Loading...
Minutes October 21, 1997CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES October 21, 1997 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, October 21, 1997 at 5:45 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room. PRESENT: ABSENT: 1. Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Kristoferson, Cochran, Young and Durrance. Mayor Miller The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Conference with Employees~dnder TEX. GOV'T. CODE Sec. 551.075. The Council received information from employees or questioned employees during a staff conference or briefing, but did not deliberate during the conference. B. Consultation with Attorney -Under TEX. GOV'T CODE SEC. 551.071 1. The Council discussed and considered strategy in litigation styled Hansen Information Technologies, Inc. v. Azteca Systems, Inc., et al., case number 4:97cv308 filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, alleging copyright infringement, tortious interference, and other intellectual property matters. The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 21, Council Chambers of City Hall. 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Kristoferson, Cochran, Young and Durrance. AB SENT: Mayor Miller 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags. Mayor Pro Tem Brock presented the following proclamations: Keep Denton Beautiful Adopt A Spot Month Make A Difference Day 2. The Council consider approval of the minutes of July 15, July 16, and July 19, 1997. Beasley motioned, Kristoferson seconded to approve the minutes as presented. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. CITIZEN R~PORT,g 3. The Council received a citizen report from Claude and Frances Cannon "to say thank you." Mr. and Mrs. Cannon were not present at meeting. 4. The Council received a citizen report from Dessie Goodson regarding freedom of information. City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 2 Ms. Goodson stated that she did not know why the City felt it was beyond the Freedom of Information Act for an open records request. She had received information from the Legal Department that was not valid information. She did not swear as indicated in the information from the Legal Department. She was still having problems with SPAN. She would be taking this information to Court against the City regarding this false information. NI~I~E EXC, EPTII~N~ 5. The Council considered a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for a Halloween Costume Party for Victor Equipment Recreation Association (V.E.RA.) in Fair Hall at the North Texas State Fairgrounds on Saturday, October 25, 1997 from 8 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that this request was from the Victor Equipment Recreation Association for a costume party inside Fair Hall at the Fairgrounds. Young motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the request. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 6. The Council considered a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for a Halloween Costume Party at 1218 Avenue A on October 31, 1997 from 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that this request was for a costume party at Avenue A from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Council Member Young asked if the neighbors had been contacted. Christopher Brown stated that the neighbors on both sides would be joining the party. Council Member Young asked if there were any businesses in the area. Brown stated that there was a Texaco Gas Station in the area. Council Member Beasley stated that if the Council approved this request, the participants would still have to keep the decibel level down on the equipment so as not to disturb others. Beasley motioned, Young seconded to approve the request. Council Member Kristoferson stated that she was not in favor of the request as it was very late. Brown stated that they would not be using microphones and using keyboard with microphones. Council Member Cochran suggested printing an announcement and phone number to call with complaints rather than the Police Department. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "nay", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote. PIIIlI,IC HEAR1NG City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 3 7. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance regarding amending Chapter 33 "Signs and Advertising Devices" (Off-Premise and Billboard Signs) of the Code of Ordinances relating to the prohibition of off-premises signs within the City of Denton and both off- premises signs and portable signs within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Denton and amending regulations applicable to nonconforming signs. David Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that the proposed ordinance had been amended as requested by Council at the October 6th meeting. He presented a summary of the events leading to this public hearing. A summary of the major points included (1) all new off-premise signs within the City and the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ET J) would be prohibited; (2) new portable signs, currently illegal inside the city limits would be prohibited in Demon's ETJ; (3) existing off-premise and portable signs in the ETJ only would have to be registered by March 1, 1998 in order to remain in place; (4) registered off-premise signs and portable signs would be considered legal non-conforming signs if initially legally erected; and (5) the City Council would create a sign appraisal board to be appointed by the Mayor for two year terms. There would be five members of the Board - two real estate appraisers, one sign business person who operated within the City of Denton, one landscape architect and one Texas Department of Transportation employee experienced in real estate transactions dealing with rights-of-way. The Board would be subject to open meetings and open records requirements and would have to hold public hearings to consider specific signs. The Board would determine the compensation owed to an owner of a sign for the relocation, reconstruction or removal of an off-premise or a portable sign. (6) Sign removal required cash compensation equal to three years of gross revenue to the sign owner plus compensation to the real property owner. The sign owner had 30 days to remove the sign after notice had been given and compensation was available for payment. Damaged legal non-conforming signs, which may be repaired if the costs of the repair did not exceed 60% of the cost of erecting a new sign, would follow clearer instructions in preparing estimates for the purposes of comparison. (7) There would be no changes in the regulations for temporary signs. There would be no changes to on-premise sign regulations, any changes that would be more restrictive regarding the repair of damaged off-premise signs was not permitted, the automatic removal of signs would not be authorized, the sign appraisal board would not be authorized to select the signs to be removed and would not be authorized to make any funding decisions. The sign appraisal board was not needed to consider other sign removal options such as swaps, tax abatement or lease buyout. The membership qualifications of the City's Sign Board of Appeals did not meet the State's qualifications. Council Member Cochran stated that there was unnecessary confusion concerning this ordinance. Tax money would not be spent to purchase signs from private property. The Legal Department had prepared three alternative motions for Council consideration. One was to adopt the ordinance as presented, one was to deny the ordinance and the third was to adopt all the portions of the sign ordinance which pertained to off-premise signs and billboard, etc. and delete those sections which dealt with the sign appraisal board. It was his intention to motion to accept the third motion. It was never the Council's intent to purchase signs. Council Member Young stated that the Council voted 5-2 on this issue and he was against the Board. He could not see using taxpayers money to put businesses out of work. He was in favor of delaying the entire ordinance until a later date and was in favor of option 2 that would not change the sign ordinance. There was no sign problem in the City. Voting for this ordinance would cost businesses money and the citizens would have to pay more as the businesses would not be able to remain in Denton. He felt there was a need for more study and research before considering such an ordinance. Young motioned to delay the ordinance. City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 4 Council Member Durrance noted a point of order that Council was in a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Brock opened the public hearing. Jerry Daum stated that he had sent a letter to Council regarding the issue. He was shocked that Denton was trying to change the sign ordinance, as he did not know Denton had a problem with signs. He understood four billboards had been put up in Denton since 1993. This was not a high billboard market in this area. The sign ordinance limited the size of the billboards currently allowed. Once development occurred, the billboard was history and would be gone. Denton's sign ordinance was very strict and did not allow for excess billboards. Don Carney stated that he was opposed to the proposed ordinance as he used billboard in both of his past businesses. He felt billboards were useful in business and the City needed to keep the current sign ordinance and not change it. If the kind of advertising could be limited on billboards, it would be a credit to Denton to limit "adult book store" advertising. Denton needed economic development and the Council needed to be pro-business. On his way to Fort Worth he did not see any types of billboards which were offensive to him. Robert Manning stated that he was a long time resident of the City of Denton. He agreed that there was not a billboard problem in Denton. His only concern, as a citizen, was to avoid any litigation with any type of ordinance. Taxpayer money should not be spent on buying billboards. He did not like portable signs especially the way in which they were placed. Mickey George presented a speaker card in support of the proposed ordinance but did not wish to address Council. Slick Smith stated that there was a charge to re-register his signs with the current ordinance. The billboard portion of the ordinance was not something he was in favor of. He was in the portable sign business and could not place a sign anywhere as new signs were not allowed in the City. He was still paying taxes on the signs he had in the City but he was limited in his business. Don White stated that he did not own a billboard and did not have a portable sign but he did have a business in Denton. He encouraged all citizens to participate in government. He did not believe there was a sign problem in Denton. In 1993, a citizen committee, which was composed of a broad spectrum of the community, studied the sign ordinance in Denton. This Council wanted to adopt an ordinance changing what the citizens changed several years ago. He suggested a citizen committee to study this issue as it had done with the previous ordinance. This was a reaction of the community against this ordinance as demonstrated by the individuals present at this meeting. He urged the Council to not pass the ordinance presented. Sondra Ferstel stated she was pleased to hear that the City had a tough law with billboards in Denton. She felt that not all of the amendments would have to be used and that some could be separated out and considered individually. The payback provision was a concern of hers. There were many good amendments in the ordinance but suggested removing #5 from the proposal. Margaret Smith stated that she and her husband had been long time residents of the City. One of the major improvements in the City was the work done by the Adopt-A-Spot group and the sign ordinance passed by the Council. Her opinion was that the third option was the better choice. The Appraisal Board was not something that she could agree with. There were several unattractive billboards in City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 5 Denton and some had nothing to do with businesses in Denton. At this point in time, Denton did not have a billboard problem but there might be in the future with more development. She did not want to see the ETJ full of billboards and did not want to allow more billboards in the area. She asked the Council to protect Denton's future to not allow additional billboards. Carroll Trail hoped the Council read their e-mail as it was an easier method for citizens to communicate with the Council. He urged the Council to pass the billboard ordinances. Businesses had many ways to advertise their goods and services. He also urged Council to pass the versions of the ordinance that would develop the appraisal board. Many visitors passed through Denton with a scenic highway. He asked for a commitment in Denton for more sensible night lighting in the City. One step to that would be to omit billboards lighted at night. Light pollution was everywhere and the billboards at night contributed to that light. The University of North Texas was having to move its observatory because of too much light in the area. Vicki McCombs stated that she appreciated the efforts of the Council and supported the billboard ban as proposed. She was interested in standards for commercial lighting within the City limits. Philip Baker stated that he was in favor of the proposed ordinance. This was a quality of life issue and the proposed ordinance would make Denton a better place to live. Ray Gough stated that he could testify to the desire of good signage. With good signage, the public could be provided with direction and location. When signage became overpowering to pollute the environment, it made life in the community less desirable. He was a lifelong resident of Denton and wanted to see the best for it. Georgia Gough stated that Denton was a unique city. Over the years it has been able to balance physical environment with fiscal strength. She recently had been in an area where there was still advertising but she could still see the trees. The City could guard against too high billboards. Jim Hobdy stated that he was a small sign manufacturer in Denton. He was worried that if the City did away with billboards how would individuals get to sources of tourism in the City. He was also worried about where to go from here and what would be next on the list. He questioned if metal buildings, which were not particularly attractive, would be the next to go. He hoped the Council would temper their judgements. He questioned why the sign industry people were not included in the consideration of the ordinance as they could provide input on how to make the signs more attractive. Carolyn Smith stated that she was disappointed that the Council wanted to do away with billboards in Denton. Visual signs were needed for all of the individuals who traveled through Denton. She did not think anything was wrong with having billboards to attract businesses. Pat Reinke stated that Denton had enough billboards and that there was no need for more. A billboard appeared in their backyards one day without asking any of the residents if they wanted it in that location. The billboard was lit at night and the lights shone in their home at night. They had to sell their house at a lower value due to the billboard in that location. She supported a ban on billboards. She felt this was part of the vision for Denton and felt that future development would result in more billboards in the area. Gary Hayden stated that he was in support of a sign ordinance. He hoped that the Council would look ahead to the future for development without billboards. City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 6 Douglas Coggeshall stated that this issue was not about revenue or raising revenue. It was about a City Council that had an attitude problem. He had a copy of the economic development plan. The Council did not have a pro-business attitude and was trying to strangle small businesses in the City. Companies would not be attracted to Denton because of the regulations in the City. He felt that this ordinance should not be approved and the existing ordinance should be repealed. Three Council individuals were up for re-election this year. He would be working against any Council candidate who approved this ordinance. Brennan Gourdie presented a speaker card in support of the changes in the sign ordinance. Bob Powell stated that Denton was within the Denton 1SD and that the Denton 1SD had a great ability to chew up tax dollars. They never gave up the fight for more tax money. In addition to the 1SD, there were two major universities, a State School, a large federal facility, county buildings and city facilities that were not on the tax rolls. All of this combined added to many miles removed from tax base. The proposed change would further increase the ever increasing tax base loss. It was not just the sign that would be removed, it was the perception. If the City did one more anti-business action, it would further the perception that Denton was anti-business. Most of the people in Denton worked for a government. Why eliminate a tax base or the perception that the Council would be doing that. Dorothy Damico stated that she recognized and encouraged the right for business to advertise through signs. She understood that advertising was part of the problems of a business person. She did not realize the size of the sign industry until she saw the two full-page ads regarding the sign ordinance. She supported the sign ordinance to limit billboards. An attractive community was one attraction for a good business. A corridor of signs was not appealing for new businesses. Areas with corridors of signs were often too much as an individual could not read all of them while passing by them. Tony Damico stated that he was also in support of the proposed ordinance. He asked how many Council Members were citizens of Denton and were elected by citizens. He did not want his community to be wall to wall billboards as that would be a loss for the community. Cliff Reding stated that he had asked the opinions of people about the sign ordinance. 100% of them indicated that they did not have a problem with billboards. Money would be lost if there were no billboards. He had a petition with over 100 names in support of the current ordinance. He felt the political portion of the sign ordinance was a problem. The issue of using tax money to buy billboards was a problem. He questioned where the Council was planning to get the money to buy billboards if it was not going to use tax money. Senior citizens of Denton needed signs in order to locate businesses in Denton. Billboards were a sign of prosperity. He asked the Council to not pass this billboard issue or a system to pay for the signs. He asked Council to not pass an anti-business ordinance. Don Smith stated that he was a long time resident in Denton and was in favor of the proposed ordinance. He had seen many places which were polluted with billboards. He did not believe the economy of Denton would suffer without billboards. The Council had been threatened with being voted out of office if they passed this ordinance. He felt they would receive more votes if they passed the ordinance. Carol Brantley stated that she supported the Council's amendment to the sign ordinance. Denton faced the same tough decision that other cities were having. It had been proven that master planning benefited the entire city. Residents should not have to suffer looking at ugly or distasteful billboards. The City should have a policy to have a beautiful city and billboards were not beautiful. The Council needed to ask what kind of image it was projecting with billboards. Most major cities already had City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 7 passed a billboard ban. The City should act now to protect its future environment. Mayor Pro Tem Brock indicated that she had a speaker card from Duncan Weathers who supported the changes in the sign ordinance. Jack Davis stated that he was in support of the proposed sign ordinance. He realized the need for businesses to have signage for directions for citizens but the current approach was not in the best long- term interest for the City. He was pleased with the effort of the City to improve its appearance. With the rapid urban expansion in the area, it was essential that steps be taken so that that past efforts for an attractive environment were not wasted. Denton could not avoid growth and change but it could manage that growth and change in a good manner. Mitchell Turner stated that as a representative of the Greater Southridge Association he was in favor of the proposed ordinance. This proposed ordinance would add some needed controls. He did not support using taxpayers dollars for the buying of signs. The proposed ordinance would not take existing signs away from companies and they could be kept as long as they were in compliance with the ordinance. Denton could become a city known for its many signs or a city known for its aesthetic value. He urged the Council to protect the highways and entrances to the City and vote for the proposed ordinance. Chuck Dennis stated that one question he had was a reason why he should feel one way or another about the ordinance. There was strong opposition for a change in the ordinance. The Council needed to listen to its constituents and not change the ordinance. If Council truly understood the current ordinance, there was no way signs could get out of control in Denton due to the regulations in the current ordinance. Businesses in Denton needed to be able to advertise to those travelling along the highway. Council Member Cochran asked if Mr. Dennis' company was the one that placed the ads in the newspaper. Dennis replied correct. Council Member Cochran thanked him for his excellent community service for the citizens in Denton and that by placing the ad, it had encouraged citizens to come down and speak in favor of the sign ordinance. Myra Crownover completed a speaker card indicating that she supported the proposed changes in the ordinance. Allen Williamson stated that he had a business in Denton and most people opposed to the proposed ordinance were in opposition to the billboards. This ordinance was for all signs in Denton. The City would not allow a small sign to be put up. The location of his business was difficult to find and without a sign was even more difficult to find. He felt the ordinance limited anyone's ability to advertise a business and limited income. He opposed this ordinance and asked Council to reconsider the ordinance. Zeke Martin stated that he wanted to commend the people who were in favor of the proposed ordinance. He was against the ordinance as it was written. A billboard or sign was not disagreeable to him. He did not feel there was a problem in Denton with signs. Billboards were a way of life and were needed for business. The City would take down a broken sign at this point in time so that was covered City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 8 with the current ordinance. Dessie Goodson stated that the sign ordinance was unreal. It was time government stopped telling individuals what they could and could not do. She used signs and billboards all the time. She suggested the Council leave the signs alone. She questioned what would happen if all the signs were removed. Arnold Valez stated that he was in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He had problems with several sections of the ordinance. The preamble listed several reasons that the City was proposing to enact the ordinance one of which stated that the continue erection of off-premise signs would lead to the diminishing of property values of adjacent property. He took exception to that statement in the absence of any factual information. He requested that if the ordinance were adopted, that section be removed. Another section he had a concern with was that off-premise signs increased the risk of destruction or danger to citizens. He felt it was not the intent of the city to spend taxpayers dollars for the removal of signs. Another section he was opposed to indicated that the estimated cost would be for new materials for the sign to be repaired or for a new sign. This was to assess the value of the sign that was to be destroyed. He did not know of any other place that made this differentiation. He felt that further wording was needed for the proposed ordinance. Mark Foster stated that he was opposed to the new ordinance. He felt that not enough research had been done regarding the proposal. His business was on the highway and he needed billboards to attract people into the store. Without the billboards, no one could be directed to the business until they were past them. The ordinance would be harmful to his business and to other businesses in the area. He paid a lot of taxes in Denton and this ordinance would hurt his business. Marilyn Smith stated that she was surprise about the negative impact regarding this ordinance. Other cities in other parts of the country had a sign ordinance and it did not detract from their businesses. There was an advantage of knowing that signs would be at intersections and not have to try and drive and read billboards at the same time. She encouraged the Council to support the sign ordinance amendment. Karen Abernathy stated that the 1993 ordinance was poor. Coppell had beautiful signs in its city and Denton could have the same. She felt Loop 288 and Highway 35 was unmanageable with signs. She urged the Council to approve the proposed ordinance. She urged the Council to use her taxpayers dollars to get rid of the billboards in the area. Growth was coming and regulations were needed. Hugh Ayer stated that he was in support of the proposed ordinance. It was good for Denton and for the long range growth for Denton. It was long overdue and would be good for Denton. He urged the Council to pass the ordinance. Barbara Russell stated that there had been a perception that Denton was anti-business. She thought that that was past but it appeared that it was not. Much time was spent on the 1993 ordinance but a good ordinance was developed. There was much citizen input with that ordinance but there was none with this proposal. She did not see what the rush was to pass this ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Brock closed the public hearing. Council Member Young stated that, in his opinion, this ordinance was anti-business and could cause businesses to lose money. That would reduce taxes and place more of the burden on homeowners. He felt there was not enough research on this issue. There were no statistics regarding the proposal and City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 9 not enough input from the business community. The government should not take taxpayers money to purchase the billboards. Government would be putting businesses out of business. He felt that the Mayor should be at this meeting for this consideration. Young motioned to delay consideration of the ordinance and to develop a citizen board to look at the issue. Motion died for lack of a second. Young motioned to deny the ordinance. Motion died for lack of a second. Council Member Young stated that this ordinance would be bad for business and would send a message that Denton was anti-business. New businesses would not be able to advertise and would not come to Denton. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that in regards to the anti-business statements, Dell and Motorola went to Austin that had similar ordinances in 1983. New businesses were going to Fort Worth that had a similar ordinance. Businesses did grow in areas with this type of ordinance. Denton had spent several years going through a visioning process and an economic development study. Those two processes indicated the need for Denton to work on its entranceways. With the development of the raceway, she wanted to protect the area from billboards. It was critical to act now. If the ordinance was passed and in two to three years it was decided that this was a mistake, the ordinance could be repealed. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-301 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AMENDING CHAPTER 33 "SIGNS AND ADVERTISING DEVICES" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF OFF-PREMISE (BILLBOARD) SIGNS WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON AND BOTH OFF-PREMISES (BILLBOARD) SIGNS AND PORTABLE SIGNS WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON AND AMENDING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO NONCONFORNHNG SIGNS; PROVIDING A PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Durrance motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance except for the portion relating to the sign appraisal board. Council Member Durrance reviewed some of the history of the proposed ordinance. On April 22, 1997 the Council held a work session on this issue and on August 27, 1997 the Council held a joint work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission. On September 10th the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and invited the public for comment. Council held another open work session on the issue on September 23rd. He had been stopped many times from citizens regarding support of the proposed ordinance. This was a question of quality of life. The City needed to take a proactive approach regarding this issue. He wanted managed growth and not just growth. He was disturbed that some individuals felt the need to degrade individuals during a public hearing. This proposal was not open to litigation as indicated in prior court cases. This proposal would not hurt small business or reduce the capabilities to advertise. The ordinance could be amended if desired by the public or future Councils. He did not feel this was telling individuals how to manage their businesses. City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 10 Council Member Cochran stated that he had spoken to people from all over the City regarding this issue. No one within the City complained about the proposed sign ordinance. This proposal laid the groundwork for the future. He was not interested in the portion of the proposal to buy signs in order to take them down. Policies in Denton were not anti-business. He thanked citizens for their input regardless of their point of view on this issue. Council Member Kristoferson stated that this was a quality of life issue. She felt that the ordinance was pro-Denton as it went to great lengths to protect the urban landscape. She felt it would promote a positive image of Denton through a positive image on the City's roadways. She had asked many people about their opinions regarding this issue and all were in favor of the proposed ordinance. Council Member Beasley feared that there would be too many billboards in the area. She felt that advertising would be different in the future and that billboards would be outdated. Council Member Young stated that Denton had less than 200 signs and that was not a problem. There would be litigation regarding this ordinance. Businesses did not locate in Denton because Denton was anti-business. This was bad legislation and would cause businesses to lose money. The City would lose tax revenue from this ordinance. That lost revenue would have to come from homeowners. He wanted the Council to remember that in May a lesson would be coming to Council. Council Member Kristoferson called the question. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "nay", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote. 8. The Council held a public hearing on Community Development programs to assess the status of completed and ongoing activities and received citizen comments. Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this was a year end reporting requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Brock opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Brock closed the public hearing. VARIANCES 9. The Council considered approval of exaction variances to Section 34-114(5) concerning perimeter paving and Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalks. The 18.796 acre tract was located on the south side of Pockrus Page Road, east of Interstate 35. David Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this property was located south of Pockrus Page Road. The applicant had asked for a variance on two public improvements. One was for perimeter street paving and the other for sidewalks. The estimated cost for the paving was $33,000 and $6,600 for the sidewalks. Staff recommendation was to approve the requests which were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 11 Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the variances. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. ~(}N~ENT AGENDA Kristoferson motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and the accompanying ordinances. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 10. NO. 97-302 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DUNCAN SIMMS STOFFELS, INC. FOR DENIA PARK PHASE II; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (RFSP #2076 - Denia Park Renovation - Phase II) 11 NO. 97-303 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR iMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #2103 -Lower PEC-4 Channel Improvement) 12. NO. 97-304 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON DESIGNATING A DEPOSITORY FOR CITY FUNDS FOR A TERM BEGINNING DECEMBER 1, 1997 AND ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1999; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A DEPOSITORY CONTRACT WITH TEXAS BANK AS THE PRIMARY DEPOSITORY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #2071 -Depository Agreement) (Investment Committee recommended approval.) 13 Approval of a property tax refund to George J. Kay in the amount of $624.47. 14. NO. R97-66 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTH TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15. NO. 97-305 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 12 OPTIONAL RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA; AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $15,000 FOR PROJECTS MEETING PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA; AND PROViDiNG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16. NO. 97-306 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON HOMEOWNER REHABILITATION PROGRAM AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA; AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $15,000 FOR PROJECTS MEETING PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA; AND PROViDiNG FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 17. NO. 97-307 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING THE GUIDELINES FOR THE RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA; AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $15,000 FOR PROJECTS MEETING PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 18. NO. R97-067 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE DENTON MAiN STREET PROGRAM BE ENTERED INTO THE GREAT AMERICAN MAiN STREET AWARDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 19. NO. 97-308 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE DENTEX TITLE COMPANY FOR CLOSING SERVICES AND ISSUANCE OF TITLE POLICIES FOR THE U.S. HIGHWAY 77 WIDENING PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 20. NO. 97-309 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING WITH YORK ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ON CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY EXPANSION OF U.S. HIGHWAY 77; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ITEM~ FOR 1ND1VIDIIAI~ CONSIDERATION 21. The Council considered approval of a resolution nominating a member(s) to the Appraisal City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 13 Review Board of the Denton Central Appraisal District. Council Member Young asked about the number of individuals who could be nominated. Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager for Finance, stated that there were five members whose terms would expire and the City could nominate as many individuals as they liked. Council Member Young nominated Jane Fulton. Council Member Durrance nominated Jay Hensley. The following resolution was considered: R97-068 A RESOLUTION NOMINATING MEMBERS TO THE APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD OF THE DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 22. The Council considered approval of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a one-year extension of the agreement between the City of Denton and the North Texas Education and Training CO-OP for an English as a Second Language Program. Dave Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated this was an extension of the contract to allow the North Texas Education and Training Co-op to complete their program. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-310 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A ONE- YEAR EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE NORTH TEXAS EDUCATION AND TRAINING CO-OP FOR AN ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", "aye". Motion carried unanimously. ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock 23. The Council considered approval of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a first amendment to the service agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Family Resource Center, Inc. to provide assistance regarding education, health, and general well-being of children, and City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 14 to extend the term of the agreement for one year. Dave Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was a contract extension request for a one-year period. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-311 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE DENTON FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE REGARDING EDUCATION, HEALTH, AND GENERAL WELLBEING OF CHILDREN TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT FOR ONE YEAR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Kristoferson motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 24. The Council considered approval of an ordinance designating and establishing a 35 mph speed limit for Ryan Road from its intersection with F.M. 2181 west to its intersection with the city limits of Denton and a 35 mph speed limit for Mayhill Road from its intersection with U.S. 380 to its intersection with I-35E; providing that this ordinance shall not effect school zone ordinances regulating the speed of vehicles during designated hours; providing for a penalty of a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars; providing for a severability clause; and providing for a repealing clause. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this was a recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission to increase the speed limit from 30 mph to 35 mph. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 997-312 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AND ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING HIGHWAY WITHIN THE CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT EFFECT SCHOOL ZONE ORDINANCES REGULATING THE SPEED OF VEHICLES DUR1NG DESIGNATED HOURS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF A F1NE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A REPEALING CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Kristoferson motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 25. The Council considered approval of an ordinance designating and establishing a temporary City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 15 speed limit for U.S. 380 during the period of its reconstruction; providing that this ordinance shall not effect school zone ordinances regulating the speed of vehicles during designated hours; providing for a penalty of a fine not to exceed two hundred dollars; providing for a severability clause; and providing for a repealing clause. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this was for the period of time for the reconstruction of Highway 380. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-313 AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AND ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY SPEED LIMIT FOR U.S. 380 DURING THE PERIOD OF ITS RECONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT EFFECT SCHOOL ZONE ORDINANCES REGULATING THE SPEED OF VEHICLES DURING DESIGNATED HOURS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF A F1NE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABiLITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A REPEALING CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Council Member Young motioned to adopt the ordinance. Council Member Beasley stated that this would be in effect only during the reconstruction. Svehla replied correct and that it would take approximately 18 months. Council Member Kristoferson seconded the motion. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 26. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a real estate contract between the City of Denton and L. A. Nelson, Jr. relating to the purchase of 0.233 acres of land for constructing drainage improvements in the PEC-4 tributary of Pecan Creek. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-314 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND L.A. NELSON, JR. RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF 0.233 ACRES OF LAND FOR CONSTRUCTING DRA1NAGE iMPROVEMENTS IN THE PEC-4 TRIBUTARY OF PECAN CREEK; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Kristoferson motioned, Durrance seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 16 "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 27. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a real estate contract between the City of Denton and Eva B. Johnson relating to the purchase of 0.30 acres of land for constructing drainage improvements in the PEC-4 tributary of Pecan Creek. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-315 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND EVA B. JOHNSON RELATIVE TO THE PURCHASE OF 0.30 ACRES OF LAND FOR CONSTRUCTING DRA1NAGE iMPROVEMENTS IN THE PEC-4 TRIBUTARY OF PECAN CREEK; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Cochran motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", and Mayor Pro Tem Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 28. The Council considered nominations/appointments to City's Boards and Commissions. Council Member Young nominated Joannie Housewright to the Animal Shelter Advisory Board. 29. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. City Manager Benavides did not have any items for Council. 30. New Business There were no items of New Business suggested by Council Members for future agendas. 31. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551-071-551.085 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 32. There was no official action on Closed Meeting items held under Section 551-071-551.085 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 12 midnight. EUL1NE BROCK MAYOR PRO TEM CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS City of Denton City Council Minutes October 21, 1997 Page 17 JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS