December 5, 2011 Minutes
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
December 5, 2011
After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Special Called
Work Session on Monday, December 5, 2011 at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room
at City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Burroughs, Council Member Engelbrecht, Council Member Gregory,
Council Member Roden, and Council Member Watts.
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Kamp and Council Member King.
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the
accomplishments of the City Council Committee and Citizens Committee on Denton
Property Maintenance Code Issues, and the continuation or conclusion of these
committees.
John Cabrales, Public Information/Intergovernmental Relations Officer, stated that for the past
six years, the City had worked on updating the property maintenance codes for the community.
Since 2008, City staff had worked with a Council Committee, Citizens Committee, and residents
and rental property owners to address issues and codify them into the new Denton Property
Maintenance Code.
In 2005, the City attempted to address the revision of the property maintenance code language,
but that attempt was met with resistance from certain sections of the community. In April 2006,
the City Council asked the Denton Chamber of Commerce to conduct an assessment of the
City’s property maintenance code issues. The Chamber asked the Leadership Denton Class to
adopt this issue as their class project, and the class conducted a survey of the community. In
April 2007, the Leadership Denton Class presented the results of their survey to the City
Council. In October 2007, a City Council Committee was appointed by the Mayor to address the
property maintenance code issues. Council Members Charlye Heggins, Chris Watts and Joe
Mulroy were appointed to this committee and they held their first meeting in November 2007.
The Council Committee appointed a nine member Citizens Committee to work with staff and the
Council Committee. The Citizens Committee held its first meeting in March 2008. From
November 2007 to January 2009, there were thirty meetings held by these two committees. On
March 3, 2009, the City Council adopted Articles I-XII of the new Chapter 17 Denton Property
Maintenance Code into the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. Chapter 17 did not
contain regulations related to substandard or dangerous structures.
On May 11, 2010, the City Council adopted the merging of Articles I-XII of the new Chapter 17
with Article XIII (substandard or dangerous structures) into the Denton Property Maintenance
Code. On January 20, 2011 a joint meeting of the Citizens and Council Committees on Property
Maintenance Code Issues was held to review five staff recommended revisions to the Denton
Property Maintenance Code. Four of the five ordinance revisions presented were approved
unanimously by the membership of the two committees. The fifth recommended revision,
outside storage, was sent back to staff with a request to simplify the language and abbreviate the
length. The outside storage language was simplified with input from the Citizens Committee.
On August 16, 2011, the City Council adopted the five recommended revisions to the Denton
Property Maintenance Code.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 5, 2011
Page 2
Cabrales stated that the Committees had completed the task assigned to them and asked if the
Council had any other task for them to work on or if the Committees could be disbanded.
Mayor Burroughs asked how the minimum building standards program was implemented.
Lancine Bentley, Code Enforcement Manager, stated that the Minimum Building Standards
Program was a preventative measure to decrease the number of primary and accessory structures
that became severely dilapidated. She stated that Code Enforcement had started the program
March 1. Staff had done a windshield survey and selected 60 properties that were the worst,
most obvious minimum building standard violations on various streets throughout the
community. These were divided among staff and the properties were evenly distributed
throughout the Council districts. Staff sent out a courtesy letter which told the property owner
that they had found that there were some minor repairs that needed to be made to the property. A
list of those repairs was included in the letter. The letter also told the property owner that the
City’s goal was to maintain property values in the neighborhood and maintain housing standards
so that the property did not fall into disrepair, and tried to explain why they had received the
letter. It also stated that if they needed more time to make the repairs, to call that Code
Enforcement would give extensions on those courtesy letters. The letters also stated that if they
had any questions or concerns, to call Code Enforcement.
Bentley stated that they actually had a very, very high voluntary compliance rate from the
courtesy letters. They had some property owners ask for extensions and some property owners
that needed financial assistance were connected with Community Development. There were
many instances of roofs being replaced. Staff was very surprised at the lengths that people went
to; some made repairs that were not mentioned in the letters.
The Mayor asked if any of these structures were commercial or if they were primarily residential
structures.
Bentley stated that they had started with residential – single family and duplex. She stated they
would do commercial during the next phase.
Bentley stated that after the courtesy letter phase was over, if they had not heard from anyone or
seen any repairs being made, they would send an official notice with a 30 day timeframe to make
the repairs. A case would be opened. They could ask for an extension here, too. Bentley stated
that they did not issue citations this year. She stated that there were 332 violations that were
abated. Most of the time each property had several violations. There were only 21 violations
that remained unabated. Those cases would be closed out and worked again next year. Bentley
stated that an extension of time was what most of the property owners needed to become
compliant.
Bentley stated that this was a spring through fall program. Most repairs would be difficult to
make during the winter months.
Council Member Roden asked if Code Enforcement had a list of lingering issues that they found
were not addressed in the current Code.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 5, 2011
Page 3
Bentley stated that they did have a very large list several years ago but most of those issues had
been addressed over the last few years with revisions to the Code.
The Mayor asked if this was a good stopping point for the structure of these committees.
Council Member Watts felt that the Council Committee and the Citizens Committee had fulfilled
the charge they had been given, achieved their goals and had been very effective. He stated that
if new issues arise, then the Council could look at forming another committee with a different
charge.
Council Member King arrived at the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Barbara Russell thanked the Council for allowing her to be a part of the problem-solving on
these issues.
John Weber stated that the Citizens Committee was a good representation of neighborhood
advocates, rental property owners and real estate owners and felt that the charge had been
fulfilled. He asked that future committees have the same mix of commercial and residential
citizens.
General consensus of the Council was that the Council Committee and Citizens Committee could
be disbanded at this time.
2. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding supplemental street
funding.
PS Arora, Assistant Director of Wastewater, briefed the Council regarding current Denton
Development Code street exactions and supplemental street funding options.
New developments or higher intensity use in an existing development created additional traffic.
To accommodate this additional traffic, the proposed development needed to pay for necessary
road improvements. This resulted in exactions for road improvements per the Denton
Development Code as described below:
Perimeter street improvements
- any development that abutted an unimproved street was
required to improve or reconstruct the street to current street standards per the Denton
Transportation Criteria Manual.This included the dedication of right-of-way and construction of
25-ft (28foot for arterials) of asphalt/concrete pavement, curb and gutter, and sidewalk.
New perimeter streets
– if an arterial or collector street was proposed by the Mobility Plan near
or within the boundary of the development or the development created the need for a new
perimeter street, the development shall provide right-of-way dedication, pavement width of
twenty-five (25) feet plus required bicycle lane in the case of an arterial street.
Sidewalk
– any development abutting a public street was required to construct sidewalk along its
public street frontage in accordance with the Denton Transportation Criteria Manual.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 5, 2011
Page 4
Offsite street improvements
– any development that generated more than 100 trips per day
might be required to cost participate in off-site improvements (such as off-site right or left turn
lanes, pavement widening/reconstruction, pavement markings, signage, etc.)
Signal cost participation
– any development that was within the vicinity of a street
intersection(s) that was planned to be a signalized intersection was required to pay its
proportionate share of the signal cost for that intersection.
Proportionality assessment –
developments that were required to construct any of the above
items might request a proportionality assessment be performed. Staff performed this assessment
to establish the percentage of the development’s proportionate responsibility for the construction
of the public improvements. If the development’s proportionate share was less than 100 percent
of the estimated construction cost, then payment in lieu of construction could be made by the
developer.
Staff used the Mobility Plan, Connectivity Plan, current CIP project information, and the
Transportation Criteria Manual along with the Denton Development Code requirements to assess
road exactions for a proposed development.
Arora provided examples of projects and the exactions applied to those projects – Proposed
restaurant with drive thru at Loop 288 and Spencer Road – required roadway exactions included
ROW dedication along Spencer Road, street improvements along Spencer Road, sidewalk along
Spencer Road and Loop 288. Proposed medical facility on Scripture – required roadway
exactions included ROW dedication along Scripture Street, sidewalk along Scripture Street.
Proposed restaurant and multi-family apartments at Fort Worth Drive, I-35E service road, and
Locust Street – required roadway exactions included right turn lane along Fort Worth Drive,
extensions of existing left-turn lane along Fort Worth Drive, sidewalk along Fort Worth Drive
and Locust Street.
Arora stated the current road exaction pros were: it was currently in the Denton Development
Code; it was applicable in the ETJ; it met State requirements; and there was no additional
expenditure to implement.
The current road exaction cons included:
Payments from the developer were specific to project location only, so the funds could only be
used for road improvements at that specific location. Due to this specificity, the City had over
$2.3 million collected over time tied to specific locations. Use of these funds was not allowed
until a city-funded CIP project was constructed in that specific location. If a CIP project was
constructed, then those funds could be applied to the CIP project. Also, there was a 10-year time
window within which these funds had to be used otherwise the funds reverted back to the
developer. Due to the road exactions tied to specific locations it led to roads/sidewalks to
nowhere construction. Unnecessary road transitions from the expanded road section along the
frontage of the development to tie to existing roads were required.
The exactions were inequitable. If a development was occurring on a TxDOT road or an already
improved street then the developer could end up with no road exactions. However, if the street
was classified as an unimproved street, then the developer had to improve the perimeter street on
the frontage of the development to current city standards, and pay for any signal cost
participation. Depending on traffic generated, there might be additional improvements required
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 5, 2011
Page 5
based on the Traffic Impact Analysis. Off-site improvements were tied to traffic generation
threshold based on a TIA for larger developments only, even though traffic generated from a
smaller development project would still use off-site road capacity. The exaction process did not
yield what the dollar amount of the exaction would be until later in the development process
when plans were developed to determine the construction quantities. It was not predictable for
developers. Due to the exaction process not yielding costs until later in the development process,
it was difficult to do due diligence. Piece-meal approach and negotiations were inherent in the
current road exaction process. The exaction process did not allow pooling of funds, so the funds
collected might sit for years until a CIP project was proposed by the city for the particular
location. The current exaction process did not allow the City to capture the value of excess
capacity in an existing street from developer if the street was classified as an improved street,
and the developer did not have to improve the road.
Arora stated that due to the limitations in the current Denton Development Code, staff had
looked at other options of street funding resulting from development projects – General
Obligation bonds, general budget (maintenance), special districts (TIF, TIRZ, PID, MMD,
TRZ’s), special tax funds, state and federal funds, grants, road impact fees, developer
contributions, road user fees.
Except for Road Impact Fees, the above listed funding methods did not directly address
exactions for road improvements to account for traffic generated from a proposed development.
Arora stated that an impact fee was a one-time charge assessed to new development for a portion
of costs related to a specific capital improvement program. Impact fees were a mechanism for
funding the infrastructure necessary to accommodate new development. Impact fees allowed for
funding of certain new facilities or expansions and recoupment of certain capital improvement
costs.
Some of the positive aspects of using the road impact fee were: allowable by state law;
alleviated the burden of constructing new facilities on existing taxpayers; allowed recoupment of
project costs already constructed which contained oversized or excess capacity; allowed for
implementation of key system improvements over piece-meal approach; provided up front
knowledge of the exact fee to be imposed; fairly charged based on system impacts; allowed for
pooling of funds; established rough proportionality; allowed clear identification of developer
credits; no more piece meal negotiations.
Some of the negative aspects were: it was applicable only within the city limits; there was a cost
to implement; impact fee updates were required every five years by state law; and there were
administrative requirements to manage the program.
Arora reviewed components that could be paid for through an impact fee program: construction
cost of capital improvements on the CIP which included traffic signals, bridges, sidewalks;
survey and engineering fees; land acquisition costs, including court awards; debt service of
impact fee CIP; and study/update costs.
Arora reviewed components that could not be paid for through an impact fee program: projects
not included in the CIP; repair, operation and maintenance of existing or new facilities; upgrades
to serve existing development; and administrative costs of operating the program.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 5, 2011
Page 6
Impact fees were collected based on a single family equivalent (SFE) and a small or large project
could be broken into a collection of SFE’s in terms of its traffic impact on the transportation
system. It established rough proportionality, provided up front knowledge of the exact fee, and
made it easier to do due diligence. It allowed for pooling of funds to be used for projects with
the defined Service Area, and allowed recoupment of the city investment in excess road capacity
from developments.
Arora stated based on the cost to implement the road impact fee by several cities in Texas, it was
estimated that road impact fee implementation could amount to $250,000–$300,000 in Denton.
Arora reviewed the road impact fees that were currently in use by several cities in Texas. The
median road impact fee amount charged was about $2,000 per SFE. For Denton, assuming a
road impact fee of $1,500 per SFE; for 500 to 1000 SFE growth, impact fees of $750,000 to
$1,500,000 per year could be generated. As a reference, in the last fiscal year there were 977
SFE connections for Wastewater Impact Fees.
Road Impact Fees were applicable within the city limits only. However, the DDC was also
applicable to development in the ETJ.
Staff had looked at how Fort Worth had modeled its impact fee implementation and how it could
be used in Denton. Fort Worth used the proportionality assessment model that we currently used
to determine rough proportionality for roads that were not included in the Road Impact Fee CIP,
and for developments in the ETJ. This model then determined the proportionate share of a
development’s impact on the road system. Fort Worth ran this model for all roads not included
in the Impact Fee CIP and for developments in the ETJ. Fort Worth capped the maximum
exaction to the 100 percent Impact Fee calculated cost for the particular Service Area.
Use of the hybrid approach of impact fees and rough proportionality model covered the entire
area within the city limits as well as the ETJ. In addition, for the areas outside of the city limits,
where a new CIP project was not warranted due to not enough current traffic, it exacted a higher
dollar amount to construct the needed transportation infrastructure to serve a proposed
development.
The combination of impact fees and proportionality model used in DDC would allow for fair and
predictable assessment of road impact exactions, and “growth paying for growth”. It allowed for
revenue stream that could be pooled and applied to road improvements within a Service Area,
and was not tied to a specific address location. This would allow a more predictable and
efficient use of the capacity related transportation dollars.
It would be necessary to modify portions of the DDC. The proportionality model we currently
used could be applied to all roads that were not included in the Road Impact Fee CIP and in the
ETJ. This model determined the proportionate share of a development’s impact on the road
system. For roads not included in the Impact Fee CIP, Fort Worth ran the proportionality model
for the proposed development, and then capped the maximum exaction to the 100 percent impact
fee calculated cost for the particular Service Area.
Arora stated that the City had recently completed a Pavement Management Analysis. A product
of this analysis was the Overall Condition Index (OCI) rating for all streets. Use of the OCI
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 5, 2011
Page 7
rating could be incorporated with Rough Proportionality Analysis to determine road exactions
for those roads not included in the Road Impact Fee CIP.
If adopted, impact fees could be imposed on all new plats and re-plats approved after ordinance
adoption. There was a one-year grace period for development platted prior to the adoption of the
ordinance. Development expansions or re-development would only be charged for additional
traffic demand placed on the system. Fees would be assessed at platting and collected at the
building permit phase. Funds would have to be spent within ten years and only on impact fee
CIP projects.
The combination of Impact Fees and Proportionality Model/OCI Rating use in the DDC would
allow for fair and predictable assessment of road impact exactions, and it would allow for
“growth paying for growth”. It would allow for revenue stream that could be pooled and applied
to road improvements within a Service Area, and not tied to a specific address location.
Council Member Watts asked about the 40-year road life - was it measured based upon some
type of trip standard?Was it broken down into a single family equivalent trip?
Arora stated that staff knew per lane how much traffic each street could carry.
Watts asked if the amount of traffic a street could carry as far as traffic flow was different than
the kind of traffic a street could carry that would then begin to degrade the road.
Watts asked for additional information regarding the following: the difference between how
much a two lane road handle based on so many trips per whatever and how much it could handle
from the standpoint of wear and tear on the actual road bed that it would require reconstruction
or maintenance. Was that what the SFE was supposed to measure?
Arora stated that he would have to check and see what the state law said on that.
Council Member Gregory stated that along with that there were some high density residential
developments that might be located such that a lot of pedestrian traffic could be anticipated from
those because they might be transit-oriented developments or they might be in very close
proximity to the university so he thought they needed to look at it from both ends in terms of was
there any credit that a developer might be given for constructing in a location that actually
decreased from what a standard housing unit trip might be in terms of weight of vehicle because
they might be walking or riding a bicycle.
Gregory stated that he appreciated the examples of the re-use of the Home Depot site into
apartments and the restaurant on Loop 288 earlier in the presentation. He stated that he would
like to see examples of how this structure would work on industrial development and warehouses
on the west side of town out by the airport and how that might impact some of the issues with
economic development and tax abatement.
Gregory asked how this proposal would mesh with the City’s work in the downtown area on
form-based code.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
December 5, 2011
Page 8
Mayor Burroughs stated that he would like to see information on alternatives we might have if
we had a policy encouraging development that was infill or re-development or a small
development exception along with an example from another city so that they could weigh those
alternatives.
Consensus of Council was to bring back the additional information they had requested.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:56 p.m.
____________________________________
MARK A. BURROUGHS
MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
____________________________________
JANE RICHARDSON
ASST. CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS