Minutes November 10, 1992CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 10, 1992
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in the
Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members
Brock, Chew, Perry, Smith and Miller.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council was to have convened into the Executive Session to
discuss legal matters (considered action in Coats v. City of
Denton), real estate, and personnel/board appointments but decided
that such was not needed.
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
amendments to the sign ordinance and gave staff direction.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, reviewed the
document presented to Council for back-up material. The document
was divided into sections detailing a summary of issues and
recommendations; sign ordinance chronology; face changing;
abandoned sign and supporting structures; calculating effective
area, monument signs and special sign district; banners on
buildings/wind devices; banners over streets; temporary and stake
signs; signs on IH-35; separation of signs on one premise; sign
standards comparison chart; enforcement; current ordinance with
proposed amendments; Planning and Zoning minutes; and Chamber of
Commerce recommendations and questionnaire. He outlined the
Planning and Zoning issues and recommendations which were listed in
Attachment 1 of the agenda back-up. Relative sign ordinance dates
included June 8, 1982 when Council discussed portable signs and
authorized the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider a
comprehensive review of the sign ordinance. January 15, 1985 the
Council considered an ordinance and a process of "three years of
research and development". Council considered an ordinance
regarding signs on May 5, 1985 and were made aware of possible
State legislation which would disallow "amortization" of signs on
June 1, 1985. In October 1987, the Beautification Task Force
proposed a new sign ordinance. A new sign ordinance was adopted on
February 7, 1989 and on October 3, 1989, the Council requested a
review of setback standards and a comprehensive review of the 1989
ordinance began. A new sign ordinance was adopted on April 2, 1991.
At the August 6, 1991, Council meeting Council heard a citizen
complaint about "changing face" of Abby Floor sign. Council asked
for a Planning and Zoning report on the issue. On November 5,
1991, Council amended the sign ordinance to allow signs to be used
until 1996 if they were altered, and clarified variance criteria.
Council asked for sign ordinance amendments to be considered on May
5, 1992. Robbins presented a slide presentation regarding sign
regulations and the changes a sign ordinance made in Lubbock, Tx.
100
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 10, 1992
Page 2
One of the areas under consideration was face changing. The current
ordinance did not allow for a change of face without making the
sign conforming. The proposed ordinance would allow a face change
without making the sign conforming. A permit would be required but
would not require a totally new sign.
City Manager Harrell stated that there might be a possible mid-
point where changes would be allowed on multiple tenant signs but
not on free standing signs.
Robbins stated that that was another alternative suggested to the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member Smith asked what was the 1996 regulation.
Robbins replied that a temporary use permit would allow a change in
the sign but would require the sign to be in compliance by January
1, 1996. If the sign was not conforming by that date, the City
could take the sign down. Another proposed change was with
temporary signs in which the current sign ordinance indicated that
the sign had to be hammered into the ground. The proposed change
would not require the sign to be hammered into the ground but could
be attached to an existing sign.
Council Member Perry asked that if the Council accepted the
Planning and Zoning recommendation regarding face changing, what
would happen to a vacant or incorrect sign in a multiple tenant
sign.
Robbins replied that a permit would be required to make a change in
the face. A permit could be issued if the sign did not become any
more non-conforming than it was currently.
Council Member Smith stated that if the Council accepted the
proposed changes to the face changing requirements, anyone with a
new sign would still have to meet the requirements of the
ordinance.
Robbins repliedcorrect.
Council Member Miller asked if a multi-tenant sign with an empty
slot could be required to put some type of blank face in the slot
so that the sign was properly maintained. If that were not done,
then the sign would not be a legal sign. He felt that multiple
signs should be required to maintain the blank portions of the
sign.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 10, 1992
Page 3
101
Mayor Castleberry asked if the sign were lowered two feet, would it
have to become conforming.
Robbins stated that under the current ordinance, it would have to
become conforming but under the proposed ordinance it would not
have to become conforming. Robbins continued with abandoned signs
and abandoned supporting structures. Under the current ordinance
abandoned signs and abandoned supporting structures were to already
have been taken down. Under the proposed ordinance the sign would
have to be used or it would be taken down. Using it could include
putting in a blank face with no advertising on it to be in
compliance. This would have to be done within 90 days from the
effective date of ordinance.
Council Member Miller asked how long the provision had been in
effect regarding abandoned signs.
Robbins replied the sign ordinance had been amended in 1991 with
the effective date of June, 1992 which had not been enforced.
Council Member Miller asked why it had not been enforced.
City Manager Harrell stated that once staff proceeded with the
take-down provision, there would be a lot of public response.
Staff decided to wait until Council had made a final decision
regarding its position on abandoned signs and abandoned supporting
structures before beginning take-downs.
Council Member Miller stated that the proposed changes would give
the sign owner an option to either to make the sign conforming or
the sign would be removed. If due process was completed and the
sign removed, a lien could be placed on the property for the cost
of taking the sign down. He asked if a sign company could be
approached to remove the signs for the cost of the materials of the
sign.
Robbins replied that staff was currently in the process of
gathering such information. He continued with the proposed
recommendations for determining effective area. There were three
separate recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
One recommendation was to change the way the effective area
calculation was measured to allow monument signs, and one was to
decrease the qualifications for a special sign district. A proposed
change by the Chamber was to deal with effective area calculation
only on that portion of the sign which carried the message. The
current regulation was to include the entire sign and not just the
area with the message. The Planning and Zoning Commission decided
that the entire sign was needed to be calculated. With monument
102
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 10, 1992
Page 4
signs, the effective area calculation would not be changed. If the
monument sign were on a pedestal, it would not be counted in the
effective area.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that some monument signs could be
viewed from two sides but did not have messages on two sides. How
would that type of monument sign be measured.
Robbins replied that if the sign had only one face, that side would
be measured and not both sides. Robbins presented illustrations of
signs and how effective area would be measured. Special sign
districts were also considered and the proposal would be to
determine the sign in its surrounding and determine if it met the
appropriate criteria. This might be an area of compromise for
signs. Banners on buildings, as recommended by the Chamber of
Commerce, would not be required to obtain a permit. The Planning
and Zoning Commission did not agree with that recommendation. It
proposed to allow a banner for 30 days and have a 30 day waiting
period between signs on a particular building. Currently the
ordinance allowed 30 days for each permit and three permits per
year. The proposal would be to permit a banner on a building for
30 days and wait for 30 days for an additional permit.
City Manager Harrell stated that the background to that issue was
to allow a business to have a temporary advertising sign with a
banner. Currently there was the potential for abuse of the system.
Robbins stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not have
a recommendation regarding banners over streets.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that she hoped that the Council would
disallow banners across the streets.
Robbins stated that the proposed changes for temporary signs/stake
signs would eliminate the requirement that the sign be hammered
into the ground. The height standard of signs along IH35 was
proposed to be increased. There was no recommendation proposed from
the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding that issue. Staff had
recommended to not change the standard.
Council Member Brock felt that the Planning and Zoning Commission
did not take a stand on some issues and were, in effect,
recommending against those changes. She indicated that Council
might ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to deal with some of
those issues and present a recommendation to Council.
Robbins indicated that on sign separation, the staff recommendation
was to reduce the sign separation to 60'.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November.10, 1992
Page 5
103
Council Member Smith asked for the rational for reducing the
separation amount to such a great amount.
Robbins replied that a survey of area cities indicated 60' was the
standard rather than 400'.
Council Member Miller stated that flags had not been dealt with.
The ordinance was very specific about what flags could be flown on
the poles. He suggested a provision to allow flags from another
country. The current provision was too strict and felt that the
ordinance should allow for international flags.
Robbins replied that the Planning and Zoning Commission had
received a report on that issue but had made no recommendation as
the original proposal had been withdrawn. It could be placed back
on the agenda for Council discussion.
City Manager Harrell indicated that staff was requesting a date
from Council as to when to schedule the public hearing regarding
this issue. Following the public hearing, at the same meeting or
a subsequent work session, Council could go through the issues to
give general direction on how to have an ordinance drafted.
Robbins stated that the notice of public hearing had to be
published 14 days before the scheduled Council meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins felt that the Council now needed to hear from
citizens at a public hearing and then formulate Council decisions
on the ordinance.
Mayor Castleberry suggested holding the public hearing at the
December 8th meeting.
Consensus of the Council was to hold the public hearing on the 8th
of December with a work session in early January for Council
discussion.
3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
the platting process and gave staff direction.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning and Development,
stated that State law indicated that if a plat conformed with the
general regulations of a municipality, it had to be approved. Plat
approval was an administrative act and was not a policy making or
a legislative act. Accordingly, and in order to streamline the
process, it had been recommended that Council need not consider
plats. Another issue Council had a concern with was development in
older areas and redevelopment of older areas in the City. It was
104
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November.10, 1992
Page 6
recommended that unplatted land which was subdivided before Denton
adopted subdivision regulations, and upon which a single family
house would be built on an existing street, not be required to be
platted.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that when citizens received notice of
a plat and notification of a Council meeting and then learned that
the Council did not have the right to deny the plat, it was very
confusing as to why the Council was considering the plat in the
first place. She felt that platting did not need to be done in the
older sections of the City as the area had been surveyed many times
before.
Council Member Perry asked what would be allowed on such a lot in
an older section of the City.
Robbins replied that that would be a zoning issue and would not be
addressed with this regulation.
Council Member Chew asked if the Council would be involved with any
of the replat process.
Robbins replied that the Council would not be involved.
Council Member Chew asked how would it be handled.
Robbins replied that the infrastructure would already be in place
and may be changing lot lines. Council would not be reviewing plats
or variances. The proposal was that the Planning and Zoning
Commission would deal with variances.
Council held a discussion regarding how much involvement it would
have in dealing with the platting process and with variances.
4. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
Laylor fund allocations.
John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the
purpose of this report was to provide information to Council
regarding the Laylor funds. The hotel/motel occupanoy tax was 7%
for sleeping rooms which cost more than $2 and were rented for less
than 30 days. The City basically acted as a pass through agency
and contracted with third parties to deal with those funds. The
definition of the law was to promote tourism and the convention and
hotel industry and was limited to convention centers, advertising,
promotional programs, ~n~ouragement and promotion of the art~ a~d
historical restoration and preservation. The law did not allow day-
to-day operational expenses not incurred directly in the promotion
City of Denton City Council Minutes
November 10, 1992
Page 7
105
and travel. The North Texas State Fair received 95% of 1%, the
Convention and Visitors Bureau received 95% of 3%, the Greater
Denton Arts Council received 1%, the Denton County Historical
Museum received 95% of 88/100ths of 1%, the Denton County
Historical Foundation received 95% of 12/100ths of 1% and the civic
Center received $26,000. The Fair contract would expire in 1994,
the Chamber contract would expire on August 30, 1994, the County
contracts expired in 1995 as did the Arts Council.
Council Member Chew felt that a long range goal was to look at ways
to develop some type of convention center in Denton.
McGrane replied that there were reserve funds which over the years
would accumulate for perhaps a convention center or special
projects which might arise.
Council Member Brock asked when the Laylor legislation was passed
which first made it possible to collect the tax.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that it was approximately 1977.
City Manager Harrell stated that in 1986 the City was allocating 6%
of the 7% allowed and in that year, the money was allocated to the
Fair.
5. New Business
There were no items of New Business which were suggested by Council
Members for future agendas.
City Manager Harrell reminded the Council of the joint School
District luncheon set for Monday, November 16th at the DISD
Administration Building.
With no further business,
J~NTFE~ WALTERS
C~Y SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
CITY OF DENTON, TE~S
/
ACC000CB