May 15, 2012 MinutesCITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 15, 2012
After determining that a quonim was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on
Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Worlc Session Room at City Hall.
PRESENT: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Council Member Roden, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp,
and Mayor Burroughs.
ABSENT: None
1. Citizen Comments on Consent Agenda Items
There were no comment cards submitted for this item.
2. Requests for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for May 15, 2012.
Council Member Gregory asked if Consent Agenda Item S automatically triggered the overtime
for the police department to supervise the event which was paid for by the organization.
Emerson Vorel, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that it did and that it was the same
requirements as for Qualcertown Parlc.
3. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding an economic development project
consisting of a full-service hotel and convention center to be located on property owned
by the University of North Texas.
Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager, reviewed the history of the convention center, dating bacic
to 1994-95. The City's goals for the convention center were to encourage the convention and
tourism industry, resulting in positive economic impact to Denton retail, restaurant, and hotel
business; expand the tax base through constniction of new retail and restaurants; provide a
facility in Denton to serve citizens, businesses, educational instit�itions, and organizations, that
created opportunities for meetings, expositions, events/celebrations.
Partnerships for the project included the University of North Texas, the city of Denton, and
O'Reilly Hospitality Management (OHM) who were developing a proposal based on the
principals established by the three partners in January 2012.
Project concepts - UNT previously purchased the remaining years on the Radisson agreement,
demolished the Radisson and prepared the site for constniction. LTNT would lease land to OHM
and to the City. The City would build and own the convention center. It would lease the
convention center to OHM for management and operation. OHM would build and own the hotel
and restaurant and would manage the convention center.
Proposed Financing of the Convention Center — the City would sell Certificates of Obligation to
fund the constniction of the convention center. The city's revenues from property, sales and
lodging taxes that were generated by this property would be dedicated to retiring the debt.
OHM's lease payment to the City for the convention center would equal the balance needed to
pay the debt. The goal of the project was to be self-supporting.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:>_�,�,., �'F
,� .
Tim O'Reilly, CEO - O'Reilly Hospitality Management, presented information on their company.
It was a full service hotel and restaurant management company that developed, designed, built
and operated upper upscale hotels, conference centers and restaurants. In 2012 their revenues
were $35 million with 800 employees. OHM was a licensed owner and operator by Marriott
Hotels International, Hilton Hotels, Holiday Inns, Wyndham Hotels and Houlihan's Restaurants.
In January 2011 OHM hired a development team that had designed, built and managed over 80
hotels, convention centers and restaurants over the past 25 years. Information on OHM's
development team experience was presented.
Project Overview — the project would consist of an Embassy Suites Hotel, Denton Convention
Center and Houlihan's Restaurant and Bar. It would be a 13.5 acre site with 745 parlcing spaces
and 414,000 total square feet. Total projected project costs were at $85 million. The schedule of
next steps included approval of the development agreement with the City and LTNT, constniction
to start in January 2013 and open in the summer of 2014.
Projected linpact — the economic impact was estimated to be $47 million annually with an
employment impact of 508 and a constniction impact for two years at $50 million with 480 jobs.
OHM's private investment was $4,150,000 payroll and marlceting.
Hotel overview — the hotel would be an Embassy Suites hotel with 318 suites, 12 stories,
250,000 square feet, complimentary brealcfast and beverage, indoor pool and fitness center, and
would be LEED certified.
The Convention Center overview was 120,000 total square feet with an 18,000 foot banquet
room, 20 small meeting rooms and would be LEED certified.
The restaurant would be a Houlihan's Restaurant and Bar that was 8000 square feet with 290
seats, an outdoor patio with a fire pit overloolcing Apogee Stadium and LEED certified.
Dr .Lane Rawlins, President-LTNT, stated that they were excited for the proj ect. The University
was striving to reach more people in north Texas and to become the educational regional center
of the area. With this project they would be able to host and attract conferences that they were
currently not able to do.
Council Member Gregory aslced if the business model in terms of the hotel was to get the
convention center built and then sell the hotel to someone else.
O'Reilly stated that to date they had not sold any of the hotels that they had built.
Council Member Roden questioned how the three entities would be involved in the marlceting of
the facility.
O'Reilly stated that all three had the same vested interest in bringing business to the facility.
O'Reilly would bring the expertise for the hotel aspect while the Convention and Visitors Bureau
would bring events to the conference center.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;t:7Q;�t:` .:>
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that she would encourage LTNT and the City to have strong
sustainable goals and to do everything possible for sustainability.
4. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff with direction regarding funding
for City Council initiatives that were included in the FY 2011-12 Adopted Budget.
Bryan Langley, presented information on Council Priority Funds.
The 2011-12 adopted budget identified $283,676 in possible funding for the following Council
initiatives; (1) additional street maintenance funding, (2) implementation of various elements of
the bilce plan, (3) additional traffic signals, (4) DCTA Downtown shuttle capital and operating
costs, and (5) neighborhood improvement incentives.
During the budget process, Council did not allocate funding to specific items since the exact cost
and project information was not lcnown. Langley provided information on individual project cost
information.
Funding Options were (1) Option 1- allocate the entire $283,676 according to Council priorities,
(2) Option 2- allocate a portion of the 283,676 to Council priorities and allow the remaining
funds to accnie to fund balance; or (3) Option 3- do not allocate any funds at this time and
determine funding priorities in the FY 2012-2013 budget process. Preliminary figures would be
presented in June.
Council Member Roden asked if it was anticipated that there would be a similar allocation of
money for Council initiatives in next budget cycle.
Langley stated that the five year forecast indicated that $283,000 would be spent on Council
proj ects.
Council Member King aslced about $300,000 less than a deficit last year.
Langley stated that the budget accounts had $920,000 to draw down to transfer to the street
improvement fund which increased the amount in the street maintenance fund and was part of
that funding.
Council Member Gregory aslced how the sales tax figures were at this point.
Langley stated that there were strong collections at this point in time.
Mayor Burroughs felt that it did not make any sense to allocate the funds at this time.
Council Member Roden stated that he would like to hear more about the neighborhood incentive
program during the upcoming budget cycle.
Council Member Engelbrecht aslced staff to find out if there were funds available to help with
other grants for the area.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
r:;t:TQ;�t:` -�
Consensus of the Council was to bring the incentive issue bacic for discussion during the budget
process.
5. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff with direction regarding a
recommendation by the Citizens Bond Advisory Committee to incorporate public art into
the proposed November 2012 bond election.
Bryan Langley, Chief Finance Officer, stated that a$20 million bond program was proposed for
the reconstniction of existing streets which included all costs associated with engineering, right-
of-way acquisition and constniction activities. Funding was intended to complement increased
street maintenance funding but would not replace the need to increase maintenance funding over
time. The bond program assumed no tax rate increase.
In 2006, the Council approved a Public Art Policy which stated that a base of 2% for the arts
from all future Capital linprovement Programs, with the option and flexibility to increase to a 4%
maximuin, based on needs and economic conditions would be included. Based on this policy,
$400,000 to $800,000 would be needed to be reserved from the proposed $20 million street bond
program for public art. To address this issue, Council asked the Citizens Bond Advisory
Committee to provide a recommendation on whether the Public Art policy should be
implemented.
On May 7th the Citizens Bond Advisory Committee voted to recommend that the public art
policy be applied to the upcoming bond program. The Committee did not make a formal
recommendation on the level of funding. As such, staff needed direction from Council on what
percentage of the bond program should be dedicated to public art. The charge of the Committee
was only to determine whether the public art policy should be applied. Since that was
recommended, staff needed direction from Council on how public art projects should be selected.
Council could select projects, or ask for project recommendations from the Bond Advisory
Committee, Public Art Committee, or another committee.
The Committee also discussed how individual bond propositions were determined and whether
public art was required to be a separate ballot proposition. If public art was closely related to
street improvements, one ballot proposition could be considered. Even if art was related, the
Council may require a separate ballot proposition. Standalone public art projects, however,
would require a separate ballot proposition. Staff was requesting Council direction on whether
the proposed public art should be a part of the street improvements and how these items should
be presented to the public as a bond proposition in November.
Langley stated that in summary, staff requested direction on what percentage of the bond
program should be dedicated to public art, how should public art projects be selected, and how
should public art items be presented on the ballots in November.
Consensus of the Council was that 2% should be dedicated to public art.
Council Member Roden aslced if the public art had to be street related.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i: ;t 7�;� t:` :'"5
Langley stated that was an option and could be community wide but did not have to be related to
streets.
Council Member Watts stated that it was his understanding that if any of the money was to go for
a public art project, it had to be two separate bond positions. If combined to one language or left
out it would have to be interrelated. Given the resolution was approved by Council he felt it
would hinder the fund for whatever public art was wanted if it were tied directly to the streets. If
money were being allocated for public art, the voters should be allowed to decide for the street
improvements and for public art. It would be cleaner and provide more opportunity for public
art in the community. In future bond elections with multiple subjects, he felt it should be a
separate component. He felt it would be best to have two separate ballots because if they passed,
then there would be unrestricted money for the arts.
Council Member King aslced if there might be a way to have it all in one but used separately.
Langley stated that the proposition had to be very clear on what was to be voted on.
Council Member King stated that he did not want it embedded in the streets.
Langley stated that there could be two bond propositions with one for street improvement and
one for public art. The voters could vote up or down vote on everything.
Mayor Burroughs asked if entrance markers to the City on major roads would be related to
streets.
Langley stated that he would have to checic with bond counsel but felt it would be separate.
Council Member Gregory stated that there had been discussions about art related to bridges and
overpasses with TxDot and discussed local participation with encouragement to have that happen
at high caliber. The city needed to find money for that project and questioned if that could be a
potential use of the funds.
Mayor Burroughs aslced about the timing of the selection of the projects and whether it would
have to be done before the public vote or allocate the funding later.
Langley stated that specific categories such as types of things loolcing at would have to be
identified. The project may not have to be designed but there would have to be some detail.
Council Member Watts stated that the resolution indicated that public art was to be with every
bond program with 2% of the total allocated to public art. To not tie the funding to specific
projects, there would have to be two propositions to vote on. There was always the rislc to vote
for streets and not for the art.
Council Member Gregory stated that he had a citizen say if public art was included in the street
proj ect, he would vote it down. He was curious of the sentiment of the people on the committee.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;t:l�;�t:` �}
Langley stated that there had been a lot of discussion regarding the issue and there were people
on both sides of the fence. Some had concern with public art while others were very passionate
about public art.
Council Member Roden aslced if examples of the concept of public art were provided.
Langley stated that Jo Williams gave a presentation of projects done over the past several years.
The Committee had discussions on entranceway signage, pavement designs and traffic calming
devises in intersections to slow traffic down.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that in 2006 the intent of the Council was to fund public art but it
was not to tie public art to specific proj ects. She felt that the decision on what the proj ects
should be would come from the Public Art Committee.
Mayor Burroughs stated that Council had provided direction on a 2% funding but needed to
determine a single ballot proposition or two ballot propositions.
Council Member King asked if the Committee lcnew about the legal recommendation.
Langley stated that the Committee had the wording from the bond counsel.
Mayor Burroughs noted that the Committee did not formally adopt a position on one or two
propositions. That was a decision for Council to malce. He stated that the option was either
street related art or two propositions for public art with a general sense for use.
Council Member Gregory felt that the Public Art Committee should select the public art.
Council Member Roden suggested hearing what the Public Art Committee felt on the issue. If
the propositions were separate, it would not restrict the use of the funds. Another consideration
was to have a neighborhood work on a neighborhood incentive project.
Mayor Burroughs aslced about the timing to establish which way to go.
Langley stated that Council would receive a recommendation from the Public Art Committee
and Bond Committee at the June 19th meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp aslced why one proposition clearly stated was not feasible.
City Attorney Burgess stated that the concept dealt with how the propositions were crafted.
Generally there was a single notion of street improvements and related issues to include art
associated with street improvements. One thought was to separate the propositions out to be sure
there was a clear contract with the voters on how the money would be used.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that it appeared there should be two separate ballot issues to
be sure the public was aware of what the street funding would be for. At this point it was not
sure what public art was. A problein with people's perceptions of public art was that without a
clear distinction of public art there would be a problem.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i: ;t 7Q;� t:` .
Langley stated that the consensus of Council was 2% on public art based on a recommendation
for projects from the Public Art Committee.
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Closed Session to
consider the following:
1. Closed Meeting:
A. Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071.
1. Consult with City's attorneys regarding litigation strategy and the status of
litigation styled Zavo v. City of Denton, Cause No. 2010-40410-362,
currently pending in the 362nd District Court of Denton County.
Item A. 1. was not considered.
B. Consultation with Attorneys - Under Texas Government Code, Section 552.071;
and Deliberations Regarding Real Property - Under Texas Government Code,
Section 552.072.
1. Discuss, deliberate, and receive information from staff and provide staff
with direction pertaining to the potential purchase of certain real property
interests located in the M.E.P. & P. Railroad Survey, Abstract No. 1473,
Denton County, Texas, and located generally in the 2800 blocic of Paisley
Street, west of Pace Drive, within the 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 PUB 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 in the William Roark Survey, Abstract No. 1087, Denton
County, Texas, and located generally at the northeast and southeast
corners of intersection of Vintage Boulevard and Bonnie Brae Street,
within the 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 PUB 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.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;_�,f,�> �
,� .
3. Discuss, deliberate, and receive information from staff and provide staff
with direction pertaining to the potential purchase of certain real property
interests located in the M.E.P. & P. Railroad Survey, Abstract No. 927,
Denton County, Texas, and located generally along the west side of
Mayhill Road, between Gayla Drive and Spencer Road, within the 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
PUB 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.
Regular meeting of the City of Denton City Council at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
City Hall.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U. S. and
Texas flags.
2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
A. Proclamations/Awards
There were no proclamations/awards for this meeting.
3. CITIZEN REPORTS
A. Review of procedures for addressing the City Council.
B. Receive citizen reports from the following:
1. Robert Donnelly regarding streets.
Mr. Donnelly expressed a concern regarding the expansion of Mayhill Road. He was trying to
find out what lcind of landscaping would be done when the bridge was installed. The Denton
Development Code indicated unless exempt from Subsection C, the landscaping requirements
would apply to undeveloped land. Exemptions were capital improvement proj ects awarded prior
to the passage of the regulation which did not apply to this project. He questioned where the
exception was regarding the code regulations for landscaping and why the City was not
following its own regulations.
Mayor Burroughs questioned what lcind of mitigation Mr. Donnelly felt would be appropriate.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;_�,f,�> <?
Q,� .
Donnelly stated that perhaps some type tree that would be tall enough to hide the wall.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Council Member King motioned, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda
and accompanying ordinances and resolutions. On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council
Member Watts, Council Member Gregory, Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem
Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Roden —"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
A�proved the Noise Ordinance exception listed below.
A. Consider a request for an exception to the Noise Ordinance for the purpose of playing
music and operating a public address system during the Juneteenth Celebration. The
event will be located in the Fred Moore Parlc on Friday, June 15, 2012, beginning at 5:00
p.m. and concluding at 11:00 p.m.; and on Saturday, June 16, 2012, beginning at 10:00
a.m. and concluding at midnight. This request is for an exception to the hours of
operation and for an increase in sound decibels from 70 to 75 decibels for the amplified
sound. Staff recommends approving the requests.
A�roved the minutes listed below.
B. Consider approval of the minutes of:
Apri12, 2012
April 3, 2012
April 10, 2012
April 17, 2012
Resolution No. 2012-013
C. Consider approval of a resolution approving the 2011 Annual Report for the Tax
Increment Finance Zone No. l(Downtown TIF). The TIF Board recommends approval
(6-0).
Ordinance No. 2012-098
D. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas accepting competitive
bids and awarding a best value contract for street milling services for the City of Denton
Street department; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an
effective date (Bid 4936-Best Value Bid for Street Milling Services awarded to Dustrol,
Inc. in the annual estimated amount of $300,000).
Ordinance No. 2012-100
E. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a
professional services agreement (PSA) with Freese and Nichols, Inc. for design services
for the new Pecan Creelc Water Reclamation Plant Operations Building, and providing
for an effective date (File 4893-Design of Pecan Creelc Water Reclamation Operations
Building awarded to Freese and Nichols, Inc. in the amount of $192,057). The Public
Utilities Board recommends approval (5-0).
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
r:;t:7Q;�t:` � f.�
Ordinance No. 2012-101
F. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas providing for,
authorizing, and approving the expenditure of funds for the purchase of two dry pit
submersible pumps from DXP Enterprises, Inc., which are available from only one
source and in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Chapter 252.022 of the Texas
Local Government Code such purchases are exempt from the requirements of
competitive bidding; and providing an effective date (File 4929-Purchase of Two
Submersible Pumps for Pecan Creelc Water Reclamation Plant in the amount of
$115,000). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (5-0).
Ordinance No. 2012-102
G. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to an approximate 0.1413 acre tract located in the M.E.P. & P.
Railroad Survey, Abstract Number 1473, lcnown as Lot 23, Blocic 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 public use of expanding, and improving the Denton Municipal Electric Distribution
and Transmission System; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to malce an offer
to Marilyn Kaye Newland and Williain Edgar Summers and Edna Auline Summers, Co-
Tnistees of the Williain Edgar Summers Family Living Tnist to purchase the Property
Interests for the purchase price of One Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars and No Cents
($110,000.00), and other consideration, as prescribed in the Contract of Sale, attached to
the ordinance and made a part thereof as Exhibit "A"; authorizing the expenditure of
funds therefor; authorizing relocation expenditures; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2012-103
H. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to an approximate 02159 acre tract located in the M.E.P. & P.
Railroad Survey, Abstract Number 1473, lcnown as Lot 24, Blocic 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 public use of expanding, and improving the Denton Municipal Electric Distribution
and Transmission System; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to malce an offer
to Dewitt S. Davenport to purchase 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, attached to the ordinance and made a
part thereof as Exhibit "A"; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; authorizing
relocation expenditures; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2012-103
L Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to a 0.398 acre tract located in the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Co. Survey,
Abstract Number 927, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly
described on Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance, located generally in the 1100 blocic
of South Mayhill Road (the "Property Interests"), for the public use of expanding and
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;t:7Q;�t:` � �
improving Mayhill Road, a municipal street and roadway; authorizing the City Manager
or his designee to malce an offer to Leroy Barber and Lucy L Barber, Tnistees of the
Leroy Barber and Lucy L Barber Family Tnist, dated May 18, 1994 to purchase the
Property Interests for the purchase price of Fifty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents
($55,000.00), and other consideration, as prescribed in the Purchase Agreement, attached
to the ordinance and made a part thereof as Exhibit "B"; authorizing the expenditure of
funds therefor; authorizing relocation expenditures; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2012-104
J. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to a 1.198 acre tract located in the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Co. Survey,
Abstract Number 927, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly
described on Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance, located generally in the 1100 blocic
of South Mayhill Road (the "Property Interests"), for the public use of expanding and
improving Mayhill Road, a municipal street and roadway; authorizing the City Manager
or his designee to malce an offer to Shirley F. Moon, Individually and as Tnistee of the
Moon Family Living Revocable Tnist to purchase the Property Interests for the purchase
price of One Hundred Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($105,000.00), and other
consideration, as prescribed in the Contract of Sale, attached to the ordinance and made a
part thereof as Exhibit "B"; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; authorizing
relocation expenditures; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2012-105
K. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to a 1.068 acre tract located in the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Co. Survey,
Abstract Number 927, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly
described on Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance, located generally in the 1200 blocic
of South Mayhill Road (the "Property Interests"), for the public use of expanding and
improving Mayhill Road, a municipal street and roadway; authorizing the City Manager
or his designee to malce an offer to Jacicie Lee Bridges to purchase the Property Interests
for the purchase price of Ninety Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($95,000.00), and
other consideration, as prescribed in the Contract of Sale, attached to the ordinance and
made a part thereof as Exhibit "B"; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor;
authorizing relocation expenditures; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2012-106
L. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to a 0.997 acre tract located in the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Co. Survey,
Abstract Number 927, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly
described on Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance, located generally in the 1200 blocic
of South Mayhill Road (the "Property Interests"), for the public use of expanding and
improving Mayhill Road, a municipal street and roadway; authorizing the City Manager
or his designee to malce an offer to William A. Elliott and wife, Marilyn M. Elliott to
purchase the Property Interests for the purchase price of Ninety Five Thousand Dollars
and No Cents ($95,000.00), and other consideration, as prescribed in the Contract of
Sale, attached to the ordinance and made a part thereof as Exhibit "B"; authorizing the
expenditure of funds therefor; authorizing relocation expenditures; and providing an
effective date.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
�?=p�t, �> F
� t, �°� €: �_ �.�
Ordinance No. 2012-107
M Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to a 1.968 acre tract in the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Co. Survey, Abstract
Number 927, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly described on
Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance, located generally in the 1200 blocic of South
Mayhill Road (the "Property Interests"), for the public use of expanding and improving
Mayhill Road, a municipal street and roadway; authorizing the City Manager or his
designee to malce an offer to Haeussler Properties, LP to purchase the Property Interests
for the purchase price of Two Hundred Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No
Cents ($211,500.00), as prescribed in the Contract of Sale, attached to the ordinance and
made a part thereof as Exhibit "B"; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor;
authorizing relocation expenditures; and providing an effective date.
Ordinance No. 2012-108
N. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to a 0.58 acre tract situated in the William Roarlc Survey, Abstract No.
1087, located in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly
described on Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance, located generally northeast of the
intersection of South Bonnie Brae Street and Vintage Parlcway (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 malce an offer to JOAB
Partners, L.P., a Texas limited partnership to purchase the Property Interests for the
purchase price of Seventy Four Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Seven Dollars and No
Cents ($74,627.00), and other consideration, as prescribed in the Purchase Agreement,
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. 2012-109
O. Consider adoption of an ordinance finding that a public use and necessity exists to
acquire fee simple to a 0.73 acre tract, situated in the William Roarlc Survey, Abstract
No. 1087, located in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, as more particularly
described on Exhibit "A", attached to the ordinance, located generally southeast of the
intersection of South Bonnie Brae Street and Vintage Parlcway (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 malce an offer to JOAB
Partners, L.P., a Texas limited partnership to purchase the Property Interests for the
purchase price of Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven Dollars and No
Cents ($38,387.00), and other consideration, as prescribed in the Purchase Agreement,
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. 2012-110
P. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving an Estoppel
Certificate to Hangars Plus, LLC and Justin State Banlc for hangars located at 4846
Locicheed and 4888 Locicheed at Denton Airport; and, providing an effective date. The
Council Airport Committee recommends approval (3-0).
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;t:7Q;�t:` � .:?
Ordinance No. 2012-111
Q. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving a First Amendment to a Commercial
Operator Airport Lease Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and GCBSXX
LLC for assignment to Sylces-Vaughan Investments, LLC of property located at 4700
Spartan Drive at Denton Airport; and, providing an effective date. The Council Airport
Committee recommends approval (3-0).
Ordinance No. 2012-112
R. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving a Second Amendment to a Commercial
Operator Airport Lease Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and GCBSXX
LLC for assignment to Sylces-Vaughan Investments, LLC of property located at 4780
Spartan Drive at Denton Airport; and, providing an effective date. The Council Airport
Committee recommends approval (3-0).
Resolution No. R2012-014
S. Consider approval of a resolution allowing Michaels Memories Organization to be the
sole participant allowed to sell alcoholic beverages at the Denton Rugby tournament held
in North Lalces Parlc on May 26, 2012, upon certain conditions; authorizing the City
Manager or his designee to execute an agreement in conformity with this resolution; and
providing for an effective date. Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board recommends
approval (5-0). Staff recommends approval of the request.
5. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
A. 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 (NRMCJ-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 continued from the April 17, 2012 City Council meeting.
Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, stated that one of the Council
discussion points at their last meeting regarding this item centered on who designed the stnicture
and whether it was O'Neill Ford. Staff was able to determine that the architect signature blocic
was signed by Arch Swanlc, who was an associate of O'Neill Ford and Roland Laney. There was
no determination of who did the worlc and staff could only say that the signature blocic was
signed by Arch Swank from the O'Neill Ford firm. The Historic Landmark Commission was
considering requesting that the property be preserved as a historic landmarlc of O'Neill Ford.
Council Member Roden asked about the conclusion of the Historic Landmark Commission after
studying the issue.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;t:7Q;�t:` �-�
Cunningham stated that the Historic Landmarlc Commission concluded that regardless of who
the actual architect was, they felt the building was worthy of historical preservation.
Mayor Burroughs indicated that Speaker Cards has been submitted for the item.
Larry Reichhart, representing the property owner, stated that they had two issues for
consideration. One was to further restrict the overlay district by removing all uses that could
potentially be permitted with a specific use permit which had been accomplished. That zoning
issue had been resolved. The other issue was whether the building was an O'Neill Ford building.
Bob Laney, Roland Laney's son, had submitted an email concerning the request. In his email he
stated that he felt his father would want what was best for current residents of Denton. If it
would be best to have a new building in place of the existing one, then that was the way it should
be. He also felt that the three architects would agree that the building had served its purpose.
The intent was to rehabilitate the building but given cost that might be involved, it may be more
economical to build a new facility.
Council Member Roden asked for a sense of the time line involved.
Reichhart stated that before he was hired, the owners had a common thread which was their faith.
It was not a formal type of religion but the idea was that they had parents getting older and the
cost of retirement homes was high. They felt they could nin such a facility for others in the same
situation. Based on their research they determined that rehabilitating the building was the only
thing necessary and came to Denton to worlc on the building. However, they did not have the
proper permits and had to stop. It was at that point that the owners hired him to assist with the
process. He felt the procedure was to rezone the property. As the lender was going to foreclose
on the property, the lender wanted to list the property for sale if the rezoning did not go through.
From that point, a neighborhood meeting was held and it was agreed to limit the number of uses,
eliminate retail and only have an assisted living facility. NRMCJ-12 zoning was the lowest
zoning that allowed assisted living.
Council Member Roden stated that the original zoning was NR-3 and that the requested zoning
was NRMCJ-12. The zoning category between those two had been slcipped and questioned why.
Reichhart stated that staff had proposed the NRMCJ-12 due to the larger square footage allowed.
Council Member Roden stated that there was an option to get the non-conforming use reinstated
and questioned why what was not requested.
Reichhart stated that there was the possibility to lose a non-conforming use and based on
research, it was also harder to get constniction loans on non-conforming uses rather than on
proper zoning.
Council Member Gregory aslced about the recreational trailer on the property.
Reichhart stated that one of owners had started to rehabilitate the building and left the tnicic there
when he received the cease worlc order. That owner had temporary power reestablished and was
loolcing through the building to see what would have to be done.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:.Pt.xQ;;�; t:' 7. .*5
Council Member Gregory asked what would happen to the property if the zoning request for
NRMU-12 with restrictions was denied and the property remained NR-3.
Reichhart stated that he did not lcnow. He was not sure if the owners would want to continue
with another process to re-establish the special exception. The owners were discouraged by the
process and did not lcnow if they would sell the property or try to get the use bacic.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp aslced if the client would be willing, if possible, to save the facade and
rehabilitate the facility for assisted living.
Reichhart stated that they would be willing to look at that option.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp aslced that when the owners started to redo the proj ect, did they have
plans to save the fa�ade.
Richhart stated that they really did not have any formal plans. They were going to do a room at a
time. They were lay people who did not lcnow the development process. Since that time, they
have hired a marketing person.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp asked if they would be willing to save the facade as many people felt it
was historic.
Richhart indicated that he did not know at this point in time.
Mayor Burroughs aslced about the possibility of a special exception to allow for the opportunity
to initiate a rehabilitation plan. It would allow time for the owners to go through and determine
if rehabilitation would be possible and then if there was a problem that rehabilitation could not
be done, provide the ability for the owners to come bacic to pursue other alternatives.
Richhart stated that if the owners had an unlimited source of funding that might be possible but
that scenario was aslcing them to spend a lot of money not lcnowing what the outcome would be.
Council Member Watts aslced if a representative of the owners group was present to answer
questions.
Reichhart replied no.
Council Member Watts asked if the Internet ad for the sale of the property was done because of
the banlc.
Reichhart stated that it was a negotiation between the lending institution and owners to not
foreclose on the property.
Council Member Watts stated it was his understanding that the property was bought out of
foreclose.
Reichhart stated that the banlc could talce bacic the property for non-performance.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;t:7Q;�t:` � �}
Council Member Roden aslced if there were any representatives at any of the meetings that
discussed this proposal.
Reichhart stated that there were no local representatives. They were located all throughout the
country. The idea was to build the facility and then have an office on the property.
Council Member Roden aslced for the names and locations of the owners. The neighborhood
wanted to lcnow who they were dealing with.
Reichhart indicated that he only dealt with an attorney froin New Yorlc.
Mayor Burroughs stated that this zoning request did not contain a requirement to list names and
locations of the property owners. There were a lot of entities where it was hard to identify
ownership. The stat�is of the ownership should not reflect one way or another on the request.
Council Member King aslced what would happen if the proposal was not approved and the
property received a historic designation.
Richhart stated that adding a historic designation to the property would probably cause the cost
to increase so much more to rehabilitate the property that the owners might wallc from the
development.
Council Member Gregory stated that some time bacic the former owners of Fairhaven had
applied for human services funds at Collin County to rehabilitate the property. He aslced why the
facility did not have enough tenants and clients to remain open.
Reichhart stated that he heard that the building was not maintained properly over the years.
When inspectors gave a list of items to repair, the cost was so much that the owner left the
property and HUD took over. The building had been neglected for a long time.
Mike Cochran, 610 W. Oak Street, Denton, spoke in opposition.
Council Member Roden stated that the seals on the drawings of the property were signed by
Arch Swanlc and some felt that made it not an O'Neill Ford building.
Cochran felt that was not the case and that it was an O'Neill Ford building.
Council Member Watts stated that Cochran's presentation was primarily centered on the
rezoning classification of the property and the neighborhood concerns with rezoning in terms of
the owners giving assurance that what they said would be done with the property would happen.
He felt that, in the end, the objection was to the lacic of a plan and the lacic of a use with the
potential of demolishing the stnicture.
Cochran stated that there were two distinct issues and that he had only addressed the zoning
issues because that was what was on the agenda. Neighborhood preservation was a real issue.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;t:7Q;�t:` � �
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that in this case, the neighbors had a fear of what might
happen in their neighborhood. From a preservation standpoint, the issue was the dwindling
supply of historic stnictures in the City.
Council Member Gregory stated that he saw both sides of the equation of historic preservation
and ownership of property to not be overly encumbered with what could be done with the
property.
Mayor Burroughs stated that his difficulty was that if the NR-3 zoning was maintained, the
owners could bulldoze the property. The property should not remain NR-3 if it was desired to
lceep the stnicture. The best case was to rehabilitate the outside elements and restore the inside
to a usable facility.
Council Member Engelbrecht asked about the condition of the property when it went into
receivership.
Cochran stated that for a period of time, it still operated as Fairhaven. Around 2006 the manager
left and the facility was turned over to Plano Homes and closed in 2009. He had heard that the
facility had been vandalized.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that he had heard of stnicture foundation problems and
aslced if anyone lcnew about the condition of the stnicture.
Cochran replied that no one to his lcnowledge lcnew about the stnicture condition.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that this was a unique situation where a prominent architect
designed the stnicture but 50 years later, people were trying to figure out what to do with it. He
questioned if it could not be a senior facility due to codes, would the marlcet place want it.
Cochran felt that was not tnie. The previous director had spolcen to him about the viability of the
building and how the arrangement was suitable due to the location of doors, etc. for the residents.
Robert Troy, 9612 Whitehurst Drive, Dallas, 75243, spolce on the proposal. He stated that he
was a licensed architect and was not associated with Plano Community Homes. His research
indicated that HUD had aslced Plano Homes to talce over the facility and that there were
stnictural foundation problems when they took over. He found in his research about Fairhaven
that Ford spent 18.5 hours on Fairhaven and that he did not design the building in that amount of
time. This was confirmed by Mr. Laney that Ford was the front man to obtain the commission
for the funding. The architect for the constniction was Roland Laney. He felt it was not an
architecturally significant building due to Ford. He had checiced with many departments and the
design architect was Arch Swanlc. He felt that the Council should be mindful of what Bob Laney
said that if the citizens would be better served by allowing the owners to constnict a new
building, then that was the way it should be. He felt that three architects would agree with that.
Mayor Burroughs stated that the architect information on City Hall and the Library were not
stamped by Ford but were actually designed by him and asked Mr. Troy to explain that situation.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;t 7Q;� t:` � ;'
Troy stated that he could only speak on Fairhaven.
Council Member Gregory stated that he had baclaip minutes from Fairhaven where in 1961 there
was a bill for 15 hours from Ford and another bill later with Ford having more hours.
Troy stated that he had been through the owners file and did not see that. Mr. Ford was the front
man who helped secure the proj ect for Swanlc and Laney.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp aslced if Troy had recommended in 2006 that the facility be gutted.
Troy stated that the Plano Community Board had aslced him for an evaluation which he did.
Council Member Roden aslced Mr. Troy if he had had a chance to spealc with the current owners
relating to building.
Troy stated that they were not his client and he had nothing to do with them.
Comment cards were received from the following individuals:
Gary Hayden, 2106 N. Bell, Denton, 76209 - opposed
Brian Wheeler, 1823 N. Bell, Denton, 76209 - opposed
Brandt Davis, 1902 N. Bell, Denton, 76209 - opposed
Carrie Ettredge, 606 Woodland, Denton, 76209 - opposed
Council Member Roden stated that it appeared that the original intent was to rehabilitate the
building. They had heard from Mr. Troy that the building was lcnown to have significant
stnicture problems. He aslced Mr. Reichhart if he was aware of the condition of the building.
Reichhart stated he did not have any contact with the owners prior to them purchasing the
property so he did not lcnow the answer to that.
Council Member Roden aslced when, during the discussions with the owner's attorney, the
hesitation to not rehabilitate the existing building came up.
Reichhart stated that they did not say that. It was an option but their intent was to rehab the
property if possible. They would still have to gut the interior.
Council Member King stated that the NRMU-12 zoning might be the closest zoning to what was
there without having to do a specific use permit.
Reichhart stated
conforming use.
reinstated.
that it was not a specific use permit; the zoning was considered a non-
They would have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get the zoning
Council Member King felt that the project might have been related to Ford but was not
architecturally significant Ford proj ect. The Little Chapel in the Woods was a significant proj ect
of Ford's but not Fairhaven. He was not opposed to the NRMCJ-12 zoning and felt that too many
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i: ;t 7Q;� t:` � f ��
restrictions on the property might make it undevelopable and it would remain vacant for many
more years.
Reichhart stated that the zoning would be for single family or assisted living, based on the
restrictions of the overlay district.
Council Member Roden stated that at this meeting, Council was not deciding historic
preservation but rather strictly the zoning issue.
Council Member King motioned to approve.
Council Member Watts stated that there was an overlay for elder care only or for single family.
He asked if the motion was for assisted care only under the NRMU-12 designation or single
family.
Council Member King stated that the reason for this meeting was to determine the historical
significance of the facility. His motion would include the uses from the previous meeting.
Mayor Burroughs stated that the overlay restriction was only for elderly assisted living or single
family or agriculture. He asked if Council had the ability to impose a special exception or extend
the prior grandfathered use to allow for the rehabilitation of the existing building without having
to rezone to that.
Cunningham stated that a special exception was a designation for uses that were legally
permitted prior to the adoption of the Development Code. Council could not apply for a special
exception to be applied after the fact.
Mayor Burroughs aslced if Council had the ability to supersede the waiver for lacic of use as a
special exception did exist.
City Attorney Burges stated that the applicant would come forward with the request and the
burden of proof was on applicant to show that there was not a lapse of the use. The applicant
must malce a showing that there not a lapse.
Mayor Burroughs questioned if Council could waive that lapse.
City Attorney Burgess stated that it would have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a
determination.
Council Member Roden stated that the bacictip indicated that there were two options; one to
rezone or to apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to establish the non-conforming use.
There was a possibility to re-establish that use by showing that there had been no lapse of use.
City Attorney Burgess stated that it would be a question of fact that the applicant would have to
prove.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:;i7f't` �'f�,
,� .
Council Member Gregory stated that the neighbors would like the facility to continue as a
retirement center or assisted living and if in the current building to loolc as it did now. They did
not want retail or multi-family. He felt the proposal satisfied most of neighborhood as it did not
allow retail or multi-family and was the path more lilcely to allow the applicant to provide a
nursing home. The proposal dealt with zoning questions and not historical designation. He was
not sure that NR-3 was a path that allowed the neighborhood to seelc what it wanted. He felt NR-
3 was a more lilcely path for the building to go away and single-family to replace it.
Council Member Watts stated that this was not a historical preservation action; it was a zoning
discussion. If the property were going to be rezoned, there needed to be a way to allow the
property to be developed within the restrictions including tearing down the building. If the
building could not be developed, it would attract vandalism. There was a church on the south
side, apartments across the street and single family on the north side. His personal problein with
the rezoning was not whether to tear down the building; it was the lacic of ability of the owners to
give a comfort level. He would vote to approve the proposal except for the lack of information
and transparency from the owners. Because of this fear he would probably vote to table the issue
again until there was buy in from the applicant or have to vote to deny on that basis.
Council Member Engelbrecht asked about the provisions for a special exception.
City Attorney Burgess stated that the Code indicated that if the use was discontinued for six
months the exception would no longer be in effect but that there was an opportunity to show that
there was not intent to abandon the use.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that a special exception in this circumstance would be hard
to prove. The owners purchased the property without being sure of the zoning and city
regulations. The property originally had NR-3 zoning with a special exception that was no
longer in effect and the owners were aslcing for NRMU-12 so they could have more density. He
did not feel he could vote in favor of the motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that she was uncomfortable with the request. This was a zoning
case and only a zoning case and she could not support the way it was presented to Council.
Mayor Burroughs questioned what were the differences in height and other restrictions versus
what was currently there. He asked what more could be done if the current facility was
bulldozed and a new center built. He felt there were three choices. One was to table the request,
one was to deny which would condeinn the building, and one was to approve the overlay with
the overlay only allowing the existing use in the e�sting footprint. If the overlay limited just to
what was there or single-family, then he felt it was accomplishing what were unforeseen
consequences in the overlay.
Council Member King stated that he did not lcnow owners but that they probably were not the
only people who bought property without lcnowledge of the zoning. There had been many times
when Council had zoning cases and the applicant was not present. He felt the owners maybe did
not understand how difficult this would be as on the surface it seemed easy. He did not lcnow
them but it appeared that some assumed they had an evil intent.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i: rLxQ;; t:` �F �
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp felt that the neighborhood had a legitimate concern but also wanted to see
the facility rehabilitated with assisted living. She felt the owners needed to meet with the
neighborhood.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned to postpone consideration to a date certain of July 17, 2012.
Motion by Council Member King was overridden by the motion to postpone.
Council Member Watts asked Mr. Reichhart why none of the owners were present.
Reichhart stated that every use for NRMCJ-12 had been eliminated except for assisted living. It
was very straight forward that they wanted to do assisted living. The purpose of this meeting
was over the controversy of the historic nature of the building and they did not have any
lcnowledge of that.
Council Member Watts stated that the neighborhood wanted to see that there was a partner with
the development.
Mayor Burroughs felt that it was clear that the Council was heading in the same direction to
preserve and protect the neighborhood but not close out the use of the property. He did not feel
leaving the zoning at NR-3 was the best result. If the priority was to preserve and protect what
was there NR-3 did not do that.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned, Council Member King seconded to postpone consideration to
the date certain of July 17, 2012. On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member
Watts, Council Member Gregory, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs —"aye". Motion
carried.
Resolution No. R2012-015
B. Consider approval of a resolution naming the Rail Trail pedestrian bridge over
Loop 288 after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Emerson Vorel, Director of Planning and Development, stated that at the May 8th meeting,
Council aslced staff to bring forward a resolution naming the Rail Trail pedestrian bridge over
Loop 288 after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Staff had been researching an appropriate project for
several years for such a naming.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp motioned, Council Member Roden seconded to approve the resolution.
On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member
Roden — "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 2012-113
C. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting proposals and awarding a public
worlcs contract for the constniction of the Denton Branch Rail Trail at Loop 288
Pedestrian Bridge; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:_r_,.�,�,.f '�'F^�'F
,� .
providing an effective date (Bid 4868-awarded to Massana Constniction, Inc. in
the amount of $1, 718,13 8.40).
Emerson Vorel, Director of Parlcs and Recreation, reviewed the history of the development of the
bridge. He stated that funding for the bridge would come from regional toll road funds and other
sources.
Council Member Gregory motioned, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp seconded to adopt the ordinance.
On roll call vote: Council Member King, Council Member Watts, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Engelbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, Mayor Burroughs, Council Member
Roden — "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
6. 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 talcen, 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.
Mayor Burroughs asked for an update on the mitigation question on roadway improvements.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that the Fairhaven issue in terms of the historical aspect
raised the issue that it seemed that the City was always behind the issue rather than ahead. He
suggested a joint meeting with the Historic Landmarlc Commission to charge thein with the taslc
of loolcing at what facilities the City might want to consider historical and need to be save or
neighborhoods that Council needed to be concerned about.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that Saturday from 10-3 there would be an auto show at the
Williams Trade Square for benefiting the Combat Tracker Team of Viet Nam.
Council Member King stated that next Wednesday would be the graduate reception at the ATC
Center.
Council Member Roden aslced for an update on form base zoning in the downtown area.
t dt�b�� i%t !!t:'tsti%ts t.�4dt b�...si.%t/ts� de .:-ddtstltt.'.�"'�
d d� k'� � `', _'�Fi � _'?
i:_P_:.�,f,�.s �.�F.:"7
,� .
Council Member Roden aslced for an update on the neighborhood concerns with TWU.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp aslced for an update on the outcome of the COG meeting with DISD and
the sidewallc proj ect.
B. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
There was no continuation of the Closed Meeting.
C. Official Action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
There was no official action on Closed Meeting items.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
MARK A. BLJRROUGHS
MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS