Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 8, 2008 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL April 8, 2008 After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas will nd convene in 2 Tuesday Session on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following item will be considered: nd NOTE: A 2 Tuesday Session is used to explore matters of interest to one or more City Council Members or the City Manager for the purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen input, nd City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a 2 Tuesday Session, the City Council generally receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City staff, officials, members of City committees, and the individual or organization proposing council action, if invited by City Council or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by individuals and members of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Mayor announces the nd session is being closed to public input. Although 2 Tuesday Sessions are public meetings, and citizens have a legal right to attend, they are not public hearings, so citizens are not allowed to participate in the session unless invited to do so by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City Council, prior to the beginning of the session, a written report regarding the citizen’s opinion on the matter being explored. Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting agenda, the staff will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed action, which will be made available to all citizens prior to the regular meeting at which citizen input is sought. The purpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular meeting the opportunity to hear the views of their fellow citizens without having to attend two meetings. 1.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding street maintenance issues. 2.Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide direction regarding the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Commission. NOTE: The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, including without limitation, Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the ________day of ___________________, 2008 at ________o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) ____________________________________ CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY’S OFFICE. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: April 8, 2008 DEPARTMENT: Water Utilities ACM: Howard Martin, Utilities 349-8232 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding street maintenance issues. BACKGROUND Responsibility for Streets/Traffic operations and maintenance were transferred to the Water Department in 2001. Funding for these two divisions continues to be provided from the general fund. Staff would like to update the City Council on historical street maintenance issues, the current maintenance activities and provide staff recommendations on the changes needed to adequately operate and maintain the street system. Staff is very appreciative of this Council’s efforts to provide additional funding to the Streets and Traffic divisions to begin addressing these funding issues. Staff is providing a 15-year expenditure history for street maintenance activities (Exhibit I). Costs of utility patches and pothole repair are included in these totals, when calculating the annual replacement costs these expenses should not be included in the maintenance expenditures. Maintenance activities include crack-seal, micro-seal, hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlay, and street reconstruction. The crack seal program involves the application of rubberized asphalt material into cracks that appear on the surface of the roadway. This is a very important early maintenance procedure to prevent moisture from seeping into the cracks. This prevents damage from the freeze thaw cycles in the winter and from expansion/contraction cycles due to the expansive clay soils under the pavement. Micro-seal is a more aggressive maintenance procedure providing a thin additional wear surface and a sealant coating to the surface of the roadway. This material is comprised of rock, emulsion asphalt, cement, and sand. This procedure seals the entire surface of the roadway protecting the roadway and subgrade from moisture. Smaller cracks and more numerous cracks are more cost effectively sealed using this maintenance procedure. Hot-mix asphalt overlay (HMA) involves the milling of several inches of asphalt off of the surface of the roadway and then replacing with three to four inches of hot-mix asphalt and then roller compacting. Spot curb and gutter repairs are normally made during this procedure. Total reconstruction involves the complete removal of the existing roadway and reconstructing of the subgrade and placement of new asphalt layers or concrete. Normally, on a total reconstruction project the curb and gutter sections were either partially or completely replaced depending upon the salvage value and condition of the existing curb and gutter system. Prior to 2002, the roadway standard for subgrade and asphalt thickness was based on the following criteria (Exhibit II). If rigorous inspection was not being done during application of roadways it is quite conceivable that the roadway thickness actually constructed could have been significantly thinner than what was inspected. The less stringent criteria of the past are resulting in the reduced life cycle of our roadways. These thinner roadway sections are deteriorating at a much faster rate as the city grows and traffic volumes increase. Coordination of capital improvement efforts between the City of Denton’s Water, Wastewater, and Streets divisions is extremely important in order to minimize conflicts, control costs, eliminate multiple mobilizations to the same project locations, and to avoid disturbances to recently rehabilitated/replaced facilities by other projects early in the asset’s life cycle. Recently, staff implemented an approach for the coordination of these efforts. Water Utilities collects data on water main breaks per mile in a database that allows them to evaluate the water lines that have the largest number of breaks and prioritize them for replacement/rehabilitation. From this data, a five year replacement program is generated as part of the Utility CIP that lists the size and extent of line to be replaced, as well as the fiscal year for the replacement. Based on this schedule of projects, the Wastewater Utilities division evaluates the possible wastewater collection line replacements needed in the same locations, at times performing additional analyses and testing in order to evaluate the integrity of the wastewater lines. The status of the wastewater lines was added to the water line replacements spreadsheet, characterizing the type of repair or replacement in each instance. The next step in coordinating the various CIP projects is to incorporate scheduled street rehabilitation projects into the spreadsheet in priority order, including the project extents and the overall condition index (OCI) rating. The Streets division will submit their replacement list for the five year CIP based on the streets listed that coordinated with water and/or wastewater projects and have a low OCI rating. The goal for all of the divisions involved was to better coordinate all the CIP projects and come up with a coordinated schedule to make the construction process run more smoothly. Annual Replacement Costs Staff distributed an article from the Ft. Worth Star Telegram concerning the condition of Ft. Worth streets and comments from Lewis McClain concerning annual replacement costs for streets. We have included that information in this document (Exhibits III & IV). A life cycle cost chart was prepared to give an estimate of the annual expenditures necessary to maintain a given number of lane miles (Denton has approximately 1348 lane miles) of roadway (Exhibit V). Roadway standards prior to the 2002 would yield approximately 20 to 25-year life cycles. By looking at the 20 to 25-year life cycle costs and assuming a cost of $400,000 per lane mile, it indicates we need to be spending $21 to $26million dollars per year for annual maintenance. Our current standards for roadway construction should yield a 35 to 40-year life cycle cost. Improving the life cycle to 35-40 years reduces the annual maintenance expenditures to $13 to $15 million per year. It is apparent from the annual replacement costs that by increasing the life cycle of our roadways the annual maintenance costs can be significantly reduced. Staff has surveyed other cities in the Metroplex to determine how our roadway design standards compare (Exhibit VI). With the exception of major and minor arterial categories, our design standards are comparable. The arterial category design standards have been raised to handle higher traffic volumes and heavier truck loads. The City contracted with ERES Consultants in 2003 to perform an Automated Roadway Evaluation (Exhibit VII). This evaluation gave staff an accurate assessment of the Overall Condition Index (OCI) of the City of Denton street network. Based on the analysis of the road condition, the consultant performed model runs to determine the level of expenditure necessary to prevent the deterioration of our roadway system. We are currently preparing for an update of the Automated Roadway Evaluation. This update will allow staff to evaluate several very important aspects associated with our street maintenance program. We will be able to determine the annual decay rate for our existing streets. The evaluation will provide the means to more accurately assess what the annual expenditures will need to be to effectively maintain our roadway system. Denton Street Maintenance Program The financial resources allocated to the Denton street program have been increasing over the past 5 years. However, based on the Automated Roadway Evaluation additional resources need to be programmed for street maintenance to reverse the overall deterioration of the street network. This situation has developed over several decades and has resulted in an overall deterioration of the street network. Unless major changes in the street maintenance program are made soon, the street system will deteriorate to an unacceptable level and reasonable options for addressing the issue may not be available. Therefore, a financial plan must be developed to reverse the current trend and restore the street program to a viable level. Denton is currently spending approximately $3 million per year to maintain Denton streets. However, the annual cost of just replacing the existing street system on a continuing basis is estimated at approximately $20 million. Based on the large size of this funding gap, easy financial solutions will not be available. The financial plan must consist of a number of sources of additional funding and a prioritization of existing funding sources to be successful. The plan will also require a number of years to fully implement. Staff recommends that annual funding for streets maintenance be increased to $15 million by the year 2017. EXHIBITS 1. Historical Expenditures 2. 2002 Design Standards 3. Article: City’s Path to the Future May be Poorly Paved 4. Article: Fort Worth: City has 816 Lane-miles of Streets so bad that the can only be Fixed by Rebuilding them 5. Annual Street Replacement Cost 6. Design Criteria for Surrounding Municipalities Respectfully submitted: Jim Coulter, Director of Water Utilities EXHIBIT 1 City of Denton Streets Operations and Maintenance Expenditures EXHIBIT 2 Street Sections 11-28-06 CurrentCriteriaPreviousDetails Adopted in 2002 Street ClassificationAsphaltConcretePrev AsphPrev Conc AlleyN/A7"R/8"CN/AN/A Flag Drive5"5"N/AN/A Residential Lane7"6"N/AN/A Residential Street7"6"5"5" Rural/Suburban7"6"N/AN/A Courtyard Street7"6"N/AN/A Cul de Sac7"R/8"C6"R/7"CN/AN/A Residential Avenue8"7"N/AN/A Main Street Collector8"7"8"7" Commercial Collector9"8"N/AN/A Secondary ArterialN/A10"8" / 10"6" / 8" Divided Secondary Arterial N/AN/A8" / 10"6" / 8" Undivided Primary ArterialN/A12"10" / 15"8" / 11" Divided Primary ArterialN/AN/A10" / 15"8" / 11" Undivided . EXHIBIT 3 Posted on Tue, Dec. 12, 2006 City's path to the future may be poorly paved By MIKE LEE Star-Telegram Staff Writer FORT WORTH -- Traffic on Keller Hicks Road comes to a standstill every morning and afternoon as students move between two new schools and the thousands of new homes in the Villages at Woodland Spring subdivision. There are no sidewalks along Keller Hicks, which is two lanes wide with drainage ditches on either side. The situation is so chaotic that the city paid $120,000 this year to provide buses for children who live near enough to walk to school. Two children have been hit by cars near the schools since August. "It's dangerous; it's a huge accident waiting to happen," said Lara Lee Hogg, executive director of the North Fort Worth Alliance. The situation is illustrative of a problem that occurs all over Fort Worth. The city has grown so fast, through annexation and redevelopment, that there isn't enough money to pay for roads and other infrastructure. A $273 million bond package of projects that voters approved in 2004 is on schedule, but it's not enough to meet the demand. The number of poor-quality streets -- streets so bad that they can only be fixed by rebuilding them -- has increased to 816 lane-miles in 2006 from 785 in 2005. And the cost of rebuilding a lane-mile has increased to $660,000 from $500,000. Nor does the city need only streets. It also needs libraries, parks, and fire and police stations. All told, the city will need $2.8 billion to build and maintain roads and other infrastructure over the next 10 years, city officials say. City officials believe that they can sink $150.9 million into roads and other "critical capital needs" in the next four years without a tax increase. But it won't be easy and it will mean dedicating a lot of the projected growth in tax revenue to the road projects. "It doesn't take much to connect the dots," City Manager Charles Boswell told the City Council at a workshop Monday. "There will not be as much money for public safety, or code [enforcement], or a lot of the other purposes that we've utilized that growth for in the last few years." Boswell and the city staff want the city to issue certificates of obligation, which don't require voter approval as bonds do, for the $150.9 million. Under the proposal, most of the money will be spent on neighborhood streets ($51 million) and arterial streets such as Keller Hicks Road ($19.8 million). The plan would also put $23 million into a new parking garage for the convention center and allocate $6 million for "premature street failures," which are streets built by developers that fell apart. That would still leave about $10 million worth of failed streets. Transportation Director Robert Goode said the city is looking for ways to collect more from developers to cover the failed streets. The city is also trying to increase the fees that subdivision developers pay to offset the burden that new homes and businesses put on surrounding roads. Council members said they generally favored the plan, although there was some dissent. Councilwoman Wendy Davis said that the city normally holds a bond election before borrowing large amounts. A preliminary vote could happen next week and a final vote in January. Also, the list of arterial streets includes only projects that are eligible for matching funds from other sources. That means some parts of town would get nothing. Others said the city can't afford to wait. Any delays could mean bigger cost increases, Councilman Chuck Silcox said. "Infrastructure is, has been and will remain ... one of our biggest problems," Silcox said. EXHIBIT 4 >> "Lewis F. McLain, Jr." <news@citybase.net> 12/12/06 8:47 AM >>> > LFM Note: this is what I have been preaching for years. Take the number of lane-miles in your city (FTW has 6,900 and divide by the average life, say 25-30 years, and you will see how many lane-miles will be in need of replacement every year on the average. It is an exponential, not straight-line curve in reality, but this will give you a reasonable clue of the kind of liability that is accruing each year. Using 30 years, Fort Worth in this high-level illustration will need to replace about 230 lane-miles each year -- or do as most cities do and defer until the arithmetic reaches a critical stage. Given that developers built most roadways the first time and gave the ASSET to the city, the asset then turns into a LIABILITY for the city as years go by. The $500,000 per lane-mile cost has stood up as a reasonable number until the cost of concrete and steel escalated over the recent years. It is still a decent number for the weighted cost of all roadways including neighborhood streets. In any case, take 230 lane-miles per year and multiply by $500,000 and you get $115,000,000 per year on the average to address the eroding roadway liability. Postpone long enough and then you will need to double to deal with the parallel issues of 1) catching up and 2) keeping up. If fact, rather than argue with my rough, high level approach, construct a matrix with average life down the side in 1-year increments from 10 years (ridiculously low) to 40 years (ridiculously high). Then across the top list the cost per lane-mile from $250,000 to $650,000 in $50,000 increments. Inside the matrix compute the annual liability estimate by taking your total lane- miles applied to the "depreciation rates" (years) and the costs per lane-mile. Somewhere in that table is your ANNUAL replacement liability. If you have a good maintenance program, then you can move closer to 30+ years for replacement. If you are doing less than you should be, then you may need to look at a shorter life that moves toward 20 years. If you have high construction standards and good soils to begin with, then you are blessed. If most of your roadways were built at standards less than you would require or accept today and/or if you have bad soils, then you have a problem. If you are deferring maintenance (Fort Worth says they conduct maintenance on 200 lane miles per year out of 6,600 lane-miles; you do the math) then why are you acting surprised when many, many years go by and then finally someone sits down and does a little arithmetic to produce a "sticker shock result" that could have been estimated with a fair degree of accuracy several decades ago? My comments are based on using Fort Worth numbers, but are not directed just to Fort Worth. Arlington reported a few years back that their roadways were wearing out at the rate of $1,000,000 per month. Several cities like Plano publicly started addressing the cost of getting their older parts of the city in good shape since so much attention has been placed on growth for years. If you are a city that can say, "a very high percentage of our roads have been built in a very short period of time" then you need to recognize that a bubble is coming your way as you substitute "will wear out" for "have been built" in that statement. EXHIBIT 4 This is a liability that public works and finance folks need to both shares the responsibility for measuring and reporting. It is clear that the accounting profession is not going to have the finger pointed at them when the costs of infrastructure (and now pension and OPEB costs) are moved from 1) no recognition to 2) rough calculations to 3) liabilities mentioned in footnotes to 4) liabilities placed on in the appropriate place on the balance sheet. And when liabilities go up on the balance sheet that did not exist before and do not have a corresponding asset, then we might find that some cities have negative values in the equity section of the balance sheet. The complexity of accounting that started in the mid-1970's when the accounting profession got embarrassed when NY technically defaulted on some bonds has yet to reveal the simple story that could have been told with only a few adjustments to the traditional balance sheet, income statement and working capital statement (oh how I still grieve to the WC statement!) two decades faster than it has taken to recognize a liability for what it is. LFM EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 6 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: April 8, 2008 DEPARTMENT: Utility and CIP Engineering ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 __________________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide direction regarding the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Commission. BACKGROUND The City of Denton‘s Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) has recently held discussions on their purpose. A synopsis of their concerns and recommendations (written by a subcommittee, presented to the full Commission and agreed upon by that body) is attached. Staff is forwarding this to Council for their th review in advance of the TSC’s presentation scheduled for April 8, 2008. OPTIONS 1.Modify the Denton Development Code and operations of the various affected Departments to implement the changes requested in the backup. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance to this effect. 2.Direct staff to gather additional information concerning this request for consideration at a future work session. 3.Take no action. RECOMMENDATION Permit staff sufficient time to gather additional information regarding the recommendations and its potential impact on the Denton Development Code, the Street Department and Traffic Operations, the duties of the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer, and the processing of design projects. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Not applicable. FISCAL INFORMATION None. ATTACHMENTS 1.City of Denton, Traffic Safety Commission Proposed Duties Respectfully submitted: ______________________________ Jim Coulter Director of Utilities EXHIBIT 1 City of Denton, Traffic Safety Commission Proposed Duties On March 3, 2008, the Denton Traffic Safety Commission proposed that the following recommendation be considered by the City Council. Said recommendation is set forth below. I. History of the Traffic Safety Commission a. June 19, 1973 resolution by City Council established an advisory committee known as “Citizens Traffic Safety Support Commission”. The purpose was as follows: 1.To encourage and promote programs and campaigns within the commun- ity which will bring about citizen awareness and support of traffic safety; 2.To receive and consider information of a traffic safety nature that they may be aware of; 3.To make recommendations to those public officials who can administer and implement corrective action on matters of traffic safety and traffic congestion; 4.To appoint such citizens, as may be deemed necessary, as non voting members, subject to approval of the City Council, to assist in accomplishing programs and studies of the commission. In 1973 the commission was established as advisory to the community. See attached herein a copy of said resolution (Exhibit “A”). b. On November 5, 1991, Ordinance No. 91-168 amended Section 34-115 to provide that the Citizens Traffic Safety Support Commission would have final authority over appeals and variances involving parking lot/driveway permits. Section 34-115 (c) (4) was amended. See attached herein as “Exhibit B”. c. On August 11, 1993, Ordinance No. 93-145 changed the name of the Citizens Traffic Safety Support Commission to “Traffic Safety Commission”. The Commission requested this change to more clearly relate to the Commission’s functions. See attached herein as “Exhibit C”. d. In February 2002, the City of Denton adopted the Denton Development Code (Hereinafter “DDC”). This code as adopted apparently stripped the Traffic Safety Commission of its variance authority. See attached email from City attorney Jerry Drake. Attached herein as “Exhibit D”. e. There is apparently a reference in the City of Denton Transportation Criteria Manual in section 2 and section 20 that refers to the Traffic Safety Commission authority over driveway variance. Attached herein as “Exhibit E”. 6 Proposed duties of Traffic Safety Commission, Memorandum of 3 March 2008, page 2 of II. Current Traffic Safety Commission Duties a. The Traffic Safety Commission currently has only advisory powers on two issues, Loading Zones and Traffic Control Devices. Loading Zones are essentially a once a year event and do not normally involve traffic safety issues. b. In comparison, until recently removed from the website, the current City of Denton website defined the Traffic Safety Commission as: Traffic Safety Commission “The Traffic Safety Commission reviews variance requests for driveways to determine if the petitioner has met the five criteria set forth in the Subdivision Regulations. The Commission reviews petitioner requests and staff investigations regarding removal of parking from public streets to better serve the traveling public. It also reviews any request that affects the traffic flow on City streets and/or right-of-way such as school zones, loading zones, bicycle lanes, skateboards/roller blades on sidewalks, handicap parking, etc.” (from http://www.cityofdenton.com/pages/boardscomms.cfm, downloaded 2 Feb. 2008) c. The Charter Amendments of 2006 appear to have placed additional limitations on some commissions within the City of Denton that were not previously there. The change in process with these Charter Amendments has resulted in less public input to the Council from its commissions. For example, Proposition 16, clarifies that construction of public improvements do not have to be presented to the P&Z for recommendations where they do not appear on the master plan or when no plat approval is required. Those issues go directly to the City Council now. Proposition 20, modifies the authority of the Public Utility Board (PUB) to be a solely consulting and advisory board to the City Council. It appears as though none of the Charter Amendments of 2006 directly reference the activities of The Traffic Safety Commission. Attached herein as “Exhibit F” is the City of Denton published description of the Charter Amendments. d. Summary Traffic Safety Commission activities since October 2006: Traffic Safety Commission Meetings Date of Meeting Items of Action or Discussion Oct. 2, 2006: Approval of loading zones (a current regular function of the commission) Oct. 9, 2006: Review and consider a recommendation to City Council concerning the speed limits on University Drive/US 380 from Locust Street to 550 feet east of Shawnee Street. Nov. 6, 2006: No action taken. Commission reviewed Chapter 35, Section 20 of the Denton Development Code (DDC). 6 Proposed duties of Traffic Safety Commission, Memorandum of 3 March 2008, page 3 of Nov. 13, 2006: No action taken. Commission reviewed Chapter 35, Section 20 of the Denton Development Code (DDC). Dec. 4, 2006: No action taken. Commission reviewed Chapter 35, Section 20 of the Denton Development Code (DDC). Jan. 8, 2007: No action taken on review of Chapter 35, Section 20 of the Denton Development Code (DDC). Further, discussed speed limits on Oak Street/Jim Christal Road from IH-35 to FM156. Feb. 5, 2007: No action taken. Commission reviewed Chapter 35, Section 20 of the City’s Code. (DDC) Mar. 5, 2007: No action taken. Commission reviewed Chapter 35, Section 20 of the Denton Development Code (DDC). Further, made recommendations concerning speed limits on Robinson Road from the easterly City limits to Teasley Lane/FM2181. This is a state highway and therefore no action or implementation could occur. Apr. 2, 2007: No action taken. Commission reviewed Chapter 35, Section 20 of the Denton Development Code (DDC). Jun 4, 2007: Action concerning unwarranted signal at the intersection of McKinney Street and Wood Street and the installation of a “HAWK” pedestrian signal. September 10, 2007: Review by legal staff discussion Chapter 176 of the Local Government Code. Approved a loading zone for 115 Fry Street. October 7, 2007: Review of lane configuration change for southbound US377 at IH35E. No action taken by the Commission. Nov. 5, 2007: Election of officers. Action on no parking on the North side of Scripture Street from Bryan Street to Ponder Street. January 7, 2008: Consider viability of Traffic Safety Commission. Discussion about revisions to applicable Loading Zone Ordinances. No action taken by the Commission. Feb. 4, 2008: Consider viability of Traffic Safety Commission. Consider changing street name of Pearl Street to McKinney Street between Bolivar Street and Carroll Boulevard. Action taken and recommendation made to City Council. 6 Proposed duties of Traffic Safety Commission, Memorandum of 3 March 2008, page 4 of The above 18-month chronology is offered to demonstrate that the Traffic Safety Commission does not currently meet its desired mission to be of service to the citizens of Denton in reviewing, implementing and overseeing all traffic safety issues within the City of Denton. III. Reasons for Needed Change in Traffic Safety Commission Duties As the City of Denton continues to grow, traffic safety issues have become more obvious. These, include but are not limited to, congested streets, lack of parking, speed zone changes, need for additional traffic lights, and increases in street curb cut variances, to name a few of the city’s current traffic safety related issues. . While other city committees, most notably Planning and Zoning may work to encourage, review and determine if more business locations are available for development, no group, other than the Traffic Safety Commission, has the task of oversight of traffic safety issues. In addition, a commission such as Planning and Zoning, which is charged with reviewing development issues, may not have its focus on traffic safety issues. In comparison, to the duties of the Traffic Safety Commission, the City of Denton websites definition of the Planning and Zoning Commission was defined, until it was also recently removed, on the same website as: “Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission formulates zoning regulations governing the platting and subdividing of land within the City. This Commission also makes recommendations to the City Council concerning proposed changes to the zoning map. The Planning and Zoning members make, amend, extend, and add to the master plan for the physical development of Denton.” (from http://www.cityofdenton.com/pages/boardscomms.cfm, downloaded 2 Feb 2008) It is noteworthy that the Planning and Zoning Commission definition does not mention or discuss traffic, road and/or development safety issues. Therefore, it appears that there is a need for the Traffic Safety Commission to work in a checks-and-balances fashion attending to potential traffic safety issues within the City of Denton. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THETRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO THE DENTON CITY COUNSEL REGARDING FUTUREFUNCTIONING OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION a.Proposed statement of purpose for The Traffic Safety Commission: The Traffic Safety Commission shall have final recommendation authority over Chapter 35, Section 20 of the Denton Development Code and the City of Denton Traffic Criteria manual as those codes and ordinances impact, relate to or effect traffic safety. In this regard, The Traffic Safety Commission is a Commission of appointed citizens who shall be charged with overseeing traffic safety issues within the City 6 Proposed duties of Traffic Safety Commission, Memorandum of 3 March 2008, page 5 of of Denton. The Commission shall hear, review and provide oversight over all issues of traffic safety within the City of Denton. . The City Council, The City of Denton Engineering Department, The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and such other commission within the City of Denton, shall refer traffic safety issues to The Traffic Safety Commission. In this regard and as a guide, the Commission shall; encourage and promote programs and campaigns within the community which will bring about traffic safety, and will receive and consider information of a traffic safety nature that the Commissioners may be made aware of; make recommendations to The City Council, Planning and Zoning and such other commissions who can administer and implement corrective action on matters of traffic safety. Further, the Commission shall appoint such citizens, as may be deemed necessary, as non-voting members, to assist in understanding, 1 studying and implementing its decisions. b.The Traffic Safety Commission shall have final recommendation authority over the following traffic safety issues within the City of Denton and shall work in conjunction with The City Council, The Planning and Zoning Commission, The City of Denton Engineering Department and such other commissions whose functions overlap with The Traffic Safety Commission to carry out its purpose: 1. Those arising out of Chapter 25, Section 20 of the DDC; 2. Those arising under or out of traffic safety concerns or issues that are not directly covered by Chapter 25, Section 20 of the DDC; 3. Those arising under or out of the City of Denton Transportation Criteria Manual 2 4. Parking lots, driveways, and curb cuts 5. Street direction, lane configuration, and turn lane changes 6. Speed limits, speed zones (both regular and school zones), right turn on red 3 restrictions and one-way streets 7. Truck routes, and evacuation routes 4 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian routes, Loading zone issues 9. Pedestrian crosswalks and the like 10. Traffic control device additions, removals, changes and the like 11. Red light cameras and the like 12. Street lighting, street parking and the like 1 As a specific example this could include such activities as: Traffic Safety placing reminders and updates in the quarterly Denton Park brochure, a once a month small feature in the Denton Record Chronicle on traffic safety issues. Such programs would increase citizen awareness of the new traffic rules or planned changes. This would potentially be of help not only to citizens, but the Police Department as well. In this stated mission, the Traffic Safety Commission will better serve the city and citizens of Denton than it has been able to in the past. Planning and Zoning Commission needs to have an affirmative responsibility to share these issues to the Traffic Safety Commission for review, consideration, feedback in a shared approval process. 2 See Ordinance No. 91-168 3 See City Municipal Code A-2-a, Sec. 18-3(a) 4 See Ordinance No.76-56 and Ordinance No. 93-089 6 Proposed duties of Traffic Safety Commission, Memorandum of 3 March 2008, page 6 of 13. Street name continuity and the like 14. Traffic flow and safety of public improvements related to commercial and 5 private development and the like 15. Citizen requests related to traffic issues and the like 16. Traffic effects of commuter trains coming to Denton and the like 17. Evacuation routes and the like 18. All other issues which may concern traffic safety and ease of traffic movement through the City of Denton In addition, The Traffic Safety Commission shall have input in and be advised concerning the following Traffic Safety topics: 1. The Development of publications concerning traffic safety reminders and updates to the public 2. Invitation of public comments or concerns over traffic safety issues This Memo was approved by The Traffic Safety Commission on March 3, 2008 at a public meeting. 5 See Ordinance No. 2005-255 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C >>> Jerry Drake 10/24/2007 5:33 PM >>> Since sending my original e-mail to you regarding this issue, I've spoken with a number of people who were involved in the Code change that altered TSC's authority to grant variances. All of them agree with you that the original intent of the change was to give P&Z exclusive authority over platting issues. However, it now appears that the goal was either implemented imprecisely, or the goal changed along the way, but the implementation of the DDC in 2002 effectively stripped TSC of any jurisdiction beyond being an advisory board. The same ordinance that adopted the DDC also superseded Chapter 34 of the Code, to the extent of any conflict. TSC's authority to grant variances was set forth in Chapter 34 (sec. 34-115(c)(4)). By contrast, the DDC has no references to the TSC whatsoever, let alone any grant of authority to grant variances. The DDC adopted the concept of "criteria manuals" as design standards, implemented and amended by a more flexible administrative procedure, which did not provide for TSC (in the case of street and traffic standards) to grant variances. The only variance processes called out in the DDC are for Council, P&Z and the Board of Adjustment. Additionally, section 2-29 (h)(2) of the Code provides that "[n]o committee so appointed shall have powers other than advisory to the council or to the city manager, except as otherwise specified by the Charter or Code." Since the supersedure of sec. 34-115(c)(4) by the DDC, there is no Code or Charter provision that exists to grant TSC any such variance authority, hence, they must be advisory. J.Drake, Deputy City Attorney Section 3 Transportation Criteria Manual Section 3 – Driveway Design 3.1 Geometric Standards The following standards generally apply to all developments. However, unique situations may arise especially in previously or partially developed areas in which these standards may be physically impossible or extremely impractical. In these situations, the Director of Engineering and/or his/her representative will work with the developer to develop a mutually agreeable solution. In the event that a mutually agreeable solution is not reached, the developer may apply to the Traffic Safety Commission for a variance in accordance with the procedures for driveway variances included in the Development Code. 3.1.1 Width, Radius and Other Dimensions Table III-1-A-1, Driveway Dimensions Single and two Street type Other family Min. Width =12 feet Min. Width = 24 feet Alley Max Width = 30 feet Max Width = 30 feet Radius = 5 feet Radius = 5 to 15 feet Min. Width = 12 feet Flag Drive N/A Max Width = 30 feet Radius= 5 feet Min. Width = 12 feet **Max Width = 30 Neighborhood N/A feet Radius = 5 feet Min. Width = 24 feet Collector N/A *Max Width = 52 feet Radius = 10 to 20 feet Min. Width = 24 feet Arterial N/A *Max Width = 52 feet Radius = 20 to 25 feet ¨ Add 5 feet to maximum radius for significant truck traffic ¨ For shared driveways, no lot shall contain less than 9 feet of the driveway unless a private access easement is provided on the plat or by separate instrument. ¨ Maximum driveway width is a function of traffic volume. Refer to figures III-1-A-2 through 5. ** 30 foot maximum width on neighborhood streets is only permitted for shared drives or for homes with a three or more car garage where the garage door faces the street and is less than 40 feet from the back of curb. Otherwise, a maximum 20-foot drive will be permitted. 57 Subchapter 20 Development Code Subchapter 20 – Transportation Sections: íëòîðòï Ы®°±­»ò íëòîðòî ͬ®»»¬ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ò íëòîðòí л¼»­¬®·¿² ñ Þ·½§½´» Ú¿½·´·¬§ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ò íëòîðòì Ü®·ª»©¿§ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ò íëòîðòë Ы¾´·½ Ì®¿²­·¬ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ò 35.20.1 Purpose. ß´´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬­ ­¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» º±® ­¬®»»¬­ ­·¼»©¿´µ­ ¾·½§½´» ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ º¿½·´·¬·»­ ¬± ­»®ª» ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ¬¸·­ Í«¾½¸¿°¬»®ô ¬¸» ¼»­·¹² ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ·² ¬¸» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý®·¬»®·¿ Ó¿²«¿´ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ó±¾·´·¬§ д¿²ò 35.20.2 Street Standards. ̸» º±´´±©·²¹ ­¬®»»¬ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ­¸¿´´ ¿°°´§ ¬± ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬­ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ Í«¾½¸¿°¬»®ò ͬ®»»¬ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ­¸¿´´ ¾» »­¬¿¾´·­¸»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬­ ­»®ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬ ¿²¼ ¬±¬¿´ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬®¿ºº·½ò Ú±® ¬¸» °«®°±­» ±º ¼»¬»®³·²·²¹ ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º ¬¸·­ Í«¾½¸¿°¬»®ô ¿´´ ­¬®»»¬­ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ½´¿­­·º·»¼ ¿²¼ ¼»º·²»¼ ¿­ º±´´±©­æ ßòͬ®»»¬ ̧°»­ò ïò ß´´»§ò ß² ¿´´»§ ø®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ±® ݱ³³»®½·¿´÷ ·­ ¿ °«¾´·½ ­¬®»»¬ ¼»­·¹²»¼ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿½½»­­ ¬± ¬¸» ®»¿® ±® ­·¼» ±º ¿ ´±¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ­±´·¼ ©¿­¬» ¿²¼ º·®» ¿½½»­­ò ß´´»§­ ¿®» ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® ¿´´ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ´±¬­ º®±²¬·²¹ ±² ¿ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ´¿²»ô λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ ߪ»²«»ô Ó¿·² ͬ®»»¬ Ó·¨»¼ Ë­» ݱ´´»½¬±®ô ݱ³³»®½·¿´ Ó·¨»¼ Ë­» ½±´´»½¬±® ¿²¼ ·² ²±²®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ¦±²·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ©¸»®» ²»½»­­¿®§ ¬± °®±ª·¼» º±® ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ¿½½»­­ º±® ­»®ª·½» ª»¸·½´»­ô ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ´±¿¼·²¹ ±® «²´±¿¼·²¹ô ¿½½»­­ º±® »³»®¹»²½§ ª»¸·½´»­ ±® ­·³·´¿® ®»¿­±²­ ½±²­·­¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ·²¬»²¬ ±º ¬¸·­ ݸ¿°¬»®ò ß´´»§­ ¿®» »²½±«®¿¹»¼ ·² ¿´´ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿²¼ ­·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬­ò ß´´»§­ ³¿§ ²±¬ ¿½½»­­ ¿®¬»®·¿´ ­¬®»»¬­ò ß¼±°¬»¼ ¹»±³»¬®§ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¿®» ´·­¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý®·¬»®·¿ Ó¿²«¿´ò ß´´»§­ ¿®» ¬± ¾» ¼»­·¹²»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý®·¬»®·¿ Ó¿²«¿´ò ¿òß´´ ¿´´»§­ ­¸¿´´ ¸¿ª» ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ¬©± øî÷ ¼·®»½¬ ¿½½»­­ °±·²¬­ ¬± °«¾´·½ ­¬®»»¬­ ¿²¼ ¿®» ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¾´±½µ ´»²¹¬¸ ½®·¬»®·¿ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ ½±¼»ò ¾òß´´»§­ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ¼»¼·½¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ò îò Ú´¿¹ Ü®·ª»ò ß Ú´¿¹ ¼®·ª» ·­ ¿ °®·ª¿¬» ®±¿¼ ©·¬¸·² ¿ °®·ª¿¬» ¿½½»­­ »¿­»³»²¬ô ©¸·½¸ ³¿§ ­»®ª» «° ¬± í ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬­ò Ò± ½«®¾­ ±® ­·¼»©¿´µ­ ¿®» ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® ¿ Ú´¿¹ ¼®·ª»ò Ú´¿¹ ¼®·ª»­ ­¸¿´´ ¸¿ª» ¼·®»½¬ ¿½½»­­ ¬± ¿ °«¾´·½ ­¬®»»¬ ±¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ¿² ¿´´»§ô ¸±©»ª»® ­¸¿´´ ²±¬ °®±ª·¼» ¼·®»½¬ ¿½½»­­ ¬± ¿² ¿®¬»®·¿´ ­¬®»»¬ò ß¼±°¬»¼ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º±® Ú´¿¹ ¼®·ª»­ ¿®» ¿­ ´·­¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý®·¬»®·¿ Ó¿²«¿´ò íò Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ͬ®»»¬ò ß ­¬®»»¬ô ©¸·½¸ ­»®ª»­ îð ±® ´»­­ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬­ ©·¬¸·² ¿ ¾´±½µô ¿²¼ ½¿®®·»­ ´»­­ ¬¸¿² èð𠪻¸·½´»­ °»® ¼¿§ò Ò»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ­¬®»»¬­ ·²½´«¼» ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ´¿²»­ô ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ­¬®»»¬­ô ®«®¿´ñ­«¾«®¾¿² ­¬®»»¬­ô ½±«®¬§¿®¼ ­¬®»»¬­ô ¿²¼ ½«´ ¼» ­¿½­ò ¿ò λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ Ô¿²»ò ß ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ´¿²» ·­ ¿ ­¬®»»¬ô ©¸·½¸ ­»®ª»­ º®±³ ì ó î𠼩»´´·²¹ «²·¬­ ¿­ ·´´«­¬®¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý®·¬»®·¿ Ó¿²«¿´ô ·­ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ½¿®®§ ´»­­ ¬¸¿² èð𠪻¸·½´»­ °»® ¼¿§ ¿²¼ ®»¯«·®»­ ¬¸» «­» ±º ß´´»§­ò Ò± ¼®·ª»©¿§ ¿½½»­­ ·­ ¿´´±©»¼ ±² ¿ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ´¿²»ò Ѳ󭬮»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ­¸¿´´ ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¾¿§­ò ß¼±°¬»¼ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º±® ¬®¿ª»´ ´¿²»­ ¿²¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ¾¿§­ ¿®» ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý®·¬»®·¿ Ó¿²«¿´ò ¾ò λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ ͬ®»»¬ò ß ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ­¬®»»¬ ·­ ¿ ­¬®»»¬ô ©¸·½¸ ­»®ª»­ º®±³ ì ¬± î𠼩»´´·²¹ «²·¬­ ¿­ ·´´«­¬®¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ý®·¬»®·¿ Ó¿²«¿´ô ¿²¼ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ½¿®®§ ´»­­ ¬¸¿² èð𠪻¸·½´»­ °»® ¼¿§ò ß´´»§­ ¿®» °»®³·¬¬»¼ ·² ½±²¶«²½¬·±² ©·¬¸ λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ ͬ®»»¬­ò Ѳ󭬮»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ·­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ±² ¾±¬¸ ­·¼»­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼ ©·¼¬¸ ±º ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬ ­»½¬·±²ò ß¼±°¬»¼ 20-1 the amendments to be available to all members of the public in accordance with Tex. Loc. Gov't Code §9.008. SECTION 6. The City Council has found and determined that the meeting at which this ordinance is considered is open to the public and that notice thereof was given in accordance with provisions of the Texas open meetings law, Tex. Gov't Code ch. 551, as amended, and that a quorum of the City Council was present. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 2006. ~~~~e~ PE R. M NEILL, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPR VED STD LEGAL FARM: EDWIN M. SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S:IOur Documentsl0rdinances1061canvass charter.do Page IO