Loading...
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