The
developers would pay 100% of the cost up front. The City would
reimburse the developer for 30% of the cost. The City could refund
back to the developer more than 30% but a special economic
development ordinance would have to be enacted to refund more than
30%.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked about the 30% figure.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that there was a statute which
limited that amount. If a developer participation contract was
entered into, the maximum participation was 30% to avoid
competitive bidding. Over 30%, an economic development ordinance
would have to be enacted with competitive bidding.
Council Member Cott asked why the limitation was only interior to
1--35 and Loop 288.
Jordan stated that the purpose was to promote compact growth.
Staff had decided on the 1-35 and Loop 288 boundary and Council
418
City of Denton city Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 6
certainly could change those boundaries. There were two major
categories of issues regarding the proposed policy. The first was
that there were municipal funding limitations under State law to
finance residential and commercial infrastructure extensions. The
second area was the mechanisms under State law in which to levy
assessments to provide for repayment for on-site and off-site
improvements. Limitations for a residential project included that
the project had to have a public purpose. Simply providing equal
services might not be a public purpose under law. The project
would have to provide for economic development of a public purpose
such as malfunctioning septic tanks, contaminated wells, dry wells
or refusal to serve. Commercial limitations indicated that the
project must provide economic development up to 100% funding by the
City and up to 30% funding required for no project bidding by the
City. There were three ways to assess the charges. The first was
covered by the State law through an assessment program which was an
involuntary assessment program such as paving assessments. A
second method was a public improvement district and a third method
was assessment by contract in which the City was setting up a
contract with the citizens who wanted the project. With the
assessment program, up to 90% of the on-site improvements could be
levied but no off-site improvements and first liens could be placed
on the property. A repayment plan was possible with this plan and
there was a restriction that property must have been subdivided for
at least 10 years. The public improvements district allowed for a
separate taxing district for each project; required the development
of an advisory body made up of owners representing 50% of the
taxable property; allowed for a variety of assessment methods;
required separate accounting functions to track the funds for each
district; allowed an assessment payment plan; and the cost of
improvements were not defined and might be interpreted to include
off-site improvements.
Mayor Miller stated that if there was an area where no one was
living and some distance from existing service, how would that work
for an individual.
Jordan stated that if undeveloped land were passed, pro-rata could
be charged to undeveloped land as long as the pro-rata was for on-
site improvements.
Council Member Biles stated that if property were passed which
already had service, that property would not be charged.
Jordan stated that that would be taken care of when an assessment
was done.
City Attorney Prouty stated that an assessment would look at
special benefits to the property. If there were an isolated area
where a long line was extended with no development in between, the
City could collect additional money if the land in between a
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 7
current facility and the property developed. The problem was that
the current policy was an orderly extension policy. There were two
problems. One was going out to a remote area with undeveloped land
in between, the chances of the city recouping its money were much
less than under the current policy. A second problem was that a
case had to be made, when paying the majority of the cost of the
on-site improvements and the off-site improvements, that there was
a public purpose for this project. It was harder to justify a
public purpose to a remote area than to an area ready to develop.
Council Member Durrance asked about a definition of public purpose.
city Attorney Prouty stated that there were a number of ways to
define public purpose. With a commercial project, it was economic
development. It was much harder to define with a residential
project. One way to define public purpose was to show that there
would be a general benefit to the public. It would not be known
immediately that other members of the public would benefit from an
extension.
Jordan stated that staff was in favor of the assessments by
contract method. The contract would be equivalent to an assessment;
there was no case law to test this method; the assessments might be
difficult to collect; liens created would not be first liens; the
City would not have the option of refusing service for non-payment
of the assessment; the assessment might be determined to be invalid
in court. An assessment by contract was paid over time provided a
public purpose was clearly stated. The Public Utilities Board had
concerns about the fairness of the proposal to the existing
ratepayer. The basic concept would be to utilize existing
ratepayer monies to fund infrastructure extensions for those
taxpayers who had chosen to develop their own facilities.
George Hopkins, Chair-Public Utilities Board, stated that although
the Board developed this policy, it did not recommend the policy
due to the lack of fairness and the many problems associated with
it. This policy was dealing with a departure from the basic
philosophy for paying utilities. The Board recognized that there
were areas in the old corporate limits which were without water and
sewer. If it was limited to areas within the city for many years
which had been without water and sewer, the concern might not be so
great. Originally the members of the Utilities Board were in favor
of an infill policy. However, as the Board studied the issue, it
turned away from the policy. Property taxes paid for police, fire,
parks, library, street maintenance, etc. which were benefits
received by citizens in general. If a policy was developed whereby
taxpayers supplemented or paid the costs for extensions, the
existing taxpayers would be paying for something ~m~n~ ~1~ paid
for up front when their property was developed. The Board had
serious questions as to this fairness and the question as to why
the people who had paid the cost of those utilities should
419
420
city of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 8
supplement the cost of extending those utilities to other parties.
Most of the areas in the city which did not have service were on
the fringe areas of the City. Those people bought their property
when no utilities were available and the price they paid for the
property reflected the fact that they did not have utilities. To
that extent, the City would be giving a bonus to people who were
outside the City when they developed their property and were later
annexed into the City. This would again be an issue of fairness.
There were many problems associated with an infill policy. If
utilities were extended to fringe areas, it would defeat the basic
concept of compact growth. There were also serious legal problems
using public funds for private purposes. Land prices were
determined by the land's proximity to utilities. This type of
policy might create a false or artificial value of land.
Council Member Young asked how long had the existing infill policy
been used.
Hopkins replied since 1954.
Council Member Biles asked that if there was a proposal for a
residential subdivision which would be beyond the present lines and
to have water/sewer to that development, the developer would pay
the cost of the lines as well as the lines to the individual homes.
Hopkins replied correct.
Council Member Biles stated that the city might participate by
oversizing the lines now rather than later.
Hopkins replied correct.
Council Member Biles stated that as the City grew with development
after development, that was where Hopkins was stating that the
developers or homeowners had already paid for running the lines to
their own land and now to adopt a new policy to subsidize lines to
new development, would not be fair to those already in the City.
Hopkins replied correct.
Council Member Durrance stated that Hopkins indicated that Board
Member Coplen had concerns about health.
Hopkins replied that he felt Mr. Coplen still had concerns about
health. He stated that an individual farther out of the City would
have paid less money for that property because it was further away
from the utilities.
Council Member Biles stated that the current policy was a 60-40%
and a 75-25% was proposed but flawed. Was the Public Utilities
Board recommending to Council to not adopt the 75-25% and to do
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 9
421
away with the present 60-40%.
Hopkins replied no, that there was no reference to the present 60-
40%. The Public Utilities Board did not submit the proposal with
a favorable recommendation and did not submit it with an
unfavorable recommendation.
Council Member Biles stated that the Public Utilities Board's
recommendation would be to not take any action.
Hopkins replied that the Board felt that to change the existing
policy would not be prudent.
Mayor Miller stated that the existing policy was applicable to
anyone within the City limits of Denton. If the policy were
changed, would the 75-25% be available to all the citizens in
Denton.
City Attorney Prouty stated that it probably would. There were
some cases where the Supreme Court indicated that if a policy was
done for one, it had to be done for all. The City would have to
offer the same terms to all, no matter how remote from the City
limits.
Hopkins stated that the funding for the proposed policy would be
limited to the amount of money left over from the Development Line
funds for any one given year.
Council Member Cott asked for an explanation of that.
Hopkins stated that the Board was of the opinion that the
Development Line funds were primarily for the economic development
to promote employment in the community and it wanted to have a
continual build-up of funds to have available to attract industry
when there was an opportunity.
Mayor Miller stated that the determination would be made by the
property owners who would ask for an infill extension. There was
a group of homes on Highway 77 which were in the City limits but on
septic tanks. Could that group of homes ask for an extension.
Hopkins stated that the restrictions on the application of the
proposal and the amount of money that the homeowner could pay on
the total bill probably limited the application of the policy to a
reasonable distance from existing utilities. Under this program,
a line would not be run two miles out as it would not fit into the
overall program.
Mayor Miller asked about constitutional issues. Would there be
legal problems in a scenario with a property owner in the City
limits but who was being denied services based on a cost limit.
422
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 10
City Attorney Prouty stated that the city might be able to make a
distinction. If the City offered a program and did not make strict
geographical limitations to geographical areas, there might be the
possibility of someone filing a suit.
Mayor Miller asked for a clarification of the 60-40% rule.
Nelson stated that at one time anyone within 500 feet of existing
water lines were required to extend their line and pay for that
line up to and across their property. That policy was changed to
the 600 foot arrangement.
Mayor Miller stated that if there was a home 500 feet from an
existing line and the lines were extended on the 60-40%, the
property owner would be paying approximately 16% of the cost
instead of 25% of cost.
Council Member Beasley stated that some areas eventually would be
able to tie on if there was development in the area. It would be
very hard to get all of the neighbors to agree to the service. She
did not want to do an assessment program to force something on
individuals that they might not need.
Mayor Miller asked for staff direction.
Council Member Beasley stated that there probably were people who
needed the service but agreed with the recommendation from the
Public Utilities Board. She felt the proposal would not be fair to
the ratepayer and the people who put the lines in when they bought
homes. She suggested to not continue with the infill policy.
Beasley motioned, Brock seconded to continue with the existing
policy.
Council Member Young stated that he would vote against the motion
as some residents were experiencing problems with their wells or
septic tanks due to development around them. That was a health
issue. The Carpenter Road development was having problems with
wells with possible contamination. The City needed to develop a
policy that would be economic for citizens to afford. Other
citizens in Denton were not set against assisting others who did
not have the money for improvements. These were citizens of Denton
who did not have the money which the policy demanded of them.
Denton had a home rule policy and could make the percentage 75-25
for the citizens. People deserved all of the services which the
City could provide.
Council Member Brock stated %ha% there were really no good answers
to this issue. She was concerned about the fairness issue but also
concerned about the legal problems the City might have with this
policy. If this policy was adopted and it provided first priority,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 11
would the city be open for potential legal suits. It was not fair
to present ratepayers and there might be an issue of fairness to
people lacking service. Those with a possible health threat might
not be the first to come for service.
Council Member Durrance stated that the City had to be fair to all
citizens of Denton and not to a select few. He had concerns that
adopting a policy other than what the City currently had, would
open a number of problems for selection. There was no clear
understanding of results and applications of those policies and
would leave City open to the question of whether it was heading in
the right direction without a basis for doing that. The three
options lacked definition. There was a potential to create more
problems than the present system.
Council Member Biles stated when balancing the equities with the
other citizens of Denton and all of the ratepayers, the scales
tilted back in the other direction. Utility rates had nothing to
do with property taxes. The fact that an individual lived inside
the city limits did not determine whether or not he received
electricity or received water/sewer services. Living inside the
city limits, meant that an individual paid property taxes and in
return, the City provided services out of the General Fund which
included fire, police, streets, library, parks, etc. It was
whether or not an individual was a customer of the utility as to
whether or not that individual received water and wastewater. That
distinction was important in this proposal. He could not see a
compelling reason to increase utility rates to run service to
someone not on system who was trying to get on the system. He
agreed with the recommendation to not adopt a new policy at this
point in time. Until the State legislature cleared up their uneven
and unequal treatment on various codes, the City would legally be
in a poor position.
Mayor Miller stated that as development occurred around these areas
without services it would become less costly for those individuals
to hook onto the system. The question was who would pay for this
service. There was a possibility to look at areas where the
individuals were financially unable to extend service and where
public issues were involved.
Jordan stated that Community Development Block Grant funds could be
used to pay for water and sewer lines in eligible areas. That
project would have no cost for those citizens. The individuals
would have to meet the eligibility requirements. Carpenter Road
did not meet those requirements but there might be other cases
which might be eligible for those funds.
Council Member Cott stated that one of the reasons for a city was
to have an economy of scale. When pieces of that particular part
of the puzzle were taken out, the price was raised for everyone.
423
424
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25t 1997
Page 12
He would want to keep everything in possible and make the ones who
wanted to come out, petition to come out.
Council Member Young stated that it appeared that the 75-25%
proposal was not going to pass and not make this issue affordable
for individuals. The City could give Wal-Mart water and sewer but
it could not do it for its citizens. It was unfair to the citizens
to give the services to development and not to citizens.
Mayor Miller stated that any proposal for an economic or industrial
area was done under an existing policy. This issue dealt with a
policy in general for the extension of services for residences.
This City would continue to develop and legal issues of making this
type of decision could have ramifications for the future.
Mayor Miller stated that the motion was to maintain the present
policy relative to the extension of water and wastewater services.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance
"aye", Young "nay", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion
carried with a 6-1 vote.
3. The Council received a briefing, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding the rail crossing for Nottingham and the
elimination of the crossing at Willis Street.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Nottingham
project was in the CIP. The plan was to make a rail crossing at
Nottingham and tie Nottingham into Audra. Rail crossings were very
hard to do. The last one done was Jim Christal Road. The reason
that project moved so quickly was that the City was able to trade
a new crossing for an old crossing. Nottingham was a similar
situation. The railroad would do one of two things. It would
either ask which crossing the City wanted to close or it would take
the project under advisement for a number of years. Originally the
thought was to eliminate the crossing at Pertain. Included in the
Nottingham project was repaying along Lattimore. Once further into
the project, other crossings were looked at along Mingo Road. A
traffic count was done at the intersections and the amount of
vacant areas around the two intersections. The spacing of
crossings was better with a closing of Willis. Willis was a very
narrow road with deep bar ditches. Staff was suggesting that the
city approach the railroad with the closing Of the Willis Street
crossing and making a new crossing at Nottingham.
Biles motioned, Durrance seconded to direct staff to have a new
crossing at Nottingham and close the Willis Street crossing.
Council Member Young asked if the City had to give up a crossing.
Svehla replied that if the City did not give up a crossing, the
railroad could take as long as 4-6 years to get the Nottingham
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 13
425
crossing. Nottingham would not be built if the crossing was not
allowed.
Council Member Young stated that he saw a need for the Nottingham
crossing but people lived on Willis Street.
Council Member Cott asked if the City had checked with the Denton
Bible Church in the area.
Svehla state~ that the Denton Bible Church was on Nottingham and
had a lot of traffic on Sundays. The Church had off-duty police
officers directing traffic when church was over.
Council Member Beasley stated that she hated to close any
intersection but that Willis was probably the best choice.
Citizens would have better access to other areas with Nottingham.
Council Member Young asked where was the closest fire station.
Svehla replied that that would be Station Two from McKinney Street.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye",
"aye", Young "nay", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye".
carried with a 6-1 vote.
Durrance
Motion
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened
into a Special Call Session to consider the following:
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance annexing a
286.57 acre tract located north of Brush Creek Road and east of
Highway 377; and establishing temporary agriculture "A" zoning
district classification. (First Reading, A-75)
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that Council had discussed
this annexation on several occasions. This was the annexation of a
subdivision named the Hills of Argyle. There had been two public
hearings on this proposal and this was the first reading of the
ordinance to begin annexation.
Council Member Young stated that the owner of the property did not
want to be annexed.
Svehla replied that Greg Edwards had appeared at a public hearing
for the owner and indicated that the owner did not want to be
annexed.
Council Member Young asked about services for the area.
Svehla replied that water and sewer would be available.
be up to owner to request services.
It would
426
City of Denton City Council Minutes
March 25, 1997
Page 14
The following ordinance was considered:
(FIRST READING)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 286.57 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD AND
EAST OF US HIGHWAY 377; TEMPORARILY CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXED
PROPERTY AS "A", AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Beasley motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the first reading of the
ordinance.
Council Member Beasley stated that in reviewing the objections from
the owner at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, she did
not see any benefit to be outside the city limits. She felt the
development would receive more benefits if it were inside the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that no one was currently living in the
area and it would be easier to annex the property now without
residents°
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance
"aye", Young "nay", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion
carried with a 6-1 vote.
2. The Council considered an appeal of a suspension of service
for Denton Taxi Company.
Council Member Young stated that he had asked for this to be on the
agenda. He had talked to the cab company and they had decided to
not appeal the suspension decision.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
JE~IFEI~\WAL-TERS
CIT~ SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACC00378