July 17, 2012 Minutes
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 17, 2012
After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall.
PRESENT: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor
Burroughs, Council Member Roden
ABSENT: Council Member Gregory, Council Member Engelbrecht
1. Citizen Comments on Consent Agenda Items
There were no citizen comments on the Consent Agenda items.
2. Requests for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for July 17, 2012.
City Attorney Burgess indicated that the Council had received a delivery from the Attorney’s
Office regarding documents pertaining to the trust associated with 4F.
City Manager Campbell stated that Items 5A and 5B had been postponed from a previous
meeting and with 2 council members absent, Council could decide whether to act on the items or
postpone them until the entire Council was present.
City Attorney Burgess stated that staff was completing a substitute ordinance for Council
consideration for Work Session Items 4 and 6A.
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff with direction regarding projects
recommended by the Citizens Bond Advisory Committee and bond proposition options
for the upcoming November 2012 bond election.
Bryan Langley, Chief Finance Officer, presented the details of the item. The Overview and
Purpose of the discussion was to (1) review the Citizens Bond Advisory Committee (CBAC)
process and bond program recommendations; (2) discuss bond proposition and ballot options; (3)
briefly discuss future bond program projects; and (4) review the upcoming bond program
calendar.
The CBAC was formed on April 3, 2012 to provide project recommendations for the November
2012 bond election. The bond program assumes no tax rate increase. The focus had been to
improve the worst streets in the community. A public information campaign was initiated in
May to solicit feedback from the community.
The CBAC presented a preliminary recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on
th
June 6th. On June 11 the CBAC voted to formally submit a $20.4 million bond program
recommendation to the City Council. $20 million would be for street reconstruction and $0.4
million was proposed for I-35 public art improvements. The CBAC recommended a single
ballot and bond proposition.
Council Member Roden questioned the recommendation for the single ballot and bond
proposition from the CBAC.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 2
th
Langley stated that at the June 11meeting, part of the motion to the City Council was for one
bond proposition.
Council Member Roden stated that last October, Council had talked about public art and
approved going ahead with the I35 project at that time. He questioned what the recommended
funding source for the project was at that time.
Langley stated that there no funding source identified at that time in October. Staff had provided
information on the intersections but not how the project would be funded.
Council Member Roden stated that in October possible partnerships for the North Texas Blvd.
area was mentioned and asked about the status of those discussions and possible funding from
Rayzor Ranch.
Langley stated that there were no options at this time from Rayzor Ranch or UNT.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that the Mobility Committee had looked at funding with TxDOT.
The Rayzor Ranch people were interested but she did not know anything about UNT. Currently
there was no funding for the city’s match for the improvements along I35.
Mayor Burroughs questioned if partners came into the projects that enhanced or provided
alternative funding and the City would not have to spend those funds, what would happen to
them.
Langley stated that the funding would not be issued until there was a project ready to use them
with an exact cost. One option would be to not issue the bonds if the funding was not needed.
Another option would be to construct other art improvements on different streets other than I35.
Mayor Burroughs stated that the concept was a balance between the ordinance and allocation of
the percentage and applying that to a situation with limited use.
Langley stated that the proposition options were public art related to street improvements.
Another option would be a separate proposition and ballot option that would not be tied to street
improvements. There was the possibility of another bond program in 2015-16 in which only a
portion of the dollars were spent and the rest combined with a project in a future bond program.
The bonds would not be issued until a project was ready to go.
Council Member Roden questioned if the Public Art Committee knew that the funds could be
used for other items if not tied to streets.
Langley replied correct that it had been discussed with the Committee and the bond counsel.
Langley continued with information regarding the bond ordinance. He stated that on August
th
14, Council would be asked to approve a bond ordinance which would formally set the bond
election on November 6, 2012 and establish specific bond proposition and ballot language. The
bond proposition language would be used in official city notices and the ballot language would
be provided in the voting booth. There were three bond proposition and ballot options.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 3
Option 1 - the bond proposition language would state that the bond proceeds would be used for
street improvements and related public art. Alternate 1 for the ballot language would state the
issuance of $20,400,000 of public securities for street improvements. Alternate 2 for the ballot
language would state the issuance of $20,400,000 of public securities for street improvements
and related public art improvements.
Option 2 – the bond proposition language would state that the bond proceeds would be used for
street improvement projects. The ballot language would indicate that the funds would be for the
issuance $20 million of public securities for street improvements and the bond ordinance would
have language that the bond proceeds would be used to fund up to $400,000 in public art related
to street improvements.
Option 3 – the bond proposition would have language with separate bond propositions which
would state that the bond proceeds would be used for street improvements and public art projects
that may be related to street improvements. The ballot language would indicate the issuance of
$20 million of pubic securities for street improvements and the issuance of $400,000 of public
securities for public art improvements.
Council Member Watts questioned the wording “related to street improvements" and what were
the parameters of that language.
Greg Schaecher, Bond Counsel, stated that Option 1 or 2 indicated that public art would be part
of a street improvement and not part of a new street or specific improvement on an existing street
such as landscaping or retaining wall art. It had to be a capital improvement but beyond that just
related to a street improvement in some manner.
Council Member Watts stated that it could not be a specific street project but tied with a street
such as a statue placed on a street just for aesthetics.
Schaecher stated that it could be a statue if it were part of a streetscape.
Council Member Watts stated that was fairly broad language.
Schaecher stated that the finding by Council when a project was approved would be that it was
part of a street improvement.
Council Member Watts questioned who could challenge that finding as to what was an
appropriate use of the funds.
Schaecher stated that a citizen could challenge the use of the funds.
Council Member Roden questioned what wording the voter would see when voting.
Schaecher stated that the voter would only see the ballot wording and not the wording in the
ordinance.
Council Member Roden questioned that when there was a larger bond program, how was that
divided and how specific was the wording.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 4
Schaecher stated that each proposition had to have a single purpose but it could be a broad
purpose with a single bond proposition for each program.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp felt that Option 2 was not acceptable. She questioned if the public art
could be used on the I35 project rather than on specific streets.
Schaecher stated that was correct.
Mayor Burroughs stated that he would not consider Option 2 or the Alternate 1 for Option 1.
Alternate 2 for Option 1 or Option 3 were acceptable. He questioned why Option 3 did not say it
was related to transportation.
Schaecher stated that language could be added to Option 3 but the intent was to have it as broad
a proposition as possible.
Mayor Burroughs asked why there was no allocation of funds for the two alternates for Option 1.
Schaecher stated that under the proposed language $20.4 million could be spent on anything
including public art. It would be up to the Council to determine how much would be spent on
each improvement. However, the wording could be clarified that $20 million would only be for
streets and $400,000 would only be for public art.
Mayor Burroughs asked if Council wanted to clarify how much for each, would that have to be
put in the language.
Schaecher stated that was correct or put it in a resolution listing the amounts to be designated.
That would then be contracted with the voters
Council Member King stated that he was not in favor Option 2. He was in favor of Option 1,
Alternate 2 as it would allow flexibility for cost sharing.
Council Member Roden stated that there would be official election notices with the public which
meant on some level it would be trying to sell a vision of the public art. He questioned if the
inclusion of an example of the panel to be considered on I35 would be considered a part of the
contract with the public and would the project then be locked into that design.
Schaecher stated that the notices would have to make it clear that it would be one thing being
considered. It would be worded as an example and not a definite project.
Council Member Roden stated that assuming this was a larger more comprehensive bond project
and public art were going to be included, would Schaecher recommend a separate proposition to
be voted on for public art or tie it into one of the projects.
Schaecher stated that would depend on what type of flexibility the Council would want on how
to spend the funding.
Langley stated that the next bond program would be much broader and could possibly have six
propositions on the ballot. Public art would have to be a component of each area or a separate
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 5
area. He stated that there would be a public information campaign with meetings to show what
was proposed with the public art and the streets to be reconstructed. Different groups in town
would be contacted for presentations about the proposals.
Council Member Watts stated that Council would have to decide on a general level how much
flexibility was wanted in the program. There was an underlying possibility that the public art
might not be approved with Option 3. By putting the propositions together it was forcing people
to make a decision for street and art if they were not in favor of art. His first thought was Option
3 so as to not disenfranchise people. He was not in favor of leaving Option 1 open ended. The
wording should be up to the $400,000 amount and made as tight as possible so that future
councils could not change it. His struggle was whether to have one ballot proposition or not. He
questioned if there was a way to break it down and give parameters in the language to define the
dollars for each one and still have one proposition.
Schaecher stated that wording such as “$20.4 million with no more than $400,000 for related
public art” could be used.
Council Member Watts stated that if the Council wanted flexibility Option 3 should be used but
if less flexibility was wanted, then use Option 1. He stated that he would want to give as much
information to the voters and as many choices to voters so his preference would be with Option
3. It was the cleanest ballot proposition and did not force a voter to choose something he/she
might or might not agree with.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that the Bond Committee had these types of discussions. She felt
the intent of the funding resolution for public art was to provide money on public art and allow
Council to determine the funding mechanism. She was in favor of Option 1, Alternate 2. The
Bond Committee had a unanimous vote for one proposition.
Langley stated that the Committee did not look at these specific three options. They had generic
Options 1 or 2.
Council Member Watts stated that the intent was to provide a mechanism for funding and he was
hearing that the intent was to guarantee in a bond proposition funding for public art or to get as
close as possible to provide funding for public art and to find a mechanism to do that. The intent
was to not put before the voters but to have it a part of a bond election.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp felt that the intent of the funding resolution would need to be vetted after
this election was completed. Council needed to come up with a way for the funding but
something that was not an absolute. There was always the intent to have it in front of the public.
She questioned if Alternate 2 could have more specific language be clear that it was for public
art.
Langley stated that wording might be “the issuance of $20.4 million of public securities for street
improvements with up to $400,000 for public art”.
Mayor Burroughs suggested “with the public art component not to exceed $400,000.”
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 6
Tim Crouch, Chair of the Citizens Bond Advisory Committee, stated that the wording of the
proposition was a Council decision. The intent of the Committee was for a single proposition
that combined a street component with the public art.
Council Member Roden felt that there was one member of the Committee against keeping the
propositions together and asked what was the last vote.
Crouch stated that he did not remember any adamant opposition and did not remember a vote
against the wording.
Mayor Burroughs stated that he was in favor of Option 1, Alternate 2 with the revised wording as
he felt that was what the Committee recommended.
Council Member King stated that he was in favor of Option 1 with the Alternate 2 wording.
Council Member Roden stated that he was in favor of Option 1, Alternate 2 because of the
Committee.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that there would be public hearings, public meetings and a lot of
public education on the issue.
Langley confirmed that Council wanted to proceed with Option 1 with Alternate 2 language to
state $20.4 million for street improvements and a related public art component with the public art
component not to exceed $400,000.
Langley presented information on future bond program projects. The next voter approved bond
program was planned for 2015-16 and would assume no tax rate increase. However, there were
more immediate needs identified which may require a tax increase. Fire Station 4 required a
substantial building modification to store a new piece of apparatus. Other significant building
issues had been identified at Stations 2 and 3. An additional bond election may be recommended
in 2013. Further details on these potential projects would be presented in future work session
items.
4.Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding amending the
Denton Development Code by adding Fraternity or Sorority House, Dormitory,
Conference/Convention Center, Distribution Center/Warehouse (General) and
Warehouse (Retail) as land uses in Subchapter 35.5, by removing Distribution Center
and Warehouse Storage and Distribution as land uses in Subchapter 35.5, by removing
language regarding minimum residential lot size and adding language regarding
maximum persons occupying a dwelling in Subchapter 35.12, by amending the parking
requirements for fraternity or sorority houses, boarding houses, and dormitories in
Subchapter 35.14, by adding definitions for Conference/Convention Center, Distribution
Center/Warehouse (General), Warehouse (Retail), Fraternity, and Sorority in Subchapter
35.23, and by revising the existing definitions of Family, Dormitory, Accessory
Dwelling, Duplex, Manufactured Home, Mobile Home, Multi-Family Dwelling, Single-
Family Detached Dwelling, Single-Family Attached Dwelling, Dwelling/Dwelling Unit,
Efficiency Dwelling Unit, and Fraternity or Sorority House in Subchapter 35.23. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0).
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 7
Ron Menguita, Development Review Liaison, presented the proposed changes. Subchapter 35.5
of the Denton Development Code (DDC) provided a list of land uses by zoning district. While
the DDC provided definitions for fraternity or sorority house, and dormitory, these were not
included on the list of land uses in 35.5 and therefore were not allowed within any zoning
district. The DDC also did not provide a definition for Conference/Convention Center,
Distribution Center/Warehouse (General) or Warehouse (Retail) nor were these uses currently
allowed.
th
Following the Council’s direction from the June 20 meeting, staff was recommending the
following amendments: Conference/Convention Center definition would state “a facility with a
capacity of greater than 1,000 seats used for conferences, conventions, seminars or similar
functions”.
Mayor Burroughs asked if there were any zoning districts where these facilities would not be
allowed.
Menguita stated that DC-G had been designated as a location. They were also permitted in
regional centers and in EC-C. There were opportunities for placement in various areas.
Mayor Burroughs questioned what would have to be done if a facility wanted to build on the
edge of the city and what would have to be done to get in a different zoning area.
Menguita stated that if it were in an area where the use was not permitted, a comprehensive plan
amendment and a zoning change amendment would have to be done. With the upcoming
comprehensive plan update, staff could look at those areas where a change might be made to
allow these facilities.
Menguita continued with Warehouse (Retail) changes. IC-3 and IC-G zoning categories were
added to allow these with a specific use permit in these categories. Prior to the proposed change
it was not permitted in those zoning categories.
Menguita stated that the definition of “family” was amended to read “one or more persons
related by blood, marriage or legal adoption.” He listed the uses that were exempted from the
requirement of no more than 4 unrelated persons residing in a location.
Council Member Watts questioned which would be controlling for 4 or family which could be 5.
Jerry Drake, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the prosecutor would have to figure out how to
charge the offence. It might be different for different circumstances.
Mayor Burroughs asked the definition for boarding house.
Menguita stated that definition would be brought to Council at a later date. He noted that the
definition of fraternity was changed to delete the last sentence relative to females. Future code
amendments would include specific institutional uses, manufacturing and retail.
Council Member Watts questioned if the definition of duplex would only apply to new
construction.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 8
Menguita stated that it was for new construction and that current duplexes would be
grandfathered.
5.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction with regard to possible route
and scoping adjustments to the Bonnie Brae Road Widening and Improvements project.
Frank Payne, City Engineer, presented the current layout of the project per the Advanced
Funding Agreement (AFA) with the State and the funding amounts per source by fiscal year.
The AFA included roughly $48.7 million for construction of the entire project and $57.7 million
overall. The most current cost estimate for improvements from Vintage Blvd. to IH35E was $38
million. Right-of-way costs, construction through UNT and other factors for the project were
expected to exceed the preliminary amounts. Not all of the resultant costs were known to date.
Residents south of Vintage opposed the roadway widening. Denton County Precinct 4
Commissioner Andy Eads was also opposed to the removal of the existing road improved by the
County between Vintage and U. S. Highway 377. The Mobility Committee endorsed the current
route at its December 14, 2010 meeting. They also discussed the possible inclusion of Vintage
Blvd. into the project with a possible removal of the expansion of Bonnie Brae south of Vintage
if the project could not support the initial scope and the inclusion of Vintage. The most current
estimate for construction cost on Vintage from IH35W to U. S. Highway 377 was approximately
$8.7 million. Denton County Trip ’08 program included a projected cost for the same stretch of
Vintage at $7.5 million with half provided by the City and half by Denton County Precinct 2.
The city’s share in the overall project costs for Vintage expansion was equal to the total costs
minus Denton County contribution, or approximately $5 million.
A key factor affecting construction of the roadway through UNT was the hydraulic constraints of
the railroad bridge which caused flooding on campus. The only way to get adequate capacity to
achieve a 100 year design on the roadway was to pay $1-2 million to improve the bridge. This
would directly benefit UNT Eagle Point campus. The City should be able to cover these costs
with interest income and other savings on the project.
Staff had looked at the possibility of improving Bonnie Brae north of IH35E to U. S. Highway
380 with the remaining funds. A preliminary opinion of probable costs for the widening of
Bonnie Brae over this stretch was approximately $27.2 million which far exceeded the $14.7
million available.
Options were to (1) authorize the use of remaining funds to offset City funding on Vintage
widening, to widen Bonnie Brae from U. S. Highway 380 to just north of Scripture and to
purchase all right-of-way needed for widening between IH35E and just north of Scripture or (2)
decline to authorize the use of the funds as recommended. The staff recommended the use of the
remaining funds to offset City funding on Vintage widening, to widen Bonnie Brae from U. S.
Highway 380 to just north of Scripture and to purchase all right-of-way needed for widening
between IH35E and just north of Scripture. The next steps in the process were reviewed.
Mayor Burroughs suggested qualifying the direction by adding public input regarding the
proposal before the City was obligated to spend the funds.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the application for change per the staff
recommendation.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 9
6.Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the creation of a
Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone for approximately 700 acres of land located north of
Airport Road in the City's industrially zoned area.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated that Rayzor Investments, property
owners of approximately 700 acres of industrially zoned land north of Airport Road, requested
the City consider forming a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) to help fund needed
infrastructure. The Westpark Industrial Park was approximately 700 acres of developable
industrial land that was included in the City's CH-EDD area located near the Denton Airport and
was under one property ownership.
The following infrastructure was needed in the area: (1) all existing sites required some form of
infrastructure improvement, (2) Western Blvd was two lanes, (3) Jim Christal was two lanes, (4)
Precision Drive needed to be extended to two lanes, (5) all utilities along Western Blvd., Jim
Christal, and Precision needed water, sewer and drainage. The property owners were proposing
a partnership of four lanes on Western Blvd., additional two lanes on Jim Christal and extend
two lanes on Precision to go to Oak Street.
A TIRZ was a district where public infrastructure was needed. Incremental increases in property
tax revenue were allocated to pay for the infrastructure. Taxing entities may contribute all or a
portion of the incremental revenue to the TIRZ.
The proposed TIRZ was for a 20-25 year term with 40-45% City and County participation.
There would be an additional incentive to the land owner for the location of large CHP
customers. There was an impact of tax incentives to locating companies shared by the property
owner and the taxing entities. A review of the revenues of a 40% of the TIRZ and the
cumulative totals at 20 years was presented.
The next steps necessary were Council direction on whether or not to move forward, a discussion
with the County, a recommendation from the Economic Development Partnership Board and the
creation of the TIRZ by December 2012.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that Council was not making a decision at this time but was just
making an initial contact for a contract.
Consensus of the Council was to bring back a formal recommendation.
7.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding adoption of an
ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, revising the fats, oils, and grease control
provisions contained in Chapter 26 of the Denton Code of Ordinances, relating to
"Utilities," and hereby repealing Sections 26-190 and 26-191 of the Denton Code of
Ordinances; and hereby adopting Article XII - Liquid Waste, Divisions 1, 2, 3, and 4.
PS Arora, Assistant Director of Wastewater, stated that fats, oils and grease (FOG) were a major
contributor to Sanitary Sewer Overflows during dry weather conditions and contributed to
preventive maintenance costs for the City. The proposed requirements were focused on the
generators and transporters of the FOG. The main focus of a FOG control program was to
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 10
prevent the pollutants from entering the sanitary sewer. Prevention of FOG entering the sanitary
sewer reduced the need to employ costly reactive approaches.
Heather Goins, Pretreatment Program Manager, reviewed the FOG program elements of
inspections, plan review and design criteria, information management, legal authority and public
education. Staff presented to the Public Utilities Board the draft proposed changes in January.
PUB recommended a public meeting with a focus group prior to a public meeting and bring
comments to them from both meetings. Two public meeting were conducted and were
advertised by various methods. She reviewed the attendees of the meetings and the questions
that were raised. The car wash owners requested to revisit the maintenance frequency for car
washes and staff agreed to do a sampling at the car washes.
Mayor Burroughs suggested looking at 26-308(3) and 26-308(5) to make sure that #5 did not
preempt #3 when dealing with the 180 day requirement for cleaning. He also asked about the
criminal element and the effective date being 15 days from the date of passage. He was
concerned about the time frame and felt it should have a longer time period until the effective
date.
Goins stated that staff was expecting 6 months to educate the owners. The enforcement response
plan was already in place.
Council asked clarifying questions regarding fees, renovations of a facility, enforcement on a
federal level, sanitary sewer overflows and changes in ownership of a facility.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the draft ordinance.
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Closed Session to
discuss the following:
1. Closed Meeting:
A. Deliberations regarding Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters –
Under Texas Government Code Section 551.086.
1. Receive a report from Denton Municipal Electric staff regarding certain
public power competitive and financial matters related to the Request for
Proposals No. 4859 issued by the City soliciting proposals for a solar-
generated energy facility or facilities for the City of Denton, Texas; and a
presentation on solar-generation facilities; discuss, deliberate and provide
staff with direction regarding such matters.
B.Consultation with Attorneys – Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071;
Deliberations regarding Real Property – Under Texas Government Code Section
551.072.
1.Discuss, deliberate and receive information from staff and provide staff
with direction pertaining to the potential purchase of a 2.0 acre tract, more
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 11
or less, located in the Hiram Sisco Survey, Abstract No. 1184, Denton,
County, Texas, and located generally at the corner of McKinney Street
and Oakland Street, City of Denton, Texas. Consultation with the City’s
attorneys regarding legal issues associated with the potential acquisition of
the real property described above where a public discussion of these legal
matters would conflict with the duty of the City’s attorneys to the City of
Denton and the Denton City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules
of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas, or would jeopardize the
City’s legal position in any administrative proceeding or potential
litigation.
2.Discuss, deliberate, and receive information from staff and provide staff
with direction pertaining to the potential purchase of certain real property
interests located (1) in the A. Tompkins Survey, Abstract No. 1246,
located generally in the 1800 block of South Bonnie Brae Street and the
2100 block of South Bonnie Brae Street; and (2) in the James Edmonson
Survey, Abstract No. 400, Denton County, Texas, located generally in the
3100 Block of Roselawn Street, all property interests within the City of
Denton, Texas. Consultation with the City’s attorneys regarding legal
issues associated with the potential acquisition of the real property
interests described above where a public discussion of these legal matters
would conflict with the duty of the City’s attorneys to the City of Denton
and the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional
Conduct of the State Bar of Texas, or would jeopardize the City’s legal
position in any administrative proceeding or potential litigation.
C. Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
1.Consult with the City's attorneys with regard to Item 5 A. on the City
Council's Agenda for July 17, 2012 as it concerns legal issues associated
with that item.
2.Consult with the City's attorneys regarding the present status of pending
litigation styled Linda Marie Casias Roth, et al v. City of Denton, Texas,
Cause No. 2012-60839-393, now pending before the 393rd Judicial
District Court of Denton County, Texas; and discuss, deliberate and
provide the City's attorneys with direction and any recommendations
regarding such legal matter. A public discussion of this legal matter would
conflict with the duty of the City's Attorneys to the City Council under the
Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of
Texas.
3.Consultation with Attorney for advice regarding the negotiation and
execution of a First Amendment to the Meet and Confer Agreement
between the City of Denton and Denton Police Officers Association with a
term of October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2014 that addresses
wages, hours and conditions of employment with uniformed officers of
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 12
the Denton Police Department; consultation with Attorney for advice
regarding meet and confer matters between the City of Denton and Denton
Fire Fighters Association, IAFF Local 1291.
D.Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations - Under Texas
Government Code Section 551.087; Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas
Government Code Section 551.071.
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the
creation of a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone for approximately 700
acres of land located north of Airport Road in the City's industrially zoned
area; discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information
that the City of Denton body has received from a business prospect that
the City of Denton body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near
the territory of the City of Denton and with which the City of Denton is
conducting economic development negotiations; deliberate the offer of a
financial or other incentive to a business prospect; where a public
discussion of these legal matters would conflict with the duty of the City's
attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Rules of Professional
Conduct of the State Bar of Texas.
Regular meeting of the City of Denton City Council at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
City Hall, 215 E. McKinney.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U. S. and
Texas flags.
1. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamations/Awards
1. Fred Douglass/Fred Moore Days
Mayor Burroughs presented the proclamation for Fred Douglass/Fred Moore Days.
3. CITIZEN REPORTS
A. Review of procedures for addressing the City Council.
B. Receive citizen reports from the following:
1. Megan Storie regarding Denton - beyond the coal.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 13
Ms. Storie presented information on moving from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy. She urged
the City to become sustainable and provide for clean air.
Council Member Roden questioned Ms. Storie for a date for 100% clean air.
Ms. Storie stated that she wanted Council to come up with a date.
Council Member Roden requested Ms. Storie provide Council with more data to assist them with
that decision.
2.Hatice Salih regarding lawsuits, certificates of obligation, and other
indebtedness.
Ms. Salih presented information on lawsuits, Certificates of Obligation and other indebtedness.
She mentioned the property owners who had filed a lawsuit against the City for utility work
along Bonnie Brae. She felt Certificates of Obligation should not be issued by DME and instead
should be issuing Revenue Bonds. She also spoke on indebtedness with TMPA and the amount
of money still owed.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Burroughs noted that Consent Agenda Item K was pulled and would be considered at a
later meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned, Council Member King seconded to approve the Consent
Agenda and accompanying ordinances and resolutions with the exception of Item K. On roll call
vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs,
and Council Member Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 2012-146
A. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee,
to submit a letter to the Texas Comptroller pursuant to the requirements of
Section 2206.101 of the Texas Government Code by informing the Comptroller
that the City of Denton is authorized by the state to exercise the power of eminent
domain and further stating each provision of law that grants the City eminent
domain authority; and providing an effective date.
Approved the minutes listed below.
B. Consider approval of the minutes of:
June 5, 2012
June 19, 2012
June 25, 2012
July 2, 2012
Resolution No. R2012-020
C. Consider approval of a resolution reappointing a member to the Board of
Directors of the Texas Municipal Power Agency, a joint powers agency,
representing the City of Denton, Texas; and declaring an effective date.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 14
Ordinance No. 2012-147
D. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee
to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Freese and Nichols,
Inc, for Engineering Services relating to the North-South Water Line Phases II
and III project; and providing for an effective date (File 4978-awarded to Freese
and Nichols, Inc. in the amount of $435,701). The Public Utilities Board
recommends approval (6-0).
Ordinance No. 2012-148
E. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting bids and awarding a public works
contract for the construction of the FM 2499 Utility Relocation project; providing
for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4957-
awarded to SMB Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $192,989). The Public
Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0).
Ordinance No. 2012-149
F. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the
execution of a First Amendment of Contract of Sale, by and between the City of
Denton ("City") and Marilyn Kaye Newland and William Edgar Summers and
Edna Auline Summers, Co-Trustees of the William Edgar Summers Family
Living Trust ("Sellers"), amending a Contract of Sale (herein so called)
contemplating the sale and purchase of fee simple to an approximate 0.1413 acre
tract located in the M.E.P. & P. Railroad Survey, Abstract Number 1473, known
as Lot 23, Block A, of Bellaire Crossing, in the City of Denton, Denton County,
Texas, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Cabinet W, Page 667, Plat
Records, Denton County, Texas, located generally along the north line of Paisley
Street, west of Pace Drive (the "Property"); and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2012-150
G. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the
execution of a Contract of Sale, by and between the City of Denton, Texas, as
Buyer, and Dewitt S. Davenport, as Seller (herein so called), regarding the sale
and purchase of fee simple to an approximate 0.2159 acre tract located in the
M.E.P. & P. Railroad Survey, Abstract Number 1473, Known as Lot 24, Block A,
of Bellaire Crossing, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, according to
the Plat thereof recorded in Cabinet W, Page 667, Plat Records, Denton County,
Texas, located generally along the North Line of Paisley Street, West of Pace
Drive (the "Property Interests"), for the purchase price of One Hundred and
Seventeen Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($117,000.00), and other
consideration, as prescribed in the Contract of Sale (the "Contract"), as attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A"; authorizing the expenditure of
funds therefore; authorizing relocation expenditures; and providing an effective
date.
Ordinance No. 2012-151
H. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving a First
Amendment to the Meet and Confer Agreement between the City of Denton and
the Denton Police Officers Association and providing an effective date.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 15
Ordinance No. 2012-152
I. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire (i) fee simple to a 1.52 acre tract; (ii) a utility and slope easement,
encumbering a 0.13 acre tract; (iii) a drainage easement, encumbering a 0.67 acre
tract; and (iv) a temporary construction, grading and access easement,
encumbering a 0.14 acre tract, all tracts located in the A.N.B. Tompkins Survey,
Abstract Number 1246, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more
particularly described on Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance and made a part
thereof, located generally in the 2100 block of South Bonnie Brae Street (the
"Property Interests"), for the public use of expanding and improving Bonnie Brae
Street, a municipal street and roadway; authorizing the City Manager or his
designee to make an offer to Milton B. Clearman and wife, Anita A. Clearman to
purchase the Property Interests for the purchase price of Two Hundred Twenty
Three Thousand Nine Hundred Six Dollars and No Cents ($223,906.00), and
other consideration, as prescribed in the Purchase Agreement, as attached to the
ordinance and made a part thereof as Exhibit "B"; authorizing the expenditure of
funds therefor; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2012-153
J. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire (i) fee simple to a 0.08 acre tract; (ii) a utility slope easement,
encumbering a 0.03 acre tract; (iii) a slope easement, encumbering a 0.01 acre
tract; and (iv) a temporary construction, grading and access easement,
encumbering a 0.01 acre tract, all tracts located in the A. Tompkins Survey,
Abstract Number 1246, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more
particularly described on Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance and made a part
thereof, located generally in the 1900 block of South Bonnie Brae Street (the
"Property Interests"), for the public use of expanding and improving Bonnie Brae
Street, a municipal street and roadway; authorizing the City Manager or his
designee to make an offer to Oren R. Thomas and Ruth A. Thomas, to purchase
the Property Interests for the purchase price of Twenty Thousand Six Dollars and
No Cents ($20,006.00), and other consideration, as prescribed in the Purchase
Agreement, as attached to the ordinance and made a part thereof as Exhibit "B";
authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date.
THIS ITEM WAS NOT CONSIDERED AND NOT APPROVED.
K. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, revising the fats,
oils and grease control provisions contained in Chapter 26 of the Denton Code of
Ordinances, relating to "Utilities," and hereby repealing Sections 26-190 and 26-
191 of the Denton Code of Ordinances; and hereby adopting Article XII - Liquid
Waste, Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 4; providing for the purpose and policy of the
ordinance; providing for the applicability and prohibitions of the ordinance;
providing for definitions promulgated in Section 26-153 of this chapter; providing
for other definitions; providing for installations of grease traps for new facilities
and existing facilities; providing for responsibilities of persons subject to the
ordinance; providing for the requirement of a permit; providing for manifest
requirements for persons who generate, collect, and transport grease interceptor
and grit trap/oil waste; providing for responsibilities for each grease interceptor or
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 16
grit-trap/oil separator that is pumped; providing for abatement of violations;
providing that the Assistant City Manager of Utilities may seek any and all
enforcement remedies necessary to ensure continued compliance; providing a
savings clause; providing a misdemeanor penalty not to exceed $2,000 per day for
violations of this ordinance; providing a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 per
day for violations of this ordinance, together with other designated legal and
equitable remedies that are available to the City; and providing for an effective
date. The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (5-0).
5. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
Ordinance No. 2012-154
A. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for an initial zoning district and use
classification of Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) and Neighborhood
Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) to approximately 33.1 acres of land and
the rezoning of approximately 3.7 acres of land from a Neighborhood Residential
6 (NR-6) zoning district and use classification to a NRMU-12 zoning district and
use classification; located at the southeast corner of McKinney Street and Mayhill
Road; and providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for
violations thereof, severability and an effective date. (Z11-0025) The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1). This item was postponed
from the June 5, 2012 City Council meeting.
Brian Lockley, DRC Administrator, presented the status of the site and reviewed the proposed
zoning request. The current property had four zoning districts and the proposed zoning was for
two zoning districts. The proposed zoning met the future land use map. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval as did staff.
Council Member Watts asked if multi-family would be allowed.
Lockley stated it would be allowed with a specific use permit.
Jimmy Wagner, 298 Carpenter Road, Denton, 76208 stated that he was opposed to the situation
with the traffic instead of opposition to possible apartments. Traffic was horrible in the area.
Larry Reichhart, representing the landowner, stated that a specific use permit provided another
layer of protection for multi-family should the property be developed with multi-family.
NRMU-12 had four different categories which allowed multi-family and they were in agreement
to make a specific use permit required for all four categories.
Council Member King stated that a traffic study was part of the specific use permit process and if
multi-family was desired, the traffic study would allow for that. He had a comfort level to do
traffic study and do adjustments for that.
Council Member Roden questioned when the traffic study was triggered in the process and when
it would be given a closer look.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 17
Lockley stated that whenever an application was made on the property the specific use permit
would have to demonstrate that it would meet all of the requirements. It would also include
density if capacity did not exist for the number of requested units and could be lowered.
Council Member Roden asked when the proposal could be denied before coming to Council due
to transportation.
Lockley stated that would occur at the Development Review Committee level. That was when
the first recommendation was done and would be a possible recommendation for denial.
Council Member Roden stated that if staff already said it was appropriate, why it would change.
Lockley stated that at this point, it was not known what would be submitted for the final usage.
Staff would look at the most intense use and combinations but that did not mean staff could not
change the recommendation. Staff would look at the impact on traffic and the ability to serve
water and sewer.
Council Member Watts stated that the staff report indicated that a Traffic Impact Analysis would
be required to determine current available capacity of both roadways. At this point in time, it
was not known if capacity was adequate until a specific project was proposed. The current
traffic situation was very difficult at certain times of the day. He questioned that with a specific
use permit and traffic impact analysis how much emphasis the time of day would have on the
analysis.
Lockley stated that the traffic study would consider a.m. and p.m. and the highest amount of
traffic at that time. Peak times were used for the analysis and those numbers would be used to
determine the level of service. A specific analysis of traffic would be done before consideration
of the specific use permit. The initial application would provide density and basic layout and
traffic would include number of bedrooms, layout, etc. for traffic.
Mayor Burroughs expressed a concern about ingress/egress on McKinney and asked about a
condition for a right in/right out only on McKinney to prevent traffic on McKinney until
McKinney expanded.
Lockley stated that a condition would be appropriate at the specific use permit level and not at
this zoning level.
Council Member King motioned to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Watts seconded the motioned with a friendly amendment that a specific use
permit would be required for all multi-family under the conditions within the L (4) limitation.
Council Member King indicated he would accept that amendment.
Council Member King motioned, Council Member Watts seconded to adopt the ordinance with
the amendment that a specific use permit would be required for all multi-family under the
conditions within the L (4) limitation. On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 18
Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Roden – “aye”.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, providing for a
zoning change from a Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) zoning district to a
Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district
classification and use designation subject to a restrictive overlay on
approximately 3.3 acres. The property is located east of Bell Avenue,
approximately 500 feet north of the northeast intersection of Sherman Drive and
Bell Avenue and is approximately 185 feet south of Sunrise Cove within the
City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; providing for a penalty in the maximum
amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof, severability and an effective date.
(Z11-0026) The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0).
This item was postponed from the May 15, 2012 City Council meeting.
Erica Marohnic, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the proposal. This proposal had
been before Council on several occasions. On April 17, 2012 Council directed staff to further
restrict the overlay district to remove all uses that could potentially be permitted with a specific
use permit within the proposed NRMU-12 zoning district and for staff to research the attributed
architect of the Fairhaven structures. The proposal was postponed to the May 15, 2012 Council
meeting. At that meeting the Council directed the applicant to meet with residents to reach a
common ground regarding the potential preservation of the Fairhaven Retirement Home as it
currently existed and the proposal was postponed to the July 17, 2012 meeting. The applicant
declined to hold another neighborhood meeting and instead proffered two additional conditions
of approval to address area resident concerns. The proposed conditions were that (1) the exterior
appearance of the structure would not be altered, excepting maintenance (including window
replacement) without Council approval; and (2) the height and exterior appearance of the
structure would not be altered, excepting maintenance (including window replacement) without
Council approval.
Council Member Roden asked about the mechanics of the latest conditions and if they would
come to Council as a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Marohnic stated that it would be an amendment to the restrictive overlay district.
Council Member Roden stated that the conditions were similar to conditions placed on a historic
landmark in terms of the exterior of the facility and questioned if that needed to come to Council.
Council Member Watts questioned if the property had changed hands again and if there were
different owners. He appreciated the recommendations made by the applicant.
Mayor Burroughs stated that he had concerns about the process and was trying to find another
option for the proposal. Currently if the zoning were denied, the zoning would remain RN-3.
The applicant could come back for another type of zoning or could bulldoze the property and
rebuild with single family homes. If the upzoning was approved, even though it was highly
restrictive, it could look like Council was giving something they might be opposed to. A third
option would be a tool to amend the Denton Development Code to allow Council another
alternative in situations where there were special exception uses. This situation was not foreseen
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 19
with the exception waived for six months because it was not used in that time frame so it could
not go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The current rules did not allow for such an option.
He had previously suggested the formation of a code amendment to allow Council the ability,
under certain circumstances, to extend the special exception. He asked where staff was in that
process and questioned if it would be worthwhile postponing the proposal further until that
option was available.
City Attorney Burgess stated staff was looking at the issue but at this point there was no tool to
do that.
Mayor Burroughs stated that it was a timing issue if a mechanism could be created to allow for
the continued use of Fairhaven or the NR-3 zoning.
Sean Thomas, 3708 Lakewood, Chicago, Illinois 60613, stated that he was one of the investors
in Greatvine Ministries. This was a group of 47 individuals who sought an investment and a
place for their parents and members to retire.
Mayor Burroughs asked if this was a time sensitive issue.
Thomas stated yes that delaying it again would put the investors in a bad predicament.
Larry Reichhart, representing the applicant, stated that the issue at the last meeting was the
architecture of the building which now was addressed with the use limitations and the proposed
conditions for the exterior. It was felt that the plans for the proposal would be brought forward
to Council if needed to be changed on the outside of the building. He felt that they had
addressed every issue stated at earlier meetings.
Council Member Roden felt that the additional conditions addressed the preservation issue and
the use issue had already been solved. He questioned if the conditions applied to all of the
structures on the property as he thought there were at least two structures on the property.
Reichhart stated that there was only one building on the property.
Council Member Roden asked if the conditions would apply to any exterior of the building,
Reichhart replied that it would apply to any portion of the exterior. He mentioned that another
alternative would be a planned development with a site plan but planned developments were not
an option at this time.
Dr. Rynell Novak, Chair of the Denton County Historical Commission, stated that as a
representative of the Denton County Historical Commission, their support related to the
historical value of the property. The conditions presented concerning the exterior and height of
the building sounded good and would preserve the historical nature of the facility.
Mayor Burroughs noted that Dr. Novak had marked her speaker card in opposition. If she
opposed the zoning request, no other use was allowed and the building could potentially be
bulldozed.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 20
Dr. Novak asked that her card be changed to show support for the proposal.
Council Member Watts asked if the property was still a Greatvine property.
Thomas stated that it was still in the same name.
Council Member Watts asked Thomas if he had held a neighborhood meeting in the time he was
here.
Thomas stated that he did not as he was living in Chicago. He did not think they would have
such a problem with the use.
Council Member Roden stated that past website postings indicated that the property was for sale
and that raised concerns about the real intentions of the investors.
Thomas stated that the lender required them to work to get the certificate of occupancy and also
to put the property on the market if that did not work. It was their intention was to go forward
and with Council approval have an assisted living facility for their members and for the Denton
community.
Comment cards were received from:
Beth Stribbling, 2018 Briar Hill Lane, Argyle, 76226 – in opposition
Carrie Ettredge, 606 Woodland, Denton, 76209 – in opposition
Brandt Davis, 1902 N. Bell, Denton, 76209 – in opposition
Gary Hayden, 2106 N. Bell, Denton, 76209 – in opposition
Council Member Roden stated that he was not sure that the neighborhood knew that the two
conditions were going to be presented. He was interested if Council would allow a
representative of the neighborhood to speak about the added conditions.
Mayor Burroughs stated that there was a very real concern of the neighborhood about removing
the overlay district which could possibly allow for a more intense use.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that the neighborhood and applicant wanted the same thing and that
everyone agreed about the use.
City Attorney Burgess stated that the Council, applicant and neighborhood desired not to destroy
the facility but rather preserve it and allow it to be used as it had been in the past.
City Manager Campbell suggested working with the City Attorney’s office to get to a resolution.
Council Member King stated that he was encouraged with the restriction of height and exterior
as proposed by the applicant. If there was a motion to postpone it would be a charge to
maintaining the agreement made regarding the keeping exterior and height the same and the use
the same. It would a very limited charge. He would support a postponement only with that
specific issue.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 21
Council Member Roden stated that right now, on the table, there were the most restrictive
conditions that would provide for the preservation of the building. He was not sure that with a
new tool those conditions would be the same and he did not want to lose what they had already
gained. There were two distinct issues - preservation and use. The historic community and what
was offered the neighborhood seemed to be in agreement about what was on the table.
Something else might not have the same conditions.
Mayor Burroughs stated that the only condition to consider was the tool to provide what was
being proposed except in a form for future cases.
Council Member Watts stated that the next time the Council met on this issue, a method would
have been devised to retain the NR-3 zoning, restore the permitted use, retain the two proposed
conditions and the only reason Council would be looking at it again was because of some fear to
untie the knot on NRMU zoning instead of staying in a legal non-conforming use.
Mayor Burroughs stated that staff might not have a better answer than what was in front of them.
Council Member Watts questioned if there was an opportunity to go to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment to restore the use.
Mayor Burroughs replied yes but under the circumstance there was no wavier in the use.
Council Member Watts questioned if there was a way Council could alter the procedure for
people requesting to speak and allow the neighborhood to speak at this meeting.
Mayor Burroughs stated that someone could motion to suspend the rules.
Council Member Watts stated that it was his understanding that the new conditions were not
communicated to either someone in a formal position or informal position to the neighbors.
Reichhart stated that there was the intent to do that but he had to have bypass surgery and could
not schedule a neighborhood meeting. He thought the conditions addressed the issue as they
addressed very specifically what they were going to do with exterior.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned, Council Member King seconded to postpone the proposal to
the August 21, 2012 Council meeting with a limited scope of preservation of the façade and the
use as noted in the comments by Council Member Watts. On roll call vote: Council Member
King, Council Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member
Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Watts encourage dialog between the applicant and the people interested in the
proposal.
Resolution No. R2012-021
C. Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton,
Texas, appointing a primary and alternate member as an official voting
representative to the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) of the North
Central Texas Council of Governments; and providing an effective date.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 22
Bryan Langley, Chief Finance Officer, stated Mayor Pro Tem Kamp had served as the city of
Denton representative on the RTC for more than eight years and had indicated a desire to
continue serving through 2014. Newly elected Mayor Patrick Davis of Highland Village
contacted Mayor Burroughs requesting the opportunity to serve as the RTC Alternate
representing Denton urbanized area and the grouped cities. The resolution in the Council
materials reflected these appointments.
Council Member Watts motioned, Council Member King seconded to approve the resolution.
On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor
Burroughs, Council Member Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Consider nominations/appointments to the City's Economic Development
Partnership Board.
Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, presented the nominations. The nominating
committee was recommending the following appointments: Council seat – Mark Burroughs;
Top 20 taxpayer – Caleb O’Rear; University of North Texas – Lane Rawlins; At-Large - Carrell
Ann Simmons; and Chamber of Commerce – Greg Johnson.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned, Council Member King seconded to approve the nominations.
On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor
Burroughs, Council Member Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ordinance No. 2012-155
A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of
Denton, Texas, regarding amending the Denton Development Code by adding
Fraternity or Sorority House, Dormitory, Conference/Convention Center,
Distribution Center/Warehouse (General) and Warehouse (Retail) as land uses in
Subchapter 35.5, by removing Distribution Center and Warehouse Storage and
Distribution as land uses in Subchapter 35.5, by removing language regarding
minimum residential lot size and adding language regarding maximum persons
occupying a dwelling in Subchapter 35.12, by amending the parking
requirements for fraternity or sorority houses, boarding houses, and dormitories
in Subchapter 35.14, by adding definitions for Conference/Convention Center,
Distribution Center/Warehouse (General), Warehouse (Retail), Fraternity, and
Sorority in Subchapter 35.23, and by revising the existing definitions of Family,
Dormitory, Accessory Dwelling, Duplex, Manufactured Home, Mobile Home,
Multi-Family Dwelling, Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Single-Family
Attached Dwelling, Dwelling/Dwelling Unit, Efficiency Dwelling Unit, and
Fraternity or Sorority House in Subchapter 35.23; and providing for a penalty in
the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof, severability and an
effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-
0).
Mayor Burroughs noted that there was a substitute ordinance for consideration.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 23
Ron Menguita, Development Review Liaison, presented the proposed changes. Subchapter 35.5
of the Denton Development Code (DDC) provided a list of land uses by zoning district. While
the DDC provided definitions for fraternity or sorority house, and dormitory, these were not
included on the list of land uses in 35.5 and therefore were not allowed within any zoning
district. The DDC also did not provide a definition for Conference/Convention Center,
Distribution Center/Warehouse (General) or Warehouse (Retail) nor were these uses currently
allowed. Revised definition categories included fraternity and sorority house and dormitory and
added definitions for Convention Center/Conference Center; Distribution Center/Warehouse
(General), and Warehouse (Retail). He noted that Council had been briefed on this item during
the Work Session.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke during the public hearing
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Council Member King motioned, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor
Burroughs, Council Member Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 2012-156
B. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of
Denton, Texas, amending an overlay district and approving an amendment to
the Quail Creek Special Sign District for 7.1-acres of land within a larger 35.5
acre District located at the southeastern corner of Brinker Road and Quail Creek
Boulevard and is also known as Lots 1R and 2, Block A of the Signature Senior
Living Addition, within the City of Denton, Denton Texas; providing for a
penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof, severability
and an effective date. (SD11-0006, Signature Senior Living) The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0).
Brian Lockley, Development Review Committee Administrator, stated that the applicant was
proposing to amend the approved Special Sign District to allow for an increase in the size of a
permitted sign at the southeast corner of Quail Creek Drive and Brinker Road from 6-feet to 12-
feet. The current owner desired to construct a sign that would accommodate multiple tenants
that was more visible from the intersection of the roadways serving the site. The Special Sign
District must be amended to facilitate a larger sign. No other amendments were sought at this
time. The Development Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Jim Swartz, 5323 Spring Valley Road, Dallas, 75254 indicated he would answer any questions
Council had regarding the proposal.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 24
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned, Council Member King seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor
Burroughs, Council Member Roden – “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
7. CONCLUDING ITEMS
A. Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, respond to inquiries
from the City Council or the public with specific factual information or
recitation of policy, or accept a proposal to place the matter on the agenda for an
upcoming meeting
AND
Under Section 551.0415 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, provide reports about
items of community interest regarding which no action will be taken, to include:
expressions of thanks, congratulations, or condolence; information regarding
holiday schedules; an honorary or salutary recognition of a public official, public
employee, or other citizen; a reminder about an upcoming event organized or
sponsored by the governing body; information regarding a social, ceremonial, or
community event organized or sponsored by an entity other than the governing
body that was attended or is scheduled to be attended by a member of the
governing body or an official or employee of the municipality; or an
announcement involving an imminent threat to the public health and safety of
people in the municipality that has arisen after the posting of the agenda.
Council Member Roden thanked the City Secretary’s Office for the work done to have boards
and commissions information on the City’s website.
Council Member Roden requested consideration of the formation of a Council committee
dedicated to look at citizen engagement.
Council Member Roden noted that on August 8th Southeast Denton would be holding their back
to school event.
Council Member Watts requested a work session to discuss the public art policy clarity on the
intent of the policy.
Council Member Watts requested consideration of an ad hoc committee for the development
process-similar to the property maintenance code and the appointment of a Council committee to
craft something in that direction.
B. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
Mayor Burroughs announced that Council would be returning to Close Session to complete a
discussion of the items listed on the agenda.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 17, 2012
Page 25
Following the completion of the second Closed Session at 10:30 p.m., the Council returned to
Open Session and with no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
____________________________________
MARK A. BURROUGHS
MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
____________________________________
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS