Minutes April 09, 1991CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 9, 1991
51
The Council convened into a Special Call Meeting on April 9,
1991 at 5:15 p,m. in the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT:
Mayor Castleberry; Council Members Alexander,
Ayer, Gorton, Hopkins and Trent.
ABSENT:
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd
1. The Council convened into Executive Session to discuss
legal matters, real estate, and personnel/board appointments
(considered appointments to the Building Code Board, Community
Development Block Grant Committee, the Electrical Code Board,
the Historic Landmark Commission, the Human Services Committee,
the Downtown Advisory Board and the Siqn Board of Appeals.)
The Council then convened into a Work Session at 5:45 p.m. in
the Civil Defense Room.
1. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding a proposed ordinance related to the parking of
certain vehicles on the street and to the parking of vehicles
over 7,000 pounds.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this item had
been referred by the Council to Planning and Zoning. Staff was
needing direction from Council on how to proceed with the
proposal.
Cecile Carson, Administrative Analyst, stated that the
recommended ordinance was two-fold. It included a
recommendation for a change in the zoning ordinance which dealt
'with the parking of vehicles within single-family,
multi-family, office and neighborhood service districts. A
second portion dealt with parking on the street. The amendment
increased, in the zoning ordinance, the limit from one ton to
3.5 tons. The Planning and Zoning Commission reached that
level by looking at specific types of vehicles. The 3.5 ton
limit or 7,000 pounds would allow for double cab pickups,
pickups with wreckers built in, utility trucks. Anything over
that would be prohibited. There were exceptions in that if the
vehicle were temporarily parked for the purpose of
loading/unloading or for construction, if it were not visible
from a public street or an abuttinq residential property, or if
it were an inteqral part of a nonconforminq use. The second
part of the ordinance would amend the Code by increasing the
time limitation a vehicle could be parked on a street from Z0
continuous hours to 48 continuous hours.. It also prohibited
parking, placing or leaving boats, campers, recreational
vehicles, trailer or other vehicles which were not
self-propelled on the street unless it was connected to a
· self-propelled vehicle.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
April 9, 1991
Page 2
Council Member Gorton questioned the definition of "park"
versus "storage". He felt the definitions were too vague.
Carson replied that there were certain places where there was
confusion in the mixing of those two words. The heading should
have been corrected in order to make it consistent throughout
the ordinance in relation to park and leave.
Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, stated that the ordinance had
gone through five-six drafts. There used to be "storage,,
language in the ordinance but that the Planning and Zoning
Commission, in order to clarify it, changed it to '"parking" but
the caption did not get changed.
Carson stated that the Commission also felt that the only way
to determine "storage,, was to impose a time limitation. That
was an extremely complicated point to settle on.
Council Member Alexander asked for a clarification on the
existing regulations. Could a truck/tractor be parked in a
driveway of a residence zoning district under present rules and
regulations.
Carson replied that a legal opinion stated that the judqe or
the jury, in each individual case, would have to make a
determination of what "store" meant. How long being there
would constitute "store". Up until the legal opinion, the Code
Enforcement Officers had enforced that if it were more than one
ton, it was in violation and notices were sent.
Council Member Trent asked the number of violations were
received in the past year.
Carson replied that since August there had been nine complaints
and an additional one had just been received.
Council Member Hopkins felt that the proposed ordinance was too
restrictive and too discriminatory. The Council did not intend
to have this type of ordinance prepared. She was opposed to
adding recreational vehicles to the ordinance. There was a
safety factor involved in that if vehicles could not be left in
the police pound without vandalism occurring, how could these
vehicles be kept in an area without security such as in a
public storage facility. She did not have a problem with not
allowing unhitched trailers on the street. She did not see how
the City could afford the extra code enforoement employees to
handle such an ordinance.
Council Member Ayer stated that the original concern of Council
was with tractor-trailer rigs. Council did not ask for
investigation of recreational vehicles. He asked if there had
been complaints regarding recreational vehicles.
53
City of Denton City Council Minutes
April 9, 1991
Page 3
Carson replied yes but that records had not been kept of
those. Complaints dealt mainly with view obstruction.
Council discussed whether to revise the current ordinance or to
proceed with the proposed ordinance, the definition of
"storage,,, time limits for "storage,, and "parking".
Consensus of the Council was to table the item.
2. Council received a report and held a discussion on a
proposed resolution regarding a plan for Greenbelts.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the
proposed resolution recommended amending the Denton Development
Plan by adding a delineation of the 100 year flood plain as a
greenbelt on the concept map and by adding a greenbelt specific
area policy section. The plan for greenbelts included such
issues as environmental protection and quality of life, water
quality and water supply, flood loss avoidance, recreation and
open space opportunities, minimize fiscal impact by maximizing
beneficial natural aspects of flood plain and federal
assistance. He stated that accomplishing the goals of the
greenbelts would require the use and balancing of regulatory
prohibitions, public incentives, public acquisition and use of
some of this resource, and continued recognition by real estate
market forces of the amenity value and the dangers inherent in
the flood plain resource. Robbins reviewed the policies
involved in the plan and the work plan involved in implementing
the greenbelt plan. (Detailed information included in agenda
back-up materials).
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the resolution for
Council consideration.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding a proposed sprinkler ordinance.
John Cook, Fire Chief, stated that when he was first hired
there were several areas of concern that needed to be dealt
with. Those included the apparatus replacement and equipment
policies, the number of fire stations in the City and the
staffing patterns. Personnel figures were down as compared to
the size of the City. Current economic conditions did not
allow the hiring of new employees. Analysis of service demands
determined that 75% of the service demands were for emergency
medical services, 20% for grass/wild land fires and vehicle
fires and only about 5% were for structure fires. However, 95%
of the potential loss was in that area. It was determined that
automatic sprinklers were a way to help even the load without
having to hire new firefighters. Many meetings had been held
with the Governmental Affairs Committee-Chamber of Commerce and
City of Denton City Council Minutes
April 9, 1991
Page 4
other citizen groups and individuals. Ways were explored to
make it economically feasible and viable for the business
community, which was the target area for the sprinklers due to
the size of the building, to install the sprinkler systems. A
series of trade-offs were agreed on such as fire flow and
utilities. The proposed ordinance would provide a credit of a
50% reduction in the fire flow requirement if the building were
sprinkled. Other areas looked at were corridor fire ratings,
smoke controls, HVAC, wire glass in an effort to pay for the
system. It was felt that through insurance incentives and
reductions in costs of the building construction, enough
economic incentives might be provided to make the system
economically sound. A compromise had been reached regarding
the ordinance. In the area of new construction, if a building
was of combustible construction at 5000 square feet, it would
be required to be sprinklered. All new non-combustible
buildings of 10,000 square feet would be required to be
sprinklered. The single issue of greatest controversy dealt
with existing buildings. The compromise worked out was that
two situations would trigger an existing building to be
sprinklered. One would be if the building were enlarged past
the existing footprint after the date of passage of the
ordinance and the other if the enlargement caused the building
to be more than 10,000 square feet and more than 25% increase
in the size on the date of the ordinance passage.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Building Code
Board and the Mayor's Committee had not seen the final
ordinance. It was suggested that a special meeting be held on
April 30 to consider the item.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding the City of Denton.s Municipal Court of Record.
Tanya Cooper, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a proposed
draft of legislation had been returned to the Attorney.s office
by Senator Horn. She had reviewed the draft and noted several
changes. Those included (1) how to create the Municipal Court
of Record - the Council had the alternative to appoint by
ordinance the Judge, calling an election by ordinance to
determine the Judge or call an election to let the voters
decide whether to appoint or elect the Judge. (2) jurisdiction
- an ability to have jurisdiction over the bail bond
forfeitures was not included. That could be corrected and
Senator Horn could amend the legislation to include that
provision. (3) allowing the use of video recordings - these
would be allowed in order to preserve the record.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd joined the meeting.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
April 9, 1991
Page 5
55
Cooper continued with change (4) which did not include the
right of appeal. This was not essential at this time and could
be added later.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the changes if
they did not delay the process.
City Attorney Drayovitch suggested several Council members
yisit with the County Court-at-Law Judges regarding this
Issue. Also when the item was introduced and set for Committee
hearing, speakers would be needed to speak in favor of the
legislation.
5. The Council received and discussed
Department,s 1991 Forecast.
the Utility
Bob Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities, stated that each
year the Department did a forecast for all of the utility
systems. The primary objective of the annual Forecast was to
determine a projection of demands upon the utility system as
the basis for planning and budgeting needed capital
improvements. This process was accomplished in two general
phases. The first phase involved gathering available
historical data and analyzing trends. Since demands were
related to growth as well as changing use patterns,
characteristics related to each other were reviewed. Growth
analysis included population, commercial/industrial activity
and land use. The second phase involved projecting Denton,s
growth and customer use patterns and combining them to project
future utility demands. Nelson presented detailed analysis of
these projections, a copy of which was included in the agenda
back-up materials.
6. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding Council Member Gorton and Mayor Pro Tem Boyd's
meeting with Judge Moseley concerning redistricting.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that Council Member Gorton was not
able to be present for the meeting. He had indicated to Judge
Moseley that the City's concern was that the precincts were too
large and the population was too large to draw the City's
districts in order to accomplish all goals as required by the
Attorney General,s Office. Judge Moseley indicated to him that
the County would be agreeable for the City divide County
precincts for City use but that the current boundaries of the
precincts had to remain the same. For example, precinct 410
could be divided into 410 and 41OA but the boundaries of 410
would not be changed.
Consensus of the Council was to have the three non-returning
Council Members (Boyd, Gorton and Ayer) participate with staff
on a redistricting committee.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
April 9, 1991
Page 6
7. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding an analysis of the Charter review process.
Jesus Nava, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that the last
amendments to the Charter had been done in 1980. At that time,
a Citizens Charter Review Committee had been formed. An
ordinance was passed submitting the proposed changes for a
special election and the election was held in January 1980. He
presented the legal guidelines necessary for a charter election.
Consensus of the Council was to review a list of issues for
consideration of charter review and then consider appointment
of a committee as it might be possible for Council to consider
the items without a committee.
8. The Council received a report and held a discussion
regarding a proposal from the Union Pacific Railroad to lease
railroad right-of-way from Lake Dallas to Denton.
Jesus Nava, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that in
December 1989, the City learned that DART had obtained a
fifteen year option to purchase Union Pacific Railroad
right-of-way from the Dallas County line to Lewisville, just
north of Lake Dallas. At that time, the City sent a
City-Chamber delegation to request that DART include the
remaining right-of-way, from Lake Dallas to Denton, in the long
term option. DART indicated that it could not be included and
would petition the Interstate Commerce Commission for
abandonment of the rail line given the lack of feasible
economic use and the deteriorated condition of the track.
Staff researched federal law which would allow the City to work
with the Railroad to acquire the right-of-way for long term
transportation purposes in the future. As a result of a
meeting with Union Pacific, Union Pacific informed the City of
their intentions to pursue abandonment and to allow the City
the opportunity to negotiate the acquisition and/or transfer of
the right-of-way at a reasonable rate for trail use. Staff was
in the process of collecting information from Union Pacific,
including what was meant by "reasonable rate" and to evaluate
the costs and benefits of the proposal.
9. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that staff would like
to schedule a special meeting on April 23 and April 30, 1991.
Council Membe~ Gorton requested a return to Executive Session
to update Mayor Pro Tem Boyd on board appointments.
57
Clt¥ of Denton City Council Minutes
April 9, 1991
Page 7
Council returned to the Executive Session to discuss legal
matters, real estate, and personnel/board appointments
(considered appointments to the Building Code Board, Community
Development Block Grant Committee, the Electrical Code Board,
the Historic Landmark Commission, the Human Services Committee,
the Downtown Advisory Board and the Sign Board of Appeals.)
No official action was taken.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CITY SMCRETARY
DENTON, TEXAS
TON, T~S
3380C
58
EXHIBIT A
4/9/91
POSI]'ION STATEMENT
THE DENTON CHAMBER OF CO?iMERCE iS A DIVERSE ORGANiZATiON,
CURRENTLY RE,°I:~ESENTING APPROXIMATELY 850 DI~--FEI:,~Ei'4]' BLJSiNE'.SSES.
PROF'EBS1ONALS~ INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANiZATiONS. THE ¢ORMAL
POLICIES OF THE CHAMBER ARE GOVERNED BY A i~:9-PE~SON DOA~qD OF
DIRECTORS, ELECTED BY THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP.
POSITIONS AND ACTION CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF DiREC-I'OAS
ARE NORMALLY BASED ON 'I"HE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDA]'IO,~
OF ANY UNE OF THE CHAMBER'~S STANDING COMMITTEES. tN THE EVENT
]'HAT A FORMAL POSITION IS TAKEN BY THE BOARD, A SPOKESPERSON WiL_
BE DESZSNATED, WHICH iS NORMALLY THE CHAIRMAi~ OF THE BOAteD,
PRESIDENT, OR AS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY ]'HE BOf:tRD.
Ti4IS, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PRECLUDE INDIVIDUAL MENBERS OF
CHAi¥iBER FROM STATING THEIR OWN PER~8b ~P2ib!~ ON ]'HOSE
PAR]'ICLiLAR ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE BOARD.
REt~ THE ISSUES OF THE CiTY OF
DENTON' S
PENDING
AGREEMEt ~.~,THE DISPOSAL OF _CO_i~ji_~_CIA_L SO~_I~" ' r, WASTE,.._ THE ~OA;~D OF
DIRECTORS MET IN A SPECIAL-CALLED MEE't'ING ON APRIL_l~._199i AND
SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AS A POINT OF
CLARIFICATION:
]'HE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DENTON CF.IAI,'iBE{F~: []F COi,'IMEiRC[-~
COi']~,!~ZPtDS THE Ci]'Y COUNCZL AND S-FA~::F ',:~OR TI4FEIR ~FFOR]-S TO D~L
W~T~-~ -I-~iS COMPLEX PROBcE~'~ ~the disposal of Cor,~r,~erc~a]~ S,~,~.~
Waste). AS FHE RESULT O? ~URYHER REVIEW OF 'FHI~ ~,:ATY~ER OoR~',,G A
SPECiAL-CALLED MEETING ON APRIL i, 19~9i, ]'HIE BOARD O~' DIRECTORS
REITERA'FES iTS SUPPOR]' O~' A COMPETII'IVE ~ND FREE-~;AR~iE'F S'~?S'FE~,)
][N THE EVENT THAI' THE CiTY OPTS TO SELL ITS SERVICES; BO'; DOES
NOT' ENDORSE~ PER SE~ THE SALE OF THESE SERVICES, NOR SUPPORT ANY
~'AR] ICULAR COMPANY'S BID FOR TI~ESE SERVICES.