August 06, 2012 Minutes
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
August 6, 2012
Joint Meeting of the City of Denton City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on
Monday, August 6, 2012 at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall.
PRESENT: Council Member Gregory, Council Member Engelbrecht, Council Member
Roden, Council Member Watts, Mayor Pro Tem Kamp, and Mayor Burroughs.
ABSENT: Council Member King
All Planning and Zoning Commission members were present with the exception of Thom Reece.
1.Call to order; announce quorum, introductions.
Mayor Burroughs called the City Council meeting to order and announced a quorum of the
member were present.
Chairman Thomas called the Planning and Zoning Commission to order and announced a
quorum of the members were present.
2.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding an update on the
City’s development review process, including challenges to in-fill and redevelopment
projects.
City Manager Campbell stated that he appreciated everyone taking time to attend the meeting.
The intent was to talk about the development process, obstacles to address and how to define the
process.
Fred Greene, Assistant City Manager, stated that this was the next logical step to be taken for a
review of the development process. Complaints unique to Denton would be considered. The
process had been reviewed over and over again. A Developers Review Committee had been
operating for several years and had provided 33 recommendations to implement to improve the
process. Most of those recommendations had been implemented. Staff reviewed the 2002
Zucker Study that made 56 recommendations and those also had been implemented except for
three that were impractical. It was felt that there were not too much more that could be done
with the process. The question was “What then was the problem?” It was felt that it was
imbedded in the Denton Development Code itself. The Code had primarily been written for
greenfield development and did not accommodate infill and redevelopment. Denton was
currently experiencing infill and redevelopment more than greenfield development.
Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, presented the outline of the
discussion. Background would cover (1) DRC purpose and composition; (2) code and process
amendments; and (3) Zucker System Report and recommendations. The current issue would be
discussed in terms of (1) development difficulties in Denton, (2) infill development and proposed
improvements; (3) development fees, and (4) infill/redevelopment incentives. The final area of
discussion would be staff recommendations.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) was comprised of various representatives from
several city departments. DRC reviewed, evaluated and analyzed all development projects to
ensure consistency with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan, the Denton Development
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 6, 2012
Page 2
Code (DDC) and all other applicable codes, regulations, laws and policies that governed
subdivision platting and the development of real property within the City. Primary reviewers
evaluated and analyzed those elements of a proposed development plan that were standard and
rudimentary. Primary reviewers included representatives from DRC Engineering, Planning, Fire,
DME and Building Inspections. Secondary reviewers evaluated and analyzed those elements of
the proposed plan that were important, but did not occur on a regular basis. Representatives for
secondary reviewers included Denton Municipal Airport, Denton County, City Attorney’s
Office, Watershed Protection, Economic Development, Parks & Recreation, Real Estate, and the
Police Department.
Development Review Process Improvements – during recent years, several improvements had
been made to the City’s development plan intake, distribution and review process. Forty six of
these improvements were identified. Some of those improvements included staffing, DDC Code
amendments, ProjectDox and other software implementation, flow charts, Developer’s
Committee and reduction in review time. Cunningham reviewed the information from the
Zucker Systems Report.
Current Development Issues – the perception of the local developers was that it was more
difficult to develop in Denton than any other city. The main differences between Denton and
other cities were that many areas of the DDC were difficult to interpret or the wording was
ambiguous and unclear; and the DDC was difficult to apply to infill and redevelopment projects.
Infill Development – infill development tended to be more challenging than greenfield
development. There were four groups of these challenges:
1. Physical Barriers – physical site constraints often limited the feasibility of developing
infill sites.
2.Social barriers – opposition may be encountered with development of infill sites whether
or not it was justified.
3.Regulatory barriers – regulatory constraints often worked against good design, raised
roadblocks against innovation, or prevented projects that were otherwise consistent with
the character of existing communities.
4.Economic barriers – difficult sites and uncertain outcomes and time frames could reduce
developers’ economic interest in undertaking infill projects.
Infill Development Difficulties in Denton – these difficulties included: (1) Zoning, subdivision
and building codes could inadvertently preclude redevelopment or infill, (2) regulations for
parking, road design, rights-of-way, or stormwater management might prohibit or severely limit
development, (3) conflicting requirements often limited the ability to achieve permitted densities,
(4) the need for waivers or variances could slow the approval process and add cost to the
development, (5) various exactions take a toll on the cost of infill and redevelopment, especially
smaller projects and (6) the Mobility Plan and street improvement exactions were difficult to
apply in highly developed areas such as downtown.
Bryan Lockley, DRC Administrator, presented information on issues associated with Infill
Development. Some of those issues included zoning issues, specific subdivision issues; building
issues, and parking issues.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 6, 2012
Page 3
Lockley presented information on zoning issues associated with the Elm Street Lofts project.
Council Member Watts questioned that in a case similar to the loft issue, would a percentage of
the removal costs or price trigger the new codes to be applied or would they still be
grandfathered.
Lockley stated that if the exterior walls and roof were still there it would be a retrofit and would
not apply.
Mayor Burroughs noted that there was also a problem with a structure on two lots which was
permissible in the past but now could not do improvements because it would trigger platting.
Council Member Watts stated that parking sometimes had counterproductive policies. There
might be restrictions for non-preamble parking but not allow parking on the street. He
questioned where the parking standards came from.
Lockley stated that they were based on need. Actual users had their own standards already
during peak time which often did not meet city standards.
Chairman Thomas stated that other cities had minimums while Denton had a maximum.
Lockley stated that Denton’s code requirements had minimum and maximum. A developer had
to provide for the minimum but couldn’t exceed the maximum. Other cities typically had a
range rather than a minimum and a maximum and that range was within the market standard. A
balance was needed between the needs on the site and what the desires of the city might be.
Council Member Watts questioned if parking standards applied across the zoning classifications
or if different environments had different standards.
Lockley stated that it was applied as one size fit all.
Council Member Gregory stated that the standards would apply whether in the Downtown area
or a greenfield area.
Lockley replied correct. The standards usually were applied when platting but that may kick in
other exactions which the property owner might be required to provide the City such as right-of-
way dedication, etc.
Lockley presented information on building code issues such as the International Building Code
and International Fire Code requirements to redevelop older structures. Another building issue
was redevelopment of older commercial structures for a permitted use under the Denton
Development Code.
Mayor Burroughs felt that a problem was that the Code forced a structure to remain at the lowest
level but trying to improve it made it economically impossible to do.
City Manager Campbell stated that it could significantly reduce the uses; an expansion could be
done or do a different use that would not trigger those issues.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 6, 2012
Page 4
Cunningham stated that another issue raised by the developers was that the development fees
were too high to develop in Denton. He presented statistics on the fee comparison for various
area cities. Areas reviewed were pre-application, zoning, SUP, ZBA, variance, final plat,
preliminary plat, demolition permit, clearing and grading, and plan review.
Council Member Watts stated that with the plan review fees for other cities, those might have
separate fees for engineering fees, etc.
Cunningham stated that was correct and staff might not know what was included in those fees.
Council Member Gregory stated that staff prepared a gas well fees comparison to actual costs
and questioned if the same was done for the Planning fees.
Cunningham stated that this was not a cost for service analysis. It could be done but he felt that
in order to be competitive, cities tried to offer a competitive fee instead of a cost for service fee.
City Manager Campbell stated that some cities only do what the market might bear and in some
instances was lower than the actual cost of the service.
Cunningham continued with a comparison of utility fees which included water tap fee, water
impact fee, sewer tap fee and sewer impact fee for a ¾ inch, 1 inch, 4 inch, and 6 inch service
line.
Council Member Watts asked about the standard used to set the fees.
PS Arora, DRC Engineering Administrator, stated that they were full calculations and every five
years the study was done again.
The Council and Commission discussed infill projects and the related impact fees.
Cunningham continued with a comparison of park dedication fees.
Emerson Vorel, Director of Parks and Recreation, reviewed what was done with the park
dedication fees. The numbers that were established for the park development fee were based on
$208,000 to construct a park. That was a 1998 park which had not been updated and really did
not meet the cost.
Council Member Watts stated that there was a regulation on a park dedication fee and maybe on
a park development fee that those monies had to be used within a certain radius.
Vorel stated that they had to be used within a mile of where the fees were generated.
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that with infill and redevelopment the money could be used for a
smaller park rather than a five acre park which was what they were trying to establish.
Council Member Gregory stated that there was a need to broaden the thinking about parks that
green space was still needed but consider where that was applied.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 6, 2012
Page 5
Commissioner Thomas felt that some of the city’s fees were high. In some cities a developer
could pay a fee and have a day to get their permits done. Different departments had criteria
manuals did not coincide and he felt that made for a difficult situation.
Cunningham presented infill/redevelopment incentives that could be considered and
implemented in Denton.
1. Amendment to the City’s infill overlay districts. The amendment would revise the City’s
Special Purpose District to encourage redevelopment and revitalization.
2. Flexible Code standards – this amendment would eliminate overly burdensome,
inflexible or restrictive design requirements that might serve as a deterrent to those considering
infill and redevelopment. This may be addressed through the use of a form-base code.
Mayor Burroughs stated that each property was so unique that there was a need to have that type
of flexibility.
Council and Commissioners discussed the aspects of neighborhood concerns relative to infill.
Council Member Watts stated that during the process, neighborhood concerns would have to be
worked out with these competing interests and have to have consensus among the differing
groups either via a neighborhood or small area groups.
Council Member Watts left the meeting.
Mayor Burroughs suggested mentioning the various incentives but not go through each one in
detail.
3.Land assembly – it was felt that this was not seen as a general policy and should not be
put in the incentives. The Council and Commissioners agreed to not include this incentive.
4. Density bonuses – Mayor Burroughs stated that this might work in limited places but not
in a residential area. It was a useful tool. Consensus was to include this incentive.
5. Sales tax rebates – consensus was to put this incentive in the proposal to look at and to
have staff provide examples.
6. Property tax abatement – consensus was to put this incentive in the proposal and to have
staff provide examples.
7. Reduced impact fees – consensus was to consider this as a goal.
8. Reduced fees – consensus was to consider this option.
9. Fast track permitting – Mayor Burroughs suggested having an engineer and planner who
just worked on redevelopment planning and not take away from other issues.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 6, 2012
Page 6
Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that she would like to look at both #9 and #10 for flexibility in the
program.
Council Member Engelbrecht stated that he would like to know what it would take for staff to do
both scenarios.
Council Member Roden questioned how the consultant would look at the Code combined with
the Denton Plan.
Cunningham stated that to ensure review of all regulations, staff would work together with the
consultant.
Council Member Roden requested a report relating to the Trakit system and what information
was available to the public.
Mayor Burroughs felt it was good to have an outside view of the procedures and an outside
perspective. He would encourage a creative element when reviewing the procedures.
Mayor Burroughs left the meeting.
Council Member Gregory suggested a follow up meeting with the consultant in the next three
months and have staff provide the backup materials beforehand so that Council could digest the
information and talk with the consultant about it.
Commissioner Thomas stated that he appreciated getting together with Council as the Planning
and Zoning Commission had looked at infill three other times and were now encouraged to see
Council involved
4.Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, respond to inquiries from the
City Council or the public with specific factual information or recitation of policy, or
accept a proposal to place the matter on the agenda for an upcoming meeting
AND
Under Section 551.0415 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, provide reports about items of
community interest regarding which no action will be taken, to include: expressions of
thanks, congratulations, or condolence; information regarding holiday schedules; an
honorary or salutary recognition of a public official, public employee, or other citizen; a
reminder about an upcoming event organized or sponsored by the governing body;
information regarding a social, ceremonial, or community event organized or sponsored
by an entity other than the governing body that was attended or is scheduled to be
attended by a member of the governing body or an official or employee of the
municipality; or an announcement involving an imminent threat to the public health and
safety of people in the municipality that has arisen after the posting of the agenda.
There were no items suggested by Council.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
August 6, 2012
Page 7
With no further business, the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
____________________________________
MARK A. BURROUGHS
MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
____________________________________
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS