Minutes February 03, 1998 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 3, 1998
After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council
convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, February 3, 1998 at 5:45 p.m. in the City Council Work
Session Room at City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Kristoferson,
Cochran, Young and Durrance.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting:
A. Conference with Employees—Under 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.
The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 3, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Kristoferson,
Cochran, Young and Durrance.
ABSENT: None
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 a resolution dissolving the special Citizen’s Advisory
Committee to provide recommendations regarding a possible additional sales tax to reduce property
tax; expressing the sincere appreciation of the City Council for the work of the members of that
committee; and providing an effective date.
Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager for Finance, stated that Denton citizens voted in 1994 to
increase the sales tax by ½ cent to reduce property taxes. In order to assure citizens that the City
would reduce property taxes by the amount of revenue generated, the City Council created the
Citizen’s Sales Tax Advisory Committee. That Committee had fulfilled their mission and this was a
fitting close to their work.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R98-006
A RESOLUTION DISSOLVING THE SPECIAL CITIZEN’S ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING A
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX TO REDUCE PROPERTY TAX;
EXPRESSING THE SINCERE APPRECIATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
THE WORK OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 2
Brock motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Miller presented plaques of appreciation to the committee members.
PRESENTATIONS/AWARDS
3. February Yard of the Month Awards
Mayor Miller presented the following awards:
Dennis and Debi Crowdis
Kenneth and Carol Chapman
Golden Fried Chicken-Business Property
Alsup Homes - Downtown Business Award
4. Proclamations
Mayor Miller presented the following proclamations:
“Art Behrens Day”
“American Heart Month”
“National Child Passenger Safety Week”
5. Resolutions of Appreciation
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Wayne Arrington
Beasley motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Rick Barrett
Beasley motioned, Kristoferson seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Jack Jarvis
Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 3
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Roger Wilkinson
Brock motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
NOISE EXCEPTIONS
6. The Council considered a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for the pouring of
concrete between the hours of 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. at 1025 Shady Oaks.
Jennifer Goodman, Management Assistant, stated that the request was for the pouring of concrete
between 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. on February 10th. This pour would take approximately 18 hours to
complete, as 800-900 yards of concrete would be poured at one time. The main source of noise
would be the truck traffic. Lighting would be used but would be directed down toward the concrete.
Businesses in the area such as Affordable Storage and Ferguson Plumbing did not open until 8:00
a.m.
Kristoferson motioned, Young seconded to approve the request. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member Young asked for details on the project for Item #7.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the project was the widening of McKinney Street from
Janie to Woodrow Lane.
Council Member Young requested a neighborhood meeting for the area residents and businesses.
Beasley motioned, Brock seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and the accompanying
ordinances. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young
“aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
7. NO. 98-013
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MCKINNEY ST. PAVING AND DRAINAGE AND
WOODROW LANE SANITARY SEWER TO JAGOE PUBLIC CO. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $645,614.27; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #2146 –
McKinney Street Paving and Drainage and Woodrow Lane Sanitary Sewer in the
amount of $645,614.27)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 4
8. NO. 98-014
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
TRUCK BEDS AND BODIES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid
#2149 – Truck Beds & Bodies – total award $35,651.85)
9. NO. 98-015
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR
THE ANNUAL LEASE PAYMENTS FOR AN IBM 9221-191 MAINFRAME
COMPUTER/PROCESSOR BID BY THE STATE PURCHASING GENERAL
SERVICES COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(P.O. #82630 – IBM Corporation for $102,771.10)
10. NO. R98-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE
SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION
OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, STATE OF TEXAS, REQUESTING
FUNDING FOR THE DENTON DELINQUENCY PREVENTION/
INTERVENTION PROGRAM FOR JUVENILES; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
PUBLIC HEARING
11. The Council held a public hearing to consider designating a certain area within the M. Forrest
Survey, Abstract No. 417, and the T. Living Survey, Abstract No. 729, being approximately 163
acres near Highway U.S. 380 and Geesling Road and being more fully described in the notice of
public hearing as Reinvestment Zone No. I for commercial/industrial tax abatement purposes.
Interested persons are invited to present evidence for or against the designation of the reinvestment
zone, the boundaries of the proposed reinvestment zone, whether all or part of the territory described
should be included in the proposed reinvestment zone, and the concept of tax abatement.
th
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that on January 6, Council approved a
request for a tax abatement to United Copper for 25% for six years. At that time, staff recommended
to create the reinvestment zone of the 90-acre tract that would be purchased by the company. The
reinvestment zone consisted of 163 acres. The purpose of the larger area was due to a request of the
DISD so that a portion of the zone was in the ETJ and the DISD could participate at a different rate
and term. The zone did not guarantee everyone in the zone to have a tax abatement.
City Attorney Prouty stated that there were two key determinations that had to be made before the
creation of the zone. He asked Ratliff if the creation of zone for commercial/industrial tax abatement
with the improvements expected to be developed by United Copper Industries, were of benefit to the
City and to the land to be included in the zone after the expiration of the tax abatement agreement and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 5
were the improvements sought feasible and practicable.
Ratliff responded yes.
City Attorney Prouty asked if with the expected improvements from United Copper Industries and the
other improvements that might occur as a result of designation of this reinvestment zone, would
contribute to the retention or expansion of primary employment or to attract major investment in the
zone that would be of benefit to the property and would also contribute to the economic development
of the City.
Ratliff responded yes.
Council Member Cochran asked if there was a time limit for the remainder of the zone.
Ratliff stated that the reinvestment zone had a five-year life.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke during the public hearing.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
12. The Council considered and adopted an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas designating a
certain area within the M. Forrest Survey, Abstract No. 417, and the T. Living Survey, Abstract No.
729, being approximately 163 acres near Highway U.S. 380 and Geesling Road within the city limits
of Denton and the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the City of Denton as Reinvestment Zone No. I for
commercial/industrial tax abatement; establishing the boundaries of such zone; making findings
required in accordance with Chapters 311 and 312 of the Tax Code; ordaining other matters relating
thereto; providing a severability clause; providing for repeal; and providing an effective date.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that approval of the ordinance would
allow staff to proceed with the tax abatement with United Copper. She clarified a previous
statement regarding the life of the investment zone. The reinvestment zone would have to be
reinstated after five years but if an agreement were entered into that had a longer life than five
years, the agreement would still be valid.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-016
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS DESIGNATING A CERTAIN
AREA WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF DENTON AND THE EXTRATERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON AS REINVESTMENT ZONE NO. 1 FOR
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL TAX ABATEMENT; ESTABLISHING THE
BOUNDARIES OF SUCH ZONE; MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CHAPTERS 311 AND 312 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE; ORDAINING OTHER
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 6
MATTERS RELATING THERETO; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Kristoferson seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
13. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance to rezone
approximately 1.07 acres from the Single Family (SF-10) zoning district to the Office Conditioned
(O[c]) zoning district. The site was located off Teasley Lane and adjacent to Lillian Miller Parkway
(FM 2181) near its intersection with Bent Oaks Drive. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval, 7-0.) (Z-97-032)
Dave Hill, Director of Planning, stated that this was a rezoning request for Sundown Offices. The
action requested was to rezone 1.07 acres from Single Family-10 to Office-conditioned. One building
was currently located on the site. The property was already platted and a construction plan approval
was required before proceeding. The major street on the original approved plat for Sundown Ranch
showed the major access point would go out onto Teasley Lane. A problem came up when the State
refused to allow a curb cut in the location shown on the approved plat. As a result the portion of
property which was originally to serve as the major access point was zoned residential and the part of
the office-conditioned parcel was where the secured highway permit was not located. This really was
a trade of property for zoning.
Council Member Kristoferson stated that this was a redistribution of the property with no additional
land zoned for conditioned office.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Brad Meyer, Carter and Burgess, stated that the developer was not asking for an increase in square
footage of building.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-017
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY (SF-10) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION TO OFFICE CONDITIONED (O[c]) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 1.07 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TEASLEY LANE; APPROXIMATELY 800
FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN
MILLER PARKWAY; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 7
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Beasley motioned, Kristoferson seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
14. The Council held a public hearing and considered approval of a Specific Use Permit to allow a
manufactured home park in a Light Industrial (LI) zone district. The proposed use would create 420
manufactured home spaces on an 83.77 acre tract located west of I-35, north of State Highway 380,
east of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad corridor, and south of the Loop 288 intersection
with I-35. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.) (Z-97-027)
Mayor Miller stated that a request had been received from the petitioners to postpone consideration
of this item so that they could work closer with the neighborhood. The requested postponement was
until April 7th. He indicated that the petitioner could withdraw the request but needed Council
approval in order to bring the same request back within a year.
Council Member Cochran stated that the proposal had been in the planning stages for some time and
there were many residents present for the public hearing. He felt the Council owed them a public
hearing. The petitioners had an opportunity to meet with the neighbors several times.
Durrance motioned, Beasley seconded to deny the request for postponement. On roll vote, Beasley
“aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor
Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Miller asked if the petitioner wished to proceed.
The petitioner indicated yes.
David Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was a manufactured home park.
The site size was 83.77 acres with a proposed density of 420 homes. Of those 420 homes, 113 would
be side lots and the others would be vertical lots. The petitioner was requesting a specific use permit
in a light industrial district. The proposal was consistent with the 1988 Development Plan. This was
considered a low intensity area and the proposed use was a reduction in the overall allocation. The
proposal was inconsistent with the plan as it exceeded the 200 unit per project density recommended
with these types of mobile home parks. The specific use permit criteria stated that the purpose of a
specific use permit was to provide Council the opportunity to deny or to conditionally approve those
uses that generally had unusual characteristics or were of a public or semi-public character. Because
of the nature of the use with possible adverse impact on neighboring properties, review, evaluation
and exercise of planning judgement relative to the location and site plan of the proposed use were
required. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved the request. Ten property
owners were notified of the request. Individuals outside the city limits but within the 200-foot rule
did not count towards the 20% rule. The development would have to meet the requirements of the
City Code with regulations that covered approximately 17 pages of requirements. Development
features of the property included two private residences in the interior of the project. Area
requirements included minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet. A six-foot screening device would be
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 8
around the perimeter of the property and retention ponds would be located on the far downstream
sides of the property. The Code also contained an open space requirement of 8% of the total site that
was satisfied in several ways. There were recreational areas proposed green belt areas in relation to
some of the retention ponds, a club house with a pool, and picnic areas. The overall open space was
10% rather than 8%. A traffic analysis study completed by the applicant concluded that there was no
impact that was of sufficient magnitude for a requirement of off-site improvements. There would be
some deterioration of some intersections, particularly at Mesa and Highway 380.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the back-up materials indicated that the proposal was consistent
with the Denton Development Plan and the zoning ordinance but she understood there was an
inconsistency with the mobile home park portion of the ordinance dealing with concentration of
number of units.
Hill stated that the interpretation was somewhat inconsistent and felt it was more for multi-family
concentrations.
Council Member Beasley asked if staff had looked at the traffic study provided by the petitioner.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, replied yes that the staff had analyzed the traffic study.
Council Member Beasley stated that Mesa at Highway 380 would go to an “F” rating.
Svehla replied correct that it currently was an “E” and would go to an “F”.
Council Member Beasley stated that the frontage road would go to a “D”.
Svehla replied correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that an acceptable level was “C”.
Svehla replied that was generally so.
Council Member Cochran asked about the sewage tie-in for a project of this size. The back up had
indicated that the project would have its own system. He questioned if there were requirements for a
tie-in to the City’s system.
Svehla stated that typically the project would tie-in at some point. It was left to the developer as to
where to do that. There were two points available near this site - one on Worthington/Skyler and the
second would be the Ranch Estates System.
Council Member Cochran stated that the water supply system would be the City’s. He questioned
when the City would take control of the sewage.
Svehla stated that typically it was when it was built. In this instance, because this was under one
ownership with some land ownership procedures/processes required, depending on how the developer
projected to go, would depend on when it would be turned over.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 9
Jill Jordan, Interim Director for Water/Wastewater Utilities stated that the plans were submitted
today. The sanitary sewer system would be private and go to a lift station. There was an existing lift
station serving Camping World that was in the access to the property and would have to be relocated.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Jeff Carroll, Tartan Industries, stated that yesterday he received a notice from residents who were
well outside the 200 feet notice area, that they had a number of concerns regarding the proposal.
Earlier in this meeting, the petitioner had requested the opportunity to continue to talk with these
individuals who were not part of the immediate notice area. Manufactured housing was the fastest
growing sector in the U.S. housing market. The key point in manufactured housing was affordability.
The lack of affordable housing was a growing problem in the country and this was the first step up
the housing ladder. This was a five to ten year build out with approximately 50-100 lots per year
being developed. The project met or exceeded all requirements of City code. All homes must be
vinyl or wood sided with composition roofs. The homes must be owner occupied and not rented. If
an individual did not follow the rules and regulations, he could be evicted. An impact analysis that
was included in the back-up materials indicated that the proposal would not negatively impact
neighboring property.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if the petitioner had had a meeting with neighbors outside the 200-foot
limit.
Carroll indicated that they had met with everyone within the 200-foot limit. Some neighbors, who
were surrounded by the proposal, would speak on their behalf. They had support letters from
adjacent neighbors who abutted or who were surrounded by the proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the rules and regulations of the petitioner were not part of the
specific use permit. It would be up to the company to enforce those regulations.
Carroll indicated that those could be incorporated into part or all of the zoning of the property.
Beth Cathey, Director of the Elizabethan Home, stated that she was in favor of the proposal. The
Elizabethan Home was a home for young unwed mothers. A very sensitive issue for them dealt with
their resident’s privacy. She felt Mr. Carroll had gone beyond what was required to accommodate
their need for privacy. They had consulted extensively with their real estate attorney about the issue
of lost property value and were satisfied with the information provided. She was supportive of the
proposal and felt that their needs and concerns had been addressed.
O’Neal Parker stated that his business was going to be moved to this location. He did not have any
problems with the project and felt it would be a good addition to the City’s affordable housing.
Dave Alley stated that his firm specialized in manufactured housing communities. This proposal
would be an asset to the City. All streets would be private but they would be 34 feet from the back of
the curb to asphalt and concrete curb and gutter would be designed to the exact specifications as city
streets. Water and sewer would be built to city standards and would be located underground. There
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 10
would be many recreational facilities within the community. He showed the amenities that would be
included in the proposal. They had requested a delay in the proposal to determine the problems with
the neighbors. The detention ponds could be sized larger to control the flow of the water and they
would work with staff to look at all drainage problems. All parking would be off-street parking.
Jack Hatchell stated that he performed a traffic analysis on the proposal. He performed his analysis
on a two-phase development with the majority of the lots being developed in the first phase. The
proposed development would generate during the p.m. peak hour, 224 trips and 1900 trips on a daily
basis. He had analyzed five intersections that would be impacted by the development and all of the
intersections were shown to operate satisfactorily with the majority of the traffic assigned to the I35
frontage road. This proposed development would generate less traffic than a traditional single family
development and less than the current zoning.
Council Member Durrance asked for an explanation of how it would generate less traffic than a
single-family development.
Hatchell stated that the Institute of Transportation Engineers handbook indicated that a trip
generation for a single family was 9.55 trips per day. For a manufactured home it was 4.81. This
proposal would not be developed as dense as a single-family development.
Steve Klutz, a real estate appraiser, stated that he had done an overview of what the effects this
particular project would have on surrounding property. He felt that some of the effects would be the
development of infrastructure, provide additional access to the area, and would compliment existing
residential development. He felt this property would not develop well as a commercial site as it was
too far off the road. The most important fact about manufactured homes was that it was a mixed use.
There would not be a negative impact on the surrounding property. Residential use was best use for
this property.
Bill Fines, Habitat for Humanity, stated that David Alley was known nation-wide for manufactured
housing communities.
Robert Rayner stated that entranceways were a strong topic on Council. The distance from the site to
I-35 was approximately 545 feet. This distance could be used as buffer between I-35 and the project.
This could be a buffer of distance and one for a visual purpose. The entire property would have a
six-foot buffer fence around it plus the visual buffer that was natural on the site. He had met with
DISD officials who were pleased that the proposal was in the northwest quadrant of city as it was the
least populated. If the Council felt that the project did not merit approval because of drainage or
traffic, Mr. Carroll should be allowed to talk with the citizens in the area of Ranch Estates.
Richard Hayes stated that he had reviewed the proposal with the city ordinance and the Denton
Development Plan for compliance. He felt that full compliance with the ordinance had been met, as
was the intent of the Denton Development Plan. The owner had shown openness, willingness and
cooperation with the neighbors and staff. One of the goals of the Denton Development Plan was to
provide the opportunity for diversified housing with emphasis for low to moderate-income levels.
Another goal was to promote development of an urban center in the northwest. The project
requested a special use permit to allow manufactured housing in a light industrial zone. In a low
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 11
intensity area, a special use permit was needed, as currently there was no manufactured housing
subdivision zoning. This low intensity area was designed primarily for single family residential
development that this development was. Four factors were relevant for low intensity areas (1)
purpose and intent to emphasize residential use which the property did, (2) location – the location
was within a low intensity area; (3) size and intensity – it was recommended that a project be less than
640 acres with 60 trips per day per acre with this proposal having only 23 trips per day per acre; (4)
diversity and neighborhood protection – the proposal maintained the character of the area with
architectural design and landscaping. The project met the traffic design requirements. The density
and intensity standard had not been violated. The requirement for green space was 8% and the
proposal had 8.5%. People within the 200-foot notification area and some outside that area had been
met with and he felt that virtually all of their concerns had been met. One additional consideration
was that there be a concentration of not more than 200 units, which was advisory and not mandatory.
He felt the proposal met that intent as the project was low intensity and the green space area was
25% more than what was required. Traffic was 62% below current recommended standards.
Whatever traffic impact the subdivision might have, it was substantially less than the traffic impact a
light industrial development use would have. The proposed use was less intense than any other use
allowed in light industrial zoning. The proposal was totally consistent with the Denton Development
Plan and was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff.
Council Member Kristoferson asked why Hayes had not encouraged the petitioners to meet with
more of the neighbors prior to this meeting.
Hays indicated that he was not aware of objections. As the owner moved through the process over a
number of months, there had been much discussion at the staff level without any negative feedback.
There was some discussion when the 200-foot notice went out but nothing major. It was his
understanding that the project was relatively well publicized. He felt a newspaper article brought
people to this meeting. The petitioner did notify people outside the city limits and outside the 200-
foot area.
Jim Poirot stated that he represented the citizens in Ranch Estates. He presented a petition to Council
with over 100 signatures against the proposal. They were concerned about drainage, traffic, crime,
beauty in Denton, and traffic on Highway 380. Ranch Estates residents within 200 feet of the
proposal were not notified of the project. There was no information in the newspaper about this
development. Two residents in Ranch Estates were not notified. He felt that this looked like a back
door attempt to get this project approved before area residents found out about the proposal. The
path of least resistance for southbound traffic was over the railroad track as that was the only
southbound exit in that area. The tracks were very dangerous.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that if this project were not granted, the zoning would remain light
industrial.
Poirot stated that he would prefer that to manufactured housing
Council Member Cochran asked Poirot to characterize the current drainage situation.
Poirot stated that there were several problems in Ranch Estates among which were the amount of
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 12
water, the movement of water into Ranch Estates and the movement of water out of Ranch Estates.
The water currently did not go underground but went through yards. The biggest problem was how
to get the water out of Ranch Estates.
E. R. Milner stated that the definition of manufactured housing was that it moved around on wheels
but this was still a trailer park. In recent years the City had bad experiences with trailer parks. He
was concerned about crime associated with the proposal as the highest area of crime was in trailer
parks. Renters in low-income housing were usually transient with no commitment to the community.
This area was on the northern edge of an entrance to Denton. When there were 400 plus housing
units in an area, they would still be able to be seen from the highway.
Ed Gonzalez stated that he was representing several families in his area. He just learned about the
plan on the weekend and felt there should have been more information about this proposal. He was
opposed to project because of entranceways, lower property values of homes near the project, more
children in area schools, an increased student population and student ratio. The petitioners had
presented a weak argument for a project that had no merit. He was strongly opposed to this project.
Bregg Smith felt that this was not the best use of the property. Traffic was a concern with the
increase of residents in the area. He was also concerned about the drainage associated with the
proposal. There was an increase in crime associated with mobile home parks. He felt the petitioners
needed to look for a better location for drainage, etc.
Sandi McDonald-West stated that there was a problem with drainage in the area. The proposal
would only add to that problem. She hoped that the Council would oppose the project.
Mike Whitten stated that a statement had been made that Marshall Road was a private road. That
road had been there a long time and had been used a long time by members of the public. He doubted
that that road could be abandoned or dedicated. If it were available to be used, it would be used. He
was concerned about the notice situation. Individuals within 200 feet but not in the City limits were
just as much of a concern. He was not sure that that was following the statutes. There was at least
one resident of Ranch Estates within 200 feet of the proposal who did not receive notice. That
resident was against the proposal that could be a basis for a legal challenge. The Council needed to
consider the effect on existing neighborhoods.
Bob Hailey stated that he was concerned about traffic in the area with the proposal. He felt there
would be a lot more congestion on Mesa Drive with this proposal.
J. A. Miller stated that he owned 12 acres in front of the proposal. He was concerned about the
development going in behind this property. He asked the Council to deny the proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if Miller would prefer the light industrial zoning rather than this
proposal.
Miller stated correct. He would like houses developed but would take light industrial over this
proposal.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 13
Carolyn Smith stated that she was concerned about flooding in the area and the effect the proposal
would have on that drainage. She felt that the proposal would contribute to the drainage problems in
the area.
Ken Koelln stated that he was concerned about the lack of notice of the proposal. He felt there
should have been more notice on the project. The project would have a negative impact on the
schools.
Council Member Beasley stated that staff had followed the city and State rules and regulations of
notification.
Webb Golston stated that an article in the Denton Record-Chronicle indicated that the proposal
would result in approximately $625,000 annually in city/school property taxes. He presented figures
regarding the cost of educating students in an area.
Steve Deck stated that he was in opposition to the proposal zoning change. He was concerned about
the excess water runoff and increased traffic on Highway 380. There were drainage problems when
there were heavy rains. If the area behind his home were paved, the drainage tanks would fill quickly
and cause flooding. It was difficult to envision what all the new homes in that area would do to the
quality of life. The proposal was not consistent with the area. He asked for a denial of the proposal.
Roy Metzler stated that he had a problem with the traffic in the area. Camping World serviced many
large vehicles that traveled on the service road and the impact it had on that road. There were many
trucks in the area that only added to the problem.
John Williamson stated that the residents should have been better notified of the proposal. Drainage
in the area was a problem and that should be considered. He wanted to keep the zoning light
industrial.
Roland Payne stated that he owned property across from this proposal and he was not notified about
the proposal. He used the frontage road to go to the hospital and Highway 380 and the service road
was very dangerous.
Mark Moynagh stated that he lived within the city limits and did not receive notification from the
Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the proposal. He became aware of the proposal from his
neighbors. He felt this proposal would have a devaluation of his property. Traffic would also be a
problem. This project would not be a benefit to the community and asked the Council to vote against
the proposal.
Jim McKissach stated that he was opposed to the proposal as it would negatively affect the property
value of his home.
Charles McAdams stated that he had a concern regarding the traffic and congestion with the
ambulances going to the hospital.
Edward Coomes stated that the application for a specific use permit pointed to difficulties in Denton.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 14
His opposition to the proposal included (1) neighborhood integrity - Council had always been
dedicated to the integrity of neighborhoods. Ranch Estates was an established neighborhood and
merited the support of the Council. (2) Congestion and flooding - Denton had a flooding problem
and the addition of this proposal would contribute to the problem in the area. (3) Denton needed to
pay attention to the development plan which being developed. He asked for denial of the proposal.
Sherrie Baker stated that there were not many homes in Ranch Estates and many of the residents
were long term residents. Traffic in the area was horrible with gravel trucks and other large trucks.
She had heard two different stories regarding the closing of Marshall Road. The railroad tracks
would be a safety hazard for the children in the area. There also needed to be a consideration of the
holding ponds and safety for children.
Paul Carr stated that he had purchased his home due to the beauty and openness of the area. Council
could reject this proposal based on a limit of 200 homes on a site. This was not something that the
Council could overlook. There was something wrong with the figures presented by the petitioner.
Peggy Poirot stated that they were not notified about the proposal. She would have come to the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting if they had been notified about the proposal. She asked
Council to deny the proposal.
Harold McReynolds stated Ranch Estates was a great neighborhood and that there was very little
crime in the area.
Kathleen Eiland stated that she had concerns about drainage in the area. Traffic was a problem and
vehicles would have to exit south. She knew that the City had recommended that the petitioner
contact the Ranch Estates residents which they did not do. She did not feel this was a good plan for
Denton.
Robbie Heldman stated that as a resident of Ranch Estates she had concerns about drainage but her
biggest problem was traffic. There were health care facilities in the area, which were opposed to the
proposal. Road traffic on Mesa Drive was already at a maximum.
Reed McDonald presented a video of the area.
Edward Tally stated that there were many medical facilities in the area that might be impacted by the
proposal. There was no mention of emergency vehicles in the traffic study. There were 18 mobile
home parks in the general area with 14 listed with Denton addresses. There was plenty of low income
housing in Denton and more was not needed.
Robert Harris stated that he owned property near the proposal. His concerns included (1) the mobile
home park would be platted as one large lot and asked that the special use permit not allow any future
subdivision of the property or selling of individual lots, (2) the developer was a reputable property
manager and would manage the park according to their restrictions but if Tarton would sell the park,
there was no guarantee the new owner would follow the prior regulations; and (3) he suggested
putting the restrictions in the deed or ordinance. He did not want the city in the future to determine
that a mistake had been made and use this property to correct that mistake. He urged the City to
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 15
require a dedication of a public utility easement for the extension of lines.
The petitioner was allowed a three minute rebuttal. He stated that he had encountered this type of
opposition all over the country where he built these communities. There were existing traffic
problems and drainage problems in the area. The lower intensity use eliminated additional traffic. He
felt if given the opportunity to speak with the residents, many of the problems would be corrected.
The overwhelming majority of the individuals who spoke were outside the 200-foot limit. The
proposal complied with the letter of the law in all aspects. He requested the opportunity to deal with
the residents and their concerns.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that some of the back-up materials presented by the petitioner indicated
figures for tax benefits. She did not feel the figures were as high as projected by the petitioner.
Council Member Cochran stated there were many important issues that were presented for drainage,
traffic, and safety. He felt that the infrastructure would not support the proposal. Traffic would not
support the road system. He cautioned the neighbors about being comfortable with light industrial
zoning, as it might be a gamble. There were many issues in light industrial that they might not be
comfortable with.
Cochran motioned, Kristoferson seconded to deny the proposal.
Council Member Young stated that he was in favor of affordable housing but not at any cost. He
asked whose responsibility it was to get the notice within 200 feet.
Hill stated that the Planning staff was responsible for the 200-foot notice. Staff checked the tax rolls
to determine those properties within 200 feet of the proposal. They then located the mailing address
and the name of the owner of the property. He had heard several comments from residents who felt
they should have been notified. The law indicated a 200-foot notice.
Council Member Young felt that staff was negligent with the notice requirements. He had not heard
any speaker talk about a neighborhood meeting called by the City.
Hill stated that the City’s ordinance indicated that neighborhood meetings were encouraged but they
could not force the petitioners to do so.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager stated that of the public that spoke indicating no notice, one
individual indicated that he had not received a notice which was sent but that individual also indicated
that he did not always received mail. Even with that, there still was not enough opposition for the
20% rule. Eleven notices were mailed. Two or three of those were improperly mailed because they
were owners within 200 feet but outside the city limits.
Council Member Young stated that he had three problems with the proposal. One was the
intersection of I35 and Mesa. The second was the closing of the road where the railroad track was
located. That should be done. The third was the detention ponds. There was always a flood problem
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 16
in that area. He felt that the only thing that would help the flooding was a detention pond that could
handle a large heavy rain.
Council Member Durrance stated that the proposal had to be looked at as to how it was going to
affect the community. This debate showed the need for a revision of the Denton Development Guide.
He was concerned about the property. He was concerned about the traffic study and the
infrastructure in the area. This was a question of quality of life and a question of community.
Council Member Beasley stated that she had a problem with the petitioner not meeting with neighbors
in the Ranch Estates area. The proposal was inconsistent with the Denton Development Plan
regarding the number of units in the proposal. The drainage problem was also not settled in her mind.
Council Member Kristoferson stated that she seconded the motion because she felt a public meeting
called at this point in time would not resolve the differences. There was no opposition to light
industrial zoning but rather than to the proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that there was a need for diversity of housing in the community but that
the City did not have to provide all that the market could bear. There was a need to keep light
industrial for a tax base. The many perceptions of the proposal were important to the development.
Mayor Miller stated that there were several comments made about staff. The terms of notification
were state law. Staff could not force a developer to meet with neighbors although it was encouraged.
On roll vote to deny the proposal, Beasley “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”,
Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
15. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance to rezone 1.32
acres from the Planned Development 6 (PD-6) zoning district to the Light Industrial conditioned
(LI[c]) zoning district. The subject tract was located on the northeast side of Colorado Boulevard at
San Jacinto Boulevard. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 7-0.)
Council Member Beasley stated that she had filed an affidavit to abstain from this issue.
Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this was an application from the United
States Post Office. The proposal was consistent with the Denton Development Plan in a high
intensity area. No neighborhood meeting was held. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval. The property was already platted and a building permit would be the next
stage in development. Forty five uses permitted in light industrial zoning were omitted from the
proposal.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
David Walls stated that the building would be approximately 2200 square feet. The parcel was had a
split zoning situation with part of the property zoned light industrial and part zoned planned
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 17
development. It was requested to change the zoning to one type in order to build a post office on the
site.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 6 (PD-6) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
CONDITIONAL (LI[c]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 1.32 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COLORADO
BOULEVARD, AT SAN JACINTO BOULEVARD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance with the conditions as indicated in the
back-up material. On roll vote, Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”,
Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
16. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance to approve the
detailed plan for 4.729 acres located in the Planned Development 42 (PD-42) zoning district. The
subject property was located on the east side of Mayhill Road, south of McKinney Street, at Gayla.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 7-0.) (Z-97-022)
Dave Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this project was requesting approval of
the detailed plan to allow for an industrial park. The proposal would construct a building in Phase I
to allow for the relocation of a publishing company. The preliminary plat had been approved and the
th
final plat was scheduled for consideration at the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 11.
There was a need for perimeter street paving, extension of water lines, construction of sidewalks,
drainage improvements, and fire hydrant standards for light industrial zoning.
Council Member Kristoferson asked about the size of signs that would be allowed.
Hill stated that a ground sign would be allowed up to 60 square feet.
Council Member Kristoferson asked what exterior materials would be used.
Hill stated that that was not known at this point in time.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Wayne Allen stated that the exterior of the building would be metal.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 18
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-019
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL
OF A DETAILED PLAN FOR A 4.729 ACRE TRACT CONTAINED IN PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT NO. 42 AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAYHILL ROAD,
SOUTH OF MCKINNEY STREET, AT GAYLA; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
17. The Council considered approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing
participation by the City of Denton and the Texas Department of Transportation in the Innovation
Finance Program to install security items at the Denton Municipal Airport; and declaring an effective
date.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that the Texas Department of
Transportation received $1 million to use for airport projects. They decided to look at safety and
security issues. This proposal would install two security gates at the airport. One was required by a
lease. The second was an entrance to the FBO AirDenton. The funding was a 25% match and would
cost $3,000. $2,000 would be from routine maintenance and $1,000 from the City Manager.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R98-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING
PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN THE INNOVATION FINANCE PROGRAM TO INSTALL
SECURITY ITEMS AT THE DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Cochran motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
18. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing
the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 19
Independent School District for the construction and implementation of a wide-area network;
authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date.
Sharon Mays, Director for Electric Utilities, stated that this project would provide the DISD with
a fiber optic system.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-020
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON
AND THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A WIDE-AREA NETWORK; AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Cochran motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
19. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving retail base rate reductions for
Texas Utilities Electric Company; providing an effective date therefore; approving a most favored
nation provision; ratifying and confirming the action of City staff and the City’s outside legal counsel
in intervening in Public Utility Commission of Texas Docket No. 18490; finding and determining that
the meeting at which this ordinance is passed is open to the public as required by law.
Sharon Mays, Director for Electric Utilities, stated that the ordinance would approve the rate
reduction proposed by the Texas Utilities Electric Company. The City would receive the lowest rate
given to other municipalities.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-021
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING RETAIL BASE RATE REDUCTIONS FOR TEXAS
UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THEREFOR;
APPROVING A MOST FAVORED NATION PROVISION; RATIFYING AND
CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF CITY STAFF AND THE CITY’S OUTSIDE LEGAL
COUNSEL IN INTERVENING IN PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
DOCKET NO. 18490; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT
WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY
LAW.
Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 20
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
20. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance directing the publication of Notice of
Intention to issue Certificates of Obligation of the City of Denton; and providing for an effective date.
Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager for Finance, stated that this ordinance directed publication
of notice for the issuance of certificates of obligation in order to issue and open bids on April 7th.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-022
AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO
ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Durrance motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
21. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance directing the issuance and publication of
Notice of Sale of City of Denton General Obligation Bonds; and providing for an effective date.
Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager for Finance, stated that this ordinance would direct the
issuance and publication of notice for the general obligation bonds.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-023
AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
OF SALE OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Beasley motioned, Durrance seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
22. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance directing the publication of Notice of
Intention to issue City of Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds, and directing the issuance and
publication of Notice of Sale of said bonds; and providing for an effective date.
Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager for Finance, stated that this ordinance would allow for
notice of intent to issue utility system revenue bonds.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 21
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-024
AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO
ISSUE CITY OF DENTON UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, AND DIRECTING
THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SALE OF SAID BONDS; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “aye”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
23. The Council considered a request for a City Council determination that there has been a
substantial change in conditions in the area of Hickory Creek Road and Teasley Lane in a twelve-
month period to warrant a reconsideration of a prohibited rezoning request.
Dave Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that a letter had been received for
reconsideration of this case. The applicant started through Planning and Zoning for rezoning from
agriculture to single-family 7. There was a provision in the zoning ordinance that indicated if an
applicant voluntarily withdrew a zoning petition, it could not be reconsidered for twelve months if it
asked for a lesser type of zoning. The Council could, after finding that there had been a substantial
change in conditions in the area in a twelve month period, allow such a petition to be heard. The
original zoning was withdrawn from Council consideration which was a change from agricultural
zoning to single family 16. In this case the project was going SF-16 to SF-7 which was less
restrictive zoning. It was important to note that there were four properties that represented the
development activity in the area. There were River Oaks, Hickory Creek Ranch, Oak Park Village,
and the Ridgemont Addition. If Council determined that conditions had changed due to the platting
activity in the vicinity, it could allow the applicant to enter into review process before May 15th.
Council Member Kristoferson asked why the sense of urgency and not wait until May.
Hill stated that this case was withdrawn originally because of financial reasons. It had favorable
review comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member Kristoferson felt that conditions had changed but for the worse. There were too
many proposed homes in the area.
Brock motioned, Kristoferson seconded to deny the request. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “nay”, Durrance “aye”, Young “nay”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.
24. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the
City Manager to execute a professional services contract between the City of Denton and Alan
Plummer Associates, Inc. for the Cooper Creek Lift Station and Wastewater Collection System
Improvements Evaluation in the amount of $84,370; and providing an effective date.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 22
Jill Jordan, Interim Director of Water and Wastewater Utilities, stated that the current lift station
had overflows with heavy rains. The purpose of the study was to determine the best method to
handle that problem.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 98-025
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DENTON AND ALAN PLUMMER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE
COOPER CREEK LIFT STATION AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,370; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Cochran motioned, Durrance seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”,
Kristoferson “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Young “nay”, Brock “aye”, and Mayor Miller
“aye”. Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
25. The Council considered nominations/appointments to City’s Boards and Commissions.
There were no nominations at this meeting.
26. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
City Manager Benavides did not have any items.
27. New Business
The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas:
A. Council Member Kristoferson requested revisiting the overlay zoning and thoroughfare
corridor issue time line possibilities
.
B. Council Member Young asked for staff to look at the street on the first track on
Prairie Street at Morrison Milling.
28. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551-071–551.085 of the Texas
Open Meetings Act.
29. 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 2:00 a.m.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
February 3, 1998
Page 23
____________________________
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
_________________________
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS