Loading...
Minutes May 26, 1998 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 26, 1998 After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council convened in a closed meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Kristoferson, Cochran, Young and Durrance. ABSENT: None 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Consultation with Attorney–Under TEX. GOV’T. CODE Sec. 551.071 1. Met with City Attorney to consider strategy, discuss status, appointment of a representative for possible mediation, and possible settlement authority in litigation styled Denton County Historical Museum, Inc. v. Denton County, Texas and City of Denton, Texas, et al., Cause No. GC-98-00098-C filed in the Probate Court of Denton County, including, but not limited to issues related to allegations of breach of contract and ownership of artifacts. B. 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 Special Called Meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, Kristoferson, and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council held a public hearing to consider proposed changes to cable television rates charged by Marcus Cable. Richard Foster, Public Information Officer, stated that the public hearing would consider proposed cable television rates. According to federal guidelines, the City was certified to regulate the rates that the cable company could charge for the basic level of service, associated equipment and the hourly service charge. Marcus submitted the annual rate filing on February 27th and within 90 days of receiving the filings, a public hearing had to be held regarding the rates. He reviewed a table showing the current and proposed rates as included in the agenda back-up materials. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Doris Dundas stated that she had a complaint last year about the rates and still was having a concern about the rates. The rates were going up again and she was concerned about the service quality over the years. Whole blocks of stations were blacked out for weeks at a time on her television. Customer Service from Marcus always indicated that the problems had to be with her television but that was not true regarding the problems. She did appreciate the televising of the City Council meetings and the Planning and Zoning meetings. Channel 26 was very good. City of Denton City Council Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 2 The Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley asked why there was such a difference in the service charge rate from last year. Connie Cannady, C2 Consulting, stated that the major reason was that this was the first year that the company had filed an equipment and installation filing form on the basis of all of its cable operations nation-wide. The FCC indicated several years ago that cable companies could do that. That area represented a vast majority of the difference in costs. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley asked if the Council could set the rates at whatever they wanted. Cannady stated that the FCC had established rate formulas. As the body of original jurisdiction over these rates, the Council could set a rate that it believed was the most reasonable rate for the citizens of Denton. However, the company could appeal to the FCC and if the rates were not within the regulations of the FCC, the City would probably not win an appeal. Karen Yurchuck, Marcus Cable, stated that the company had recently upgraded service with fiber optics that should result in fewer outages. Three customer service representatives were also added and an automated telephone service upgraded the billing system. 2. The Council considered a motion to authorize the holding of a City Council meeting outside of City Hall. Cochran motioned, Kristoferson seconded to hold a City Council meeting outside of City Hall. On roll vote, Beasley “aye”, Burroughs “aye”, Cochran “aye”, Durrance “aye”, Kristoferson “aye”, Young “aye”, and Mayor Miller “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. Following the completion of the Special Called Session, the Council convened into a Work Session. 1. The Council received a report and gave staff direction regarding the 1998-99 City Council Supplemental Budget Priority Questionnaire. Jon Fortune, Director of Management and Budget, stated that the revised questionnaire would be an update of the questionnaire that the Council completed before the election. The responses of the new Council Member would be included in the update and would be reviewed with Council in several weeks. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and provided instructions to staff regarding annexation and public service extension policies to areas currently outside the City of Denton municipal limits. Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that purpose of this item was to discuss the jurisdiction lines and interlocal agreements for those lines with surrounding cities. The Council did not have to consider complete annexations of areas but could consider corridor annexations that would extend the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and the City’s regulations that went with an ETJ. Staff was looking at extending out into the Hickory Creek watershed area on the southwest side of the City’s ETJ. There would not be a lot of land annexed nor services provided but would extend a City of Denton City Council Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 3 corridor of protection. Mayor Miller agreed with extending the ETJ where it was needed to protect the watershed and development. Annexation issues were different. A voluntary annexation was one thing but an involuntary annexation was much different. Remote residents might not want to pay city taxes without services. There was a need to look at two different strategies when dealing with annexations. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with proposal to annex land in the Hickory Creek watershed area to protect the water in the area of the ETJ with an emphasis on implementation and cost. The proposal should also include a cost benefit analysis for any annexation. 3. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff instruction regarding proposed changes to the public notification process for development-related public hearings. Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that public notification through the mail for public hearing requirements for the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings was one of the three items earmarked for improvement to the development process. Mayor Miller stated that the current public notification was prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing meeting. Hill replied yes that it had to be at least ten days in advance of the meeting. Mayor Miller asked if there was a second notification prior to the public hearing at the Council meeting. Hill stated that it was a continuous process with a separate legal advertisement. Mayor Miller stated that the mail notification was prior to the first public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Hill stated that the improvement of public notification through the mail would include public hearing requirements for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council, the Sign Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The 200-foot list that was required by State law would be used via certified mail for proof that the mail had been received and a record of receipt. One problem the department faced was that residents indicated that they had not received notification. State law required the use of the most recent certified tax roll for the mailing list for notification. That roll was used for the entire year until the next roll was certified and approved the following January. A second part of the notification process would be to expand the actual notice to 500 feet. Those people would receive a different notification, a courtesy notice, which indicated that there would be a public hearing on a specific date. That mailing would not use certified mail. In both cases, staff would generate the mailing list from the GIS system so that the applicant would not be responsible for the generation of that list. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley questioned that if a property was bought and sold, would the new owner have a right to notification even if not listed on the tax rolls. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that the new owner would be included if he could prove that he had purchased the property. City of Denton City Council Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 4 Council Member Young stated that he was in favor of anything that would provide more residents notification of zoning issues. Hill stated that another possibility was to place two separate ads in the newspaper for notification. One would be in the legal section and one in another section of the newspaper to notify individuals of an impending public hearing. A sign on the property would probably be the best method for notification of the neighbors. Council Member Beasley asked how many notices would be sent with the increased area of notification. Hill presented three examples of the process with the increased notification area. With the Oakmont III development, two property owners within 200 feet were notified and that would be the same at 500 feet. With PD-20, 28 notices were within 200 feet and an additional seven notices would have been sent at 500 feet. With the development on Bolivar, seventeen notices were sent within 200 feet and 76 notices would have been sent with 500 feet. He presented examples of current signs used for zoning changes and a proposed sign for zoning changes. The change in the type of sign would require a change to the existing ordinance and to the fee schedule. The new sign system would require a $200 sign fee to defray the cost of using the signs. The cost would be for the rental of the sign, labor for putting up and taking down the sign. Council Member Young felt that the proposed signs were a good idea but was concerned about the $200 added cost. He felt the developer should be able to get some of those costs back after the usage of the sign. Council Member Cochran also expressed concerned about the cost of the signs. With a large change in zoning there might not be much of an effect but to a smaller zoning change, it might be quite costly. He questioned if there were standards for the number of signs for a particular property. Hill stated that it would depend on the number of sides and square footage of the property. Council Member Young asked if the $200 was per sign for each zoning request. Hill replied yes the cost would be $200 for each sign to be placed on the property for the zoning request. Council Member Young suggested looking at alternate materials for the signs that might be less costly. Hill stated that staff would recommend the material of the sign be durable and one that would look well over the time period it had to be used. A new staff position would be requested in order to maintain this program. There had been a large increase in public hearings over the last year. Mayor Miller stated that he liked the signs and that there was a need to allocate the cost where it was generated. Council Member Kristoferson stated that better notification and the more people who knew about a zoning case, would result in less chances of individuals indicating that they were not notified. The proposed sign would provide a better communication to the residents. City of Denton City Council Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 5 Mayor Pro Tem Beasley agreed with the expanded notification process and the sign process. She was in favor of the signs as they would provide better notification to the residents. Council Member Cochran stated that there was a need to explore any cheaper methods to achieve the same goal of notification. He suggested looking at more alternatives for the signs such as alternate materials or bidding the production of the signs. The size, design, motive and concept for the signs were good but not the cost. Council Member Young agreed with the proposal except for the cost of the signs. He felt the cost was too great after charging nothing in the past. Mayor Miller suggested fine tuning the possibilities and returning it to Council. If the signs were made in the Traffic Department, there would be no excuse for not getting the signs up in time and they would be done correctly. He felt it would be good to bring back other alternatives for Council to consider if Council so wanted. There had been many cases where if a developer had met with the neighbors the proposed zoning would have gone better. Developers needed to continue to strive to have better communication with neighbors next to their development. Council could not force the developers to have such a meeting but it would certainly help the process. 4. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and provided staff direction regarding incentives for “Affordable Housing”. Mark Donaldson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development, stated that expectations for this meeting were to provide direction on definitions, provide direction on the type of costs eligible for consideration, provide direction on the form of incentives and provide direction on any other issues related to affordable housing. Definitions included affordable housing, qualified developer, target areas and qualified developments. Types of costs included parkland dedication or fee in lieu, parkland development fees, other impact fees, zoning and planning fees or building permit fees. Form of incentives included waiver of fees up front with reimbursement from another portion of the city budget or rebated based on performance. The explanation of the definitions was discussed as included in the agenda back-up materials. Typical housing costs controlled by the City included current fees, zoning application, platting application, building permits, applications for water line tap, and wastewater line tap costs. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley expressed concern about waiving parkland in low-income areas. Those types of facilities were needed in those areas. She might agree with the waiving of the land dedication requirement but would still require the parkland development fees. Mayor Miller stated that this would be redistributing the costs to all development in order to waive the fees for affordable housing. Council Member Kristoferson stated that the data used was from 1990 and felt that the complexion of the north Texas area had changed greatly in the last few years. Council discussed the pros and cons regarding the waiver of the various fees relative to affordable housing. Council Member Durrance stated that he considered the ratio situation proper for inclusion in a City of Denton City Council Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 6 comprehensive plan, as well as a comparison of data from other cities, the demographics of those cities, and possible deed restrictions. Consensus of the Council was that more information was needed regarding the proposal including a comparison of data from other cities, the demographics of those cities, possible deed restrictions and information about cities with universities. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ________________________ JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS __________________________ JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS