Loading...
Minutes February 24, 1998 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 24, 1998 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council convened in a closed meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 1998 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Kristoferson, Cochran, Young and Durrance. ABSENT: Council Member Beasley 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Conference with Employees – Under TEX. GOV’T. CODE Sec. 551.075. The Council received information from employees during a staff conference or briefing, but did not deliberate during the conference. The Council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, February 24, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Kristoferson, Cochran, Young and Durrance. ABSENT: Council Member Beasley 1. The Council received a report, held a discussion and provided staff input on expediting impact fees for water and wastewater. Jill Jordan, Interim Director of Water/Wastewater Utilities, stated that as Council and staff began talking about impact fees, several alternative schedules were discussed. One schedule was based on doing the comprehensive plan, follow by the master plan and then enacting the impact fees. There had been continuing questions on the part of several Council Members as to whether or not that schedule could be speeded up. One alternative schedule was to not enact all of the impact fees and to do them quicker. After looking at various alternatives, it was felt that the first alternative was better. That would enact partial impact fees for water and wastewater that focus on the improvements to the treatment plants and water storage systems. It was already known that these facilities were needed and how much they would cost. They were improvements that would affect the city as a whole. If the Council proceeded with this alternative, an advisory committee would have to be appointed as soon as possible. As the impact fees were enacted, the committee would review the land use assumptions and the ten-year CIP and give recommendations. The committee did not have to approve the impact fee but it must review it. The advisory board would be made up of the City's Planning and Zoning Commission assuming that one member was a member of the development business community. One member would have to be added who lived outside the city limits. That person would not serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission but would only deal with impact fee topics. A second alternative was to appoint an independent new board. That group would have to have 40% make-up from the development community. Staff's recommendation was to use the current Planning and Zoning Commission with an ad hoc member for impact fee issues. In June the Public Utilities Board and the Council would look at the ten-year CIP. James Duncan presented information on the Texas Impact Fee Act. General provisions stated that fees could be assessed only for roads, drainage, water, and wastewater projects. The fees could be assessed City of Denton City Council Minutes February 24, 1998 Page 2 within the city limits and extraterritorial jurisdictions except for roads. The fees may include the cost for land, improvements, financing and consultant costs. The fees could not be used for non-CIP projects, operation and maintenance, rehabilitation or administration. Two phases had to be completed that contained a land use assumption and a CIP. The land use assumption had to project density, intensity and population for ten years and a qualified professional must be used to prepare the CIP. The CIP had to contain existing facility capacity, needed expansions, a service unit table, projected service units and projected demand. Platted lots would have a one-year grace period after fee adoption, fees assessed at subdivision platting would lock in the fee schedule. Fees could be collected at platting, connection, building permit or certificate of occupancy. After assessment, a fee increase would be allowed only if service units increased and developer agreements established timing and method of payment. Administrative procedures included credit for off-site road dedications/contributions required, fees had to be deposited in interest-bearing accounts (earmarking) and fees must be refunded if not spend within 10 years. Public hearings were required for both the land use assumptions and the CIP adoption along with three consecutive weekly newspaper ads. A system- side (non-service) plan commission was required and advisory committee would review, monitor, advise and prepare semi-annual reports. Land use assumption and CIP updates were required at least every three years. Jordan stated that one con for speeding up the process was that the consultant contract allowed for only one round of impact fees. If the process were speeded up, there would have to be an amendment to the contract for additional work. Mayor Pro Tem Brock felt that a lower impact fee would be used as only plant related improvements would be considered. The lower impact fee would be locked in for those developments completing their final plats before the revised fees were set. Those lost fees could not be recaptured. Jordan stated that when the fees were set, 100% of the cost did not have to be set. The cost recovery would be set at a higher level so that the fee was not that different. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the City could begin to capture fees sooner to compensate certain loses or added costs of consultants. Jordan stated that an advantage was the City would be collecting fees fourteen months sooner than the original schedule. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the fast track plan as presented. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding home occupation regulations. Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that Council had received a report at a prior meeting from a citizen who felt that an individual was using a residence in violation of the home occupation regulations. Staff was asked to find out what was happening at that residence and look at the provisions of the current regulations. This situation was not ignored and was in Municipal Court. Staff had prepared some possible code amendments, which still needed to be reviewed by the Legal Department. The existing code was typical for an older piece of legislation as some of the definitions excluded certain types of uses. Staff was proposing a performance based system. There was a place for home occupation in the city but when it impacted a neighborhood, the use should be placed in commercial zoning. Rather than allowing a home occupation as a right, staff was recommending a City of Denton City Council Minutes February 24, 1998 Page 3 permit system. There should be several standards that were measurable which would allow the City to look at the impact of the use. Council Member Cochran asked how existing home businesses would be treated under the proposal. Hill stated that that was not addressed in the draft code amendment. It was felt that it would be better to not grandfather current uses but rather allow for a certain time period to get a free permit and after that the use would be subject to the proposed regulations. Council Member Cochran stated that a great number of home occupations were not visible. He questioned how the definitions in the ordinance would be drafted or would it ignore various home operations. Hill stated that a business would fit into the definition if it were at a regularly conducted location. One sample ordinance distinguished three classes of operations. There had to be a threshold where a permit was not required. If no traffic was generated, a permit would not be required. Council Member Cochran felt that there might be problems with a permit system and questioned how it would be enforced. City Attorney Prouty stated that if a complaint were received with a permit system, a failure to have a permit could be enforced. Council Member Durrance stated that there would be no categories with this ordinance. Hill replied correct. Some cities had a minor/major ordinance dealing with smaller and larger home occupations. Council Member Durrance asked if there had been challenges to these types of ordinances. City Attorney Prouty stated that there was a challenge of the current ordinance because of the vagueness of the section that defined home occupation. It did not declare non-compliance to be unlawful. There was a need to determine certain exceptions that would be treated as a lesser regulated area or exclude them all together. Hill stated that one suggestion was that if no traffic were generated, it would be excluded from the permit process. Council Member Kristoferson stated that she liked the determination by standards rather than by definitions. She asked if there was a fee for the permit. She felt that the City was trying to see what occupations were there and not be punitive. She questioned the administrative costs. Hill stated that the administrative costs would cover the review of the permit by the Planning Department and the issuance of the permit. Council Member Kristoferson asked about vehicular traffic requirements. Hill stated that by limiting the size and number of employees, the number of client visits would be City of Denton City Council Minutes February 24, 1998 Page 4 reduced. He suggested framing the definition to not use “family”. Another issue was the use of signs. Council Member Cochran suggested limiting the size of the sign. Such a business should not need a sign. Mayor Miller stated that the Council was trying to protect the neighborhoods and not police them. Consensus of the Council was to prepare a comparison on what were the current regulations, what was proposed and other options. Council considered Item #4. 4. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the implementation of the Elm Fork Nature Project. Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager of Utilities, stated that this project would provide for wildlife management and restoration activities. Funding was available through the Water Resource Development Act with 75% of the funding through the federal government and 25% provided by the sponsors. Beginning anticipated total costs were $800,000 with the City's share being $200,000. Since that time the City had worked with the Corps and had focused on what to pursue which resulted in a lower cost of $488,000, of which the city's share would be $123,000. The project was in upper flood control pool of Lewisville, primarily north of Highway 380. The actual project was divided into several parts. Part one dealt with 609 acres of reforestation that represented a cost of $152,000. The second part was the development of two wetland areas of 98 total acres for a cost of approximately $238,000. Much of the focus of the project was on the west side of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. The University of North Texas would be a project sponsor and would provide on-going operation and maintenance of the project. Approximately $100,000 of the City's cost would be provided with in-kind contributions. There were many good benefits with this project and staff was asking for Council approval to move forward with the project. The cost of the project would be $122,000. A second part of the project was a lease with the Corps for 2700 acres that Council would consider at a later date. Ken Dixon, University of North Texas, stated that there would not be a large amount of maintenance with the project. There would be a number of ecological restoration projects for UNT classes and learning activities for graduate classes. There was the potential for a nature center for citizens on one side of the Elm Fork. This was a good opportunity to protect and enhance the natural habitats of the area. Dalton Gregory, DISD, stated that the DISD formed a task force to explore the possibility of constructing an outdoor learning center. Such a center would serve two purposes. One would be for a day and half day field trips. Another purpose was to construct a residential camp. This would provide the opportunity for DISD students to go to camp and could be offered to other school districts in this area. He felt this would be a great partnership for the City, the DISD and UNT where the whole would be greater than the parts. One key element was to make sure there were common goals or that goals were compatible. Council agreed that this was a great opportunity for the City, the DISD UNT, and the citizens of Denton. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 24, 1998 Page 5 Mayor Miller asked about the schedule for the project. Martin stated that the contract would come before Council in March/April for final approval. Formal approval would come from the Corps sometime in August with completion by the year 2002. Consensus of Council was to proceed with the project. Council considered Item #6. 6. Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding a landscape th ordinance that the City Council requested at their February 17 meeting be brought back for further review. Dave Hill, Director for Planning and Development, stated that staff had responded to suggestions by Council for possible revisions to the proposed ordinance such as a large lot not used totally for development. He presented examples of how the ordinance would apply to current developments. He reviewed the alternative planting proposal. Council Member Young asked if United Copper was considered to have already started in the process. Hill replied correct. Council Member Young asked if they would have to abide by these rules. Hill replied not if they obtained a building permit before the effective date of the proposed ordinance. Council discussed the possibility of not requiring single lots to meet the requirements. Some residents did not like trees and should not have to deal with the requirements Hill stated that if an irrigation requirement was not included, language should be added to indicate that the City acknowledged that water for the first three years was critical and would encourage the use of irrigation for the planting's survival. Mayor Pro Tem Brock suggested adding wording that information about irrigation systems was available. Hill stated outside help might be needed for a definition of a "monarch" tree. Mayor Miller suggested asking the Tree Board for a recommendation of a "monarch" tree. Consensus of the Council was to forward the proposal to the Tree Board for a recommendation on a “monarch tree” with an effective date of the ordinance being May 1st with a 20-20 rule. 3. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding the results of the Budget Priority Questionnaire with City Council. Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager for Finance, reviewed the results of the questionnaire as included in the agenda back-up materials. City of Denton City Council Minutes February 24, 1998 Page 6 5. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the Denton Plan draft policies. Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this was the first of the scheduled reviews of the draft policies. He reviewed the schedule of presentations made during the previous months and the comments from citizens at those meetings. The schedule called for a second public hearing at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. March 17th would be the first Council public hearing. This would provide a transition with the proposed policies and the 1988 Denton Development Plan. Consensus of the Council was to proceed as scheduled. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ______________________________ JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS _________________________ JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS