Loading...
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.