Loading...
April 10, 2007 Minutes CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES April 10, 2007 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor McNeill; Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mulroy; Council Members McElroy, Montgomery, and Thomson. ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Kamp; Council Member Heggins 1.The following item was discussed in Closed Meeting: A. Consultation with Attorney – Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071. 1.Discussed legal issues relating to City oil and gas leases, including contemplated litigation, and including matters in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the chapter. Council Member Heggins arrived during the Closed Session. Following the completion of the Closed Meeting at 4:56 p.m., the Council convened in a Special Called Meeting, at which the following item was considered: 1.The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing an agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and Denton Community Theatre regarding travel expenses associated with a Southwestern Regional Contest to be held in Alexandria, Louisiana for the award candidate called “Crowns”, being an African American Musical Production; providing that this program serves a municipal and public purpose of promoting the arts and tourism within Denton; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2007-079 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND DENTON COMMUNITY THEATRE REGARDING TRAVEL EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH A SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL CONTEST TO BE HELD IN ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA FOR THE AWARD CANDIDATE CALLED “CROWNS”, BEING AN AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSICAL PRODUCTION; PROVIDING THAT THIS PROGRAM SERVES A MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE ARTS AND TOURISM WITHIN DENTON; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Heggins motioned, Montgomery seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, McElroy “aye”, Montgomery “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye” and Mayor McNeill “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. City of Denton City Council Minutes April 10, 2007 Page 2 nd Following the completion of the Special Called Meeting, the Council convened in a 2 Tuesday Session. 1.The Council received a briefing, held a discussion and gave staff direction on an amendment to the Development Code to allow for the development of Gated Communities (DCA06-0015, Gated Communities). Brian Lockley, Interim Director of Planning and Development, presented an update on an amendment to the Development Code to allow for the development of Gated Communities. The gated communities ordinance made provisions for streets; water and sewer; street lighting; public safety and other access requirements; solid waste; homeowner’s association requirements; and maintenance costs. The provisions for streets included (1) all streets would be private streets; (2) the private streets must meet all requirements and standards of the City for public streets, and (3) provisions for private street lots. Water and sewer provisions included (1) all water and sewer mains that serve inside the gated community and were located within a public utility easement must be dedicated to the city prior to approval of the final plat and publicly owned and maintained, (2) mains and associated appurtenances must be built according to city standards. The provisions for street lighting included (1) installation at no cost to the City meeting spacing and location requirements and maintained by the homeowner’s association, (2) lights would have individual meters, shall be owned, operated and maintained by the homeowner’s association and costs would be invoiced to the homeowner’s association under the appropriate rate schedule. Public safety provisions noted were (1) the installation of security gates across a fire access road would be approved by the fire chief or his designee and the gates would have an approved means of emergency operation, (2) a keypad of signal device access would be given to the police department according to the departments’ specifications for all gates, (3) if a gate failed to open promptly for an emergency vehicle, the emergency responders would have the authority to remove, disable or destroy any locking device, gate or piece of gate in order to gain access and (4) public access easements throughout the subdivision for public safety vehicles would be provided for on the plat. Solid waste provisions included (1) rear entry garages for residential dwellings would have solid waste collection service provided from an alley, if the alley was constructed to the same specifications as the public streets and the same turning radius would be required by the Fire Department would be required for refuse collection trucks, (3) in the event that vehicular access was not operable, solid waste trucks would continue with the route and report the inaccessibility of the area to Customer Service. Homeowner’s Association requirements (1) must provide for the power to file a lien, to foreclose or to otherwise secure payment from homeowners concerning the maintenance, repair and replacement of the gates, private streets and streetlights, (2) the Association’s documents must be submitted to, review by and approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval and (3) City of Denton City Council Minutes April 10, 2007 Page 3 documents must state that the streets are private and are maintained by the Association, that they are not public and that the city has no obligation to maintain them. Maintenance Cost provisions included that (1) the city would follow customary practices in backfilling and repaving repaired sections of private streets after a utility repair, and (2) the Association may elect to privately undertake one or more aspects of the backfilling and pavement repair and the City may participate in the funding of such private repairs, but only to the extent of any repair costs avoided by such private repairs. Council Discussion - How were concrete streets currently repaired? Lockley replied they were filled as similar materials. Other than specialty services, would the private streets be filled the same as public streets? Lockley replied that the language addressed that specialty streets as with asphalt and concrete repairs would be done like new. There were no park dedication requirements because the subdivision would be a private development. Plans could indicate a park but it could not be required. What would be the requirements for non-traditional street lights? Lockley replied that internally they were still working through those requirements. The requirements would provide for the option to provide alternate street lighting. If one of the specialty street lights failed, and DME had to repair it, it would be done as a typical wooden pole light with the homeowner’s association repaying the city to reinstall the specialty light. Warehousing of specialty poles would be the homeowner’s association responsibility. How would police patrols be provided? Lockley stated that as the streets would be private, certain city services such as routine parking and traffic violations would not be done. The homeowner’s association would have to provide its own security patrols to perform internal provisions. Regulations were needed in order to properly place gated communities within the city so they were not placed in an inappropriate area. A set of standards was needed so as to build a project when in a proper location. If the location was appropriate, then a set of standards applied for the development. Consensus of the Council was that if there were no dramatic changes from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the staff should proceed with an ordinance and another work session would not be needed. 2.The Council received a briefing, held a discussion and gave staff direction on an ordinance amending subchapters 7, 13, and 23 of the Denton Development Code concerning infill development regulations (DCA05-0005, Infill Regulations). City of Denton City Council Minutes April 10, 2007 Page 4 Brian Lockley, Interim Director of Planning and Development, presented an overview of the proposed infill development regulations. Objectives of the regulations were (1) allow flexibility in location, type and density, within the densities supported by the Denton Plan and the Denton Development Code; (2) provide flexibility in lot size, configuration and vehicle access to facilitate infill development, (3) provide development standards that promoted compatibility between new and existing development and promote certainty in the marketplace, (4) encourage development of needed housing in close proximity to employment and services (5) promote neighborhood preservation and enhancement through infill development of vacant properties, (6) encourage mixed use development opportunities in order to provide housing and neighborhood services close to jobs, (7) encourage development that meets the city’s economic development goals; and (8) encourage new development as well as preservation of a diversity of housing types and price ranges in existing neighborhoods. Lockley indicated that the infill map boundaries had not changed for prior discussions. Lockley reviewed the proposed requirements for infill lots in a historic district. Basically, the requirements of that district would govern the infill development such as in the Bell Avenue Historic Conservation District and the Oak-Hickory Historic District. Two requirements for Council consideration were: (1)Street tree number and spacing standards – street tree requirements would be exempted in these districts. For lots with less than 60 linear feet of street frontage, one tree per lot, evenly spaced would be required. For lots greater than 60 linear feet of street frontage, two trees per lot, evenly spaced would be required. Multifamily residential, townhome and non-residential development would be required to have one tree for every 45 linear feet of street frontage. Street trees on corner lots for all development would be located a minimum of 25 feet from the property corner adjacent to the street right-of-way intersection. (2)Sidewalks – The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that sidewalks should not be required for infill lots. Staff, however, felt the sidewalks should fit in with the character of the area. If the surrounding properties had sidewalks, then the infill property should have them. Sidewalks would be required when sidewalks were located on both sides of the infill property and also when located on one side of the infill property. Sidewalks would not be required when sidewalks were not constructed on both sides of the property. Council felt that the concept of the revised infill regulations was to update the Code, not to hinder infill development rather than develop a series of variances. Existing conditions should be matched. Consensus of Council was to follow the staff proposals for street trees and sidewalks. Lockley reviewed the setback requirements. Staff was recommending that the front setback be an average of the adjacent lots. Building separation would be consistent with the general character of the neighborhood. The proposed definition of infill development was also being revised. The current definition contained the phrase “underutilized” which was recommended for removal in the new definition. The existing language dealing with a 500 foot radius would be removed and replaced with language indicating development on two sides for corner lots and contiguous on at least three sides for interior lots. The revised definition would also contain City of Denton City Council Minutes April 10, 2007 Page 5 language indicating the infill could not be greater than two acres in size and was served with all or most public services and facilities, including but not limited to water, wastewater and drainage. An additional provision would state that property could not be replatted to less than two acres in order to meet the requirements for infill development. These proposed revisions to the infill development regulations would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission the next evening at a work session. Consensus of the Council was that if there were no major changes recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission staff would develop the ordinance for Council consideration. If the Planning and Zoning Commission made major recommendations for changes, another Council work session would be needed. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. ________________________________ PERRY R. MCNEILL MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS __________________________________ JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS