afdde05a... · web viewmotioned to recommend to the town council to approve the construction...

MINUTESTOWN OF COPPER CANYON

REGULAR TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGMONDAY, JUNE 26, 2017

AND JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2017

The Town Council of the Town of Copper Canyon met in regular session and conducted a joint meeting with the Town of Copper Canyon Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday, June 26, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Copper Canyon Town Hall, 400 Woodland Drive, Copper Canyon, Texas, whereupon the following items were considered:

I. TOWN COUNCIL - CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Sue Tejml called the regular meeting of the Copper Canyon Town Council to order at 7:00 p.m. on the 26th day of June, 2017 in the Council Chambers at Copper Canyon Town Hall, 400 Woodland Drive, Copper Canyon, Texas, 75077.

Council PresentJeff Mangum Mayor Pro TemValerie Cannaday Deputy Mayor Pro TemBill Castleman Council MemberDave Svatik Council Member

Staff Present Terry Welch Town AttorneyDonna Welsh Town AdministratorSheila Morales Town Secretary

Steve Hill was absent due to his work schedule.

A quorum of the Town Council was established.

Mayor Tejml and Council Members led meeting attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.

II. TOWN COUNCIL - PUBLIC INPUT

Minutes – Joint Council and P&Z

6/26/2017 of 17

Citizens can make comments to the Town Council during this section of the meeting agenda. We ask citizens who wish to speak on agenda items to sign in on the sheet provided on the table at the back of the Council Chambers. There is a 3-minute time limit for each citizen who wishes to make a presentation. Pursuant to State Open Meetings law, the Town Council cannot discuss or take action on items not posted on the Agenda. Therefore, the Council cannot take action on or discuss any issues or items brought up during public input.

David Andrews (646 Chinn Chapel) spoke and stated the following: He is the owner of Century Custom Homes, which is a local home building

company He recently purchased 646 Chinn Chapel Roughly a year ago, this property went into foreclosure (one acre), along with the

adjoining two and one half acre lot (648 Chinn Chapel). He learned of the property by reading Town updates in Mayor Tejml’s “What’s

Happening” article in the Cross Timbers Gazette He tracked down the owner of the property and purchased the lot about a month

afterwards. Since then he’s realized that the zoning isn’t residential one acre and so now he’s

in a bind; therefore, he’s brainstormed ideas on what to do next At the end of last year, he attended a council meeting in which a family wanted to

build a house that required a lower roof pitch than what the Town allowed. Subsequent to the family’s request, the Town passed a related ordinance that in turn allowed the roof pitch.

He asked if the Council would consider a zoning modification for this lot so that he could build on the property.

The property (zoned as R2 – Residential Two Acres) is surrounded by smaller lots, several to the north that are only ½-acre lots (previously platted over fifty years ago) and properties across the street are one acre properties. Therefore, his property would not be out of place.

He’s contacted the adjoining land owner who purchased the 2.5 acre parcel and is willing to work with him. He’s willing to add restrictions to the plat regarding the building lines for both the house and any future accessory building(s).

He’s willing to build the house off to one side to complement both properties. He discovered that his neighbor’s septic sprayers are on his property and he’s

offered to move them. He wants to be a good neighbor and is therefore willing to work with the

adjoining neighbor. If the zoning modification is granted, the Town would benefit in that the building

would modernize the transitional area and also add additional tax base.

Council Member Svatik asked when the one acre piece was parceled out from the original platted property. David stated the family that owned the property sold one acre to another family member, by metes and bounds in 1987 (and probably did not realize the


6/26/2017 of 17

zoning requirement) and then filed the sale with the County. David Andrews mentioned that the one acre property is shown on the appraisal district’s website (DentonCAD.com) as a separate property (dashed lines indicating the property sold) and the property has been taxed as a buildable entity since it was sold in 1987. Town Attorney Welch stated that since the early 1980s for a lot to be buildable it had to be platted; this sale was an illegal subdivision of land; the County does not check plat records when land is sold.

Council Member Svatik asked whether this situation could qualify as a hardship. Town Attorney Welch stated that it would not, since the ‘hardship’ was self-created when the one acre was illegally parsed out. People are allowed to sell blocks of their property, however, if the sold pieces don’t meet current zoning regulations, the property cannot be platted and if a property is not platted, then a building permit cannot be issued.

Council Member Svatik asked if Action & Discussion Item #3 relates in any way to David Andrews situation or if passing Action & Discussion Item #3 would impact David Andrews situation. Town Attorney Welch stated that it does not. The ordinance to be considered in Action & Discussion Item #3 references lots that were platted prior to the Town’s incorporation (1973).

Council Member Svatik asked if there were any remedy for the property owner (David Andrews). Town Attorney Welch stated that the land cannot be platted unless the Town’s Master Plan designation is changed and the property is rezoned through the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. David Andrews asked if the Council would consider the lot in question a Lot of Record. (See below in Action item #3 for further discussion by the Council.)

III. MAYOR’S REMARKS

1. Denco 911 Update

Mayor Tejml summarized the Denco 911 update as follows:

Although Dallas County is experiencing problems with their 911 organization, this won’t happen with the Denton County 911 organization. Denco 911 has been organized for thirty years and was recognized last year by the national 911 organization as one of the best 911 organizations in the nation. Denco 911 has also been recognized by the State of Texas as having one of the first functioning “NG” (Next Generation) 911 systems.

Denco 911 is comprised of 34 members (33 municipalities plus the unincorporated areas of Denton County.) There are 11 PSAPS (or “call centers”) located in the Denton County Sheriff’s Office, eight municipal police departments (Carrollton, Corinth, Denton, Flower Mound, Highland Village, Lewisville, Roanoke, and The Colony), and two universities (the University of North Texas and Texas Women’s


6/26/2017 of 17

University.) [NOTE: Lake Dallas has recently transferred its 911 emergency calls to the PSAP in the Sheriff’s Office. Mayor Sue Tejml]

Denco 911 has decided to construct a hardened facility. So, if a tornado or terrorism event occurs, the building could be set up as a command station and used by one or more of the call centers Denco supports. Two years ago, Denco 911 designed the plans and purchased land for the future facility. Due to the construction boom in Denton County, when Denco 911 went out for bids the first time, they only received one bid. The next time they went out for bid, they received six bidders; however, three of them withdrew their bids.

The original estimate for the hardened facility was in the $4 million plus range. Our Denco 911 had been setting aside money each year, so that it could pay cash for the facility. However, Denco 911 is currently looking at a price of $5.1 – $5.6 million dollars to build the hardened facility. However, a 911 facility cannot hold a mortgage. And, to issue a bond, a 911 organization must present their request to the State Legislature and Attorney General and get their approval. (Not a likely achievable event in the current Legislature.)

75% of Denco 911 organization’s funding is from a fifty cent fee per mobile line set by the State Legislature. That fee has not been raised in years, though other states charge from $1-2 dollars for 911 fees per mobile line.

25% of Denco 911 funding is from residential and other business landlines. Denco had not raised those fees in 30 years. In an effort to raise the necessary funds for the hardened facility, our Denco 911 Board voted unanimously to raise the fees on residential and other land lines. This fee increase equates to less than an $8 per year 911 fee increase per residential line. This increase will raise over $834,000 per year. This will allow Denco 911 to begin building the hardened facility now AND to keep all of their other equipment up to date. [NOTE: microwave towers, computers, etc. Mayor Sue Tejml]

The current Denco 911 Board consists of: President Jack Miller (former Mayor of Denton and current Governor’s appointee to the State 911 Organization), Bill Lawrence (former Mayor of Highland Village and telephone company executive), Assistant Chief Terry McGrath (of the Lewisville Fire Department and appointed by the Denton County Fire Chiefs Association), Sue Tejml and Jim Carter (elected by Denco 911’s member municipalities for staggered two year terms), and Rob McGee (non-voting Board Member representing the largest telecommunication provider in Denton County – Verizon.)

Council Member Svatik asked if Denco 911 could have approached the Department of Home Land Security. Mayor Tejml stated, no, funding is very limited. [NOTE: Eligibility for grants for First Responders often does not include 911 facilities. Mark Payne, Denco 911 Executive Director.]


6/26/2017 of 17

Mayor Tejml also stated that Denco 911 trains many emergency call takers and also trains local law enforcement personnel in 911 protocols. This is unusual, but a great honor that Denco 911 has been so certified.

Council Member Svatik suggested that as a means of protection, the Denco 911 Board consider removing the signage outside of the current Denco 911 building. In his experience hardened facilities are not identified in order to minimize the facility from being a target. Mayor Tejml stated that she has been on the Denco 911 Board for four years; and, she would appreciate council voting for her to serve another two years. She has learned a lot about providing quality 911 services while serving on the board.

2. Fire Chief Mac Hohenberger said NO fireworks calls in Copper Canyon in last three years! Our “Please Comply” signs are working!

3. Annual July 4 th Parade to line up in front of Town Hall at 9:30 a.m. Argyle Fire District to provide its Fire Engine and firefighters, so that Copper Canyon kids can ride up top on the engine! The Woodland Women’s Club will provide hot dogs and drinks afterwards.

4. Trail Chairman Deb Valencia said Trail Cleanup a Success! New Town resident Eric Rooney brings his five sons to help, though youngest son is in a backpack on his Dad’s back!

5. Commissioner Andy Eads to lead County team to clean up graffiti in trail tunnel under FM 2499 and improve drainage in tunnel for safety of pedestrians and equestrians.

Mayor Tejml stated that the trail system runs under FM 2499. For some reason water does not drain properly in the tunnel, so there is a layer of mud and muck on the tunnel floor which prevents riders and walkers from traveling safely under FM 2499. The tunnel is technically in Highland Village; however, Copper Canyon is responsible for keeping the trails clean and safe to use. Mayor Tejml has approached Commissioner Eads and asked for his help.

III. TOWN COUNCIL - STAFF MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ON ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST (Pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.0415 the Town Council may report on the following items: (1) expression of thanks, congratulations or condolences; (2) information about holiday schedules, (3) recognition of individuals; (4) reminders about upcoming Town Council events; (5) information about community events; and (6) announcements involving imminent threat to public health and safety.)


6/26/2017 of 17

Council Member Svatik thanked Town Administrator Welsh for a job well done on Estates Drive.

IV. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (P&Z) – CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Nicholas called the meeting of the Copper Canyon Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:23 p.m. on the 26th day of June, 2017 in the Council Chambers at Copper Canyon Town Hall, 400 Woodland Drive, Copper Canyon, Texas, 75077.

Commissioners PresentAndre Nicholas ChairmanPaul Bosco CommissionerMark Pape CommissionerTom Reed CommissionerCindy Skidmore Commissioner

Commissioners Present, not sitting at the daisMitch Dornich Commissioner - AlternateDeb Schmitz Commissioner - Alternate

V. P&Z - CONSENT

1. Approve May 1, 2017 Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.

Commissioner Pape motioned to accept the minutes as presented.

Commissioner Skidmore seconded the motion.

Ayes: Chairman Nicholas, Commissioners Bosco, Pape, and Skidmore

Nays: NoneAbstain: Commissioner Reed

Chairman Nicholas announced that the motion carried.

VI. JOINT TOWN COUNCIL AND P&Z WORKSHOP AND ROOF PITCH PRESENTATION BY HALFF ENGINEERING

The Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council will conduct a joint workshop to receive a presentation from Halff Engineering on roof pitches, and further, will discuss and consider roof pitch requirements and ordinances for the Town. It is anticipated that


6/26/2017 of 17

the Town Council may provide direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding roof pitch requirements and ordinances.

Town Engineer Haynes presented a power point presentation regarding roof pitch (attached to minutes) based on being charged by council two weeks prior to put together a roof pitch presentation.

Council Member Svatik asked Town Engineer Haynes what his criteria was in choosing the towns discussed in his presentation. Town Engineer Haynes explained he chose Bartonville and Argyle and the western part of Flower Mound since they are rural. The demographics, land use and size are all similar to Copper Canyon.

Commissioner Pape asked for confirmation (based on the presentation) that the Town of Flower Mound has no roof pitch requirements. Town Engineer Haynes said yes, no roof pitch requirements for residential but for storage sheds, the roof pitches must be a minimum of 4/12-5/12.

Town Engineer Haynes stated that the most interesting fact that he learned from both planners was that whatever product the builders are building is what the Town should consider, unless the builder is building a ranch style house. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday stated that this would be the case only in high density areas because the lots are super small and narrow. Whereas, if the lots are larger, she sees more flat or lower pitched roofs (which would include Hill Country, Modern, Mediterranean styles). As far as the trends in architectural styles as found on the internet, many houses in this area are leaning toward the modern look.

Council Member Svatik stated that the one big difference between Copper Canyon and the other towns included in the presentation is that Copper Canyon is only four square miles. Therefore, the question for the Town would be, especially since there are not a lot of four and five acre properties remaining, would it make sense to follow the rules as summarized in the presentation. If the Town lifted all restrictions on roof pitch, in our small town, it may look a little odd. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday disagreed since most of the communities in the Town have their own neighborhood guidelines / deed restrictions.

David Andrews (Century Custom Homes) noted that steep roofs are more decorative in nature. P&Z Chairman Nicholas agreed that steeper roofs are more architectural in nature.

Commissioner Pape stated that in the old days, random style was okay. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday stated that many people want that freedom of expression and they don’t want their house style repeated several times down the street.

Council Member Svatik stated there is a neighboring community that has a single very contemporary home that is situated in a neighborhood of hundreds of very traditionally styled homes on roughly 1/4 acre lots. My point is that ordinances are


6/26/2017 of 17

occasionally needed in order to curb a very limited group of people from taking things to an extreme and forcibly changing the character of the overall neighborhood design/plan.

Commissioner Pape asked why the Town was even considering this issue. The Town has clear ordinances. He asked if there was a problem or if the Town had received some push back? Mayor Tejml suggested changing the roof pitch requirements would allow more flexibility for future developers. Chairman Nicholas agreed that the Town needs to look into future as growth is happening and not wait until someone knocks on our door. The Town needs to relax their requirements and allow more variety of architecture.

Council Member Svatik stated that because of our current restrictions we still see trees rather than a sea of roofs.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday stated with the Town’s current ordinances, some popular styled houses with lower pitched roofs could not be built in the Town without the resident going to the Board of Adjustment asking for a variance based on a hardship. In this case, there isn’t a hardship. These type house would be a great additional to our Town. Therefore, the Town should adopt the other town’s roof requirements.

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum stated that the Town’s current roof pitch requirement was put into effect in 2005 when the Master Plan was formulated. Most of the houses in the Town were already built at that time.

Council Member Svatik asked, “How do you stop a random contemporary designed home being built in the midst of traditional houses?” Chairman Nicholas suggested that the Town use their best judgement in setting the requirements.

Mayor Tejml stated that the Town would provide future builders a lot more flexibility if the roof pitch requirements are changed. The Town could consider leaving the requirements the same for one acre properties, but yet removing the requirements for properties greater than one acre.

Commissioner Bosco stated that the Town doesn’t have too many one acre lots remaining. Considering the larger developments will be considered on a case by case basis during the approval process, what the Town should really consider is protecting the single one or two acre lots.

Council Member Svatik expressed concern about possible tear downs in the Town and what if a contemporary designed home is built in the middle of a traditional styled neighborhood. Chairman Nicholas and Commissioner Pape stated that this exact thing is happening in Highland Park. Commissioner Bosco asked, “But, is that that we want for Copper Canyon?” If someone has a special house that they want to build, they should be allowed to bring it forward to the Town and allow the Town to decide. This would protect the neighbors and their house values.


6/26/2017 of 17

Commissioner Schmidt stated that she spent time in Los Angeles County and she enjoyed seeing the difference in architectural styles.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday stated that if the Town shoehorns people by restricting the roof pitch, they could build a modern house but add a goofy 6/12 roof. The Town should give complete freedom in roof pitch.

Commissioner Pape recommended that the P&Z recommend to Council to eliminate all roof pitch requirements except in the Town Center.

Town Attorney Welch stated that it’s just a workshop and no action can be taken regarding roof pitch.

Commissioner Bosco suggested that since the Town hasn’t had any other requests for roof pitch changes, the Town should leave the ordinance alone.

Commissioner Reed asked whether the ‘hardship’ terminology could be revised to allow people to apply for a variance on the basis of their aesthetic desire. Town Attorney Welch said that state law governs what the Board of Adjustment does.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday stated that if she has a client that wants to build a beautiful house in Copper Canyon, but can’t build it due to the Town’s roof pitch requirements, the Town loses. The client would then go to other surrounding communities to build. In addition, a builder who has a buyer for Copper Canyon isn’t going to be willing to attend multiple meetings to get the house plans approved. The builder will take the client to another town.

Council Member Svatik stated that the Town hasn’t had anyone mention that we have a problem with people wanting a lower pitch. Commissioner Pape stated that the Town wouldn’t necessarily know this but rather the builder would just take their client to a different town.

Town Administrator Welsh stated that in reviewing the latest tax rolls, the Town has roughly 83 open lots (many of which are in Hidden Creek, Copper Creek and Copper Hill). Once those lots are removed, there are only a few single lots left.

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum expressed concern about future tear downs and that uniformity could go away.

Council Member Svatik suggested that maybe the Town should get more public input regarding roof pitches.

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum asked if Bartonville or Argyle has had any roof pitch issues (since they don’t have any roof pitch requirements). Town Administrator Welsh stated that Bartonville has 2-acre minimum.


6/26/2017 of 17

Mayor Tejml suggested the Town consider setting roof pitch limits for one acre properties and everything larger than one acre would not have any roof pitch requirement. The Woodlands and Chinn Chapel North subdivisions could have a minimum roof pitch. The Town needs to be more forward thinking and think about who we want to attract. Lifting the restrictions could make the Town more competitive with other towns. Chairman Nicholas agreed.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday asked what Copper Creek is zoned. Town Attorney Welch stated that it is not zoned, but rather it’s a PD (planned development).

Town Attorney Welch stated that before changes can be made regarding the roof pitch, the Town would have to do a notice for a public hearing for P&Z to consider a zoning change and a public hearing and notice for Council to consider a zoning change.

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum stated that from what he understands from P&Z, they want to modify the ordinance to lift roof pitch restrictions for properties greater than one acre. Chairman Nicholas stated that he understands that the P&Z are willing to lift some of the restrictions however, the size property is still to be determined; some want to lift restrictions for properties larger than one acre, others want to lift restrictions for properties larger than two acres and others are willing to lift all restrictions.

Council Member Svatik summarized Chairman Nicholas’ statement regarding roof pitch requirements: 1) keep requirements the same, 2) get rid of all requirements, 3) lift requirements for properties larger than one acre, 4) lift requirements for properties larger than two acres.

Commissioner Reed stated that at this point he’s in agreement to lift restrictions for properties greater than one acre in size.

Chairman Nicholas summarized that the P&Z is in agreement to relax the roof pitch requirements at some level.

Commissioner Bosco stated that people moving to Copper Canyon typically aren’t in favor of modern architecture; if it was next to him, he wouldn’t want it. Tear downs will become an issue soon if roof pitch requirements are lifted.

Mayor Tejml stated that it sounded as if most of the P&Z members are in favor of lifting roof pitch restrictions for properties larger than one acre. Chairman Nicholas agreed.

No further discussion took place.

VII. P&Z – ACTION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Discuss, consider and act upon a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the construction plans and final plat of 320 Orchid Hill Lane (being a 10.50-acre tract of


6/26/2017 of 17

land situated in the J. W. Baker Survey, No. 50, conveyed to Timothy N. Frenzel and Holley K. Frenzel recorded in Instrument No. 94-R0054076, Town of Copper Canyon, Denton County, Texas).

Commissioner Pape motioned to recommend to the Town Council to approve the construction plans and final plat of 320 Orchid Hill Lane (being a 10.50-acre tract of land situated in the J. W. Baker Survey, No. 50, conveyed to Timothy N. Frenzel and Holley K. Frenzel recorded in Instrument No. 94-R0054076, Town of Copper Canyon, Denton County, Texas).

Commissioner Skidmore seconded the motion.

Ayes: Chairman Nicholas, Commissioners Pape, Reed and Skidmore Nays: NoneAbstain: Commissioner Bosco

Chairman Nicholas announced that the motion carried unanimously.

VIII. P&Z - ADJOURN

Commissioner Pape motioned to adjourn the meeting.

Commissioner Reed seconded the motion.

Ayes: Chairman Nicholas, Commissioners Bosco, Pape, Reed and Skidmore Nays: None

Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

IX. TOWN COUNCIL - CONSENT

Items on the Consent Agenda are routine and administrative in nature. As such, these items are considered for approval by a single motion and vote without discussion. Council Members can remove an item or items from the agenda so it can be considered separately and/or add any item to be considered as part of the Consent Agenda.

1. Approve June 12, 2017 Minutes of Council Meeting

Council Member Svatik requested that the following changes be made to the June 12, 2017 minutes:

Page 10, Item #7, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, should read: Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Hill also said that “He would be totally okay with Council


6/26/2017 of 17

Member Svatik nominating either of the two people for Deputy Mayor Pro Tem.”

Page 10, Item #7, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence, should read: Council Member Svatik stated that based on his research, 57% of the time since 2011, on average, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Hill is not at the Council meetings.

Council Member Svatik continued, in reference to Action Item #7 on June 12, 2017, Council Member Svatik stated that based on his research of the Council’s attendance, since 2011 57% of the time on average, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Hill has been unable to attend the council meetings due to his business travel schedule. Svatik stated that “The Town needs someone who attends the meetings regularly and therefore knows what’s going on in town.” Prior to making any of these comments Councilman Svatik stated simply that he and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Hill had a discussion earlier that day (6/12) where Svatik asked Hill if he anticipated improvement in his travel schedule. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Hill said he did not see any improvement anytime soon. Next Councilman Svatik cited that he and Steve Hill discussed the fact that SHOULD something happen to the Mayor (Tejml) or Deputy Mayor (Mangum), then Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Hill would “…need the Council’s help in coming up to speed on the items discussed during the meetings I (Steve Hill) missed.” So, putting this back into context when Councilman Svatik said “The Town needs someone who attends the meetings regularly and therefore knows what’s going on in town.” He specifically said that he felt that the position of Deputy Mayor Pro Tem should be someone who regularly attends the Council meetings and therefore could jump in at any point without a lot of catch-up on the items discussed.

Council Member Svatik asked Town Attorney Welch whether the ‘Note’ on page 10 can be inserted even though none of that was stated during the meeting. Town Attorney Welch stated that generally the minutes reflect what occurred during the meeting. Council Member Svatik requested that this section be removed from the minutes.

Mayor Tejml clarified why the note was added. The statement was in response to Council Member Svatik’s comment in paragraph 3, “and therefore knows what’s going on in the Town” and since over the last ten years, every month, Steve Hill has gone over the budget and adjusted the algorithms for the budget to reflect what is going on in the Town. It’s incredible what Council Member Hill knows about the Town. Council Member Svatik stated that knowing the budget versus all the issues affecting the Town isn’t indicative of what’s going on in the Town.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday asked whether the minutes are verbatim – word for word, or just a summary of what happens during the meeting? Mayor Tejml and Town Attorney Welch stated they could be both.


6/26/2017 of 17

Town Attorney Welch stated that although the note was not stated during the meeting on June 12th, the words have been stated this evening and so will be in the minutes today.

Council Member Svatik requested an additional change to the minutes: Page 10 - The NOTE should be removed from the minutes and in the

future the minutes should reflect who adds inserted notes.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday asked that the following be changed in the June 12th minutes:

Page 7, 3rd paragraph, should read, Council Member Cannaday asked if moving the headwall would be safer with the guardrails, and the Town Engineer stated that it would be .

Page 10, 3rd paragraph from bottom should read, Council Member Cannaday said that she would accept the nomination and that because Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Hill did a great job , she wished he could attend more often.”

Council Member Svatik made a motion to approve Consent Item #1 with all the modifications mentioned previously by Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday and himself.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday seconded the motion.

Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Mangum, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday and Council Members Castleman and Svatik

Nays: None

Mayor Tejml announced that the motion carried unanimously.

X. TOWN COUNCIL – ACTION & DISCCUSION ITEMS

1. Discuss, consider and act upon a recommendation from the P&Z regarding the construction plans and final plat of 320 Orchid Hill Lane (being a 10.50-acre tract of land situated in the J. W. Baker Survey, No. 50, conveyed to Timothy N. Frenzel and Holley K. Frenzel recorded in Instrument No. 94-R0054076, Town of Copper Canyon, Denton County, Texas).

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum made a motion to approve the construction plans and final plat at 320 Orchid Hill Lane (being a 10.50 acre tract of land situated in the J. W. Baker Survey, No. 50, conveyed to Timothy N. Frenzel and Holley K. Frenzel recorded in Instrument No. 94-R0054076, Town of Copper Canyon, Denton County, Texas) as presented.


6/26/2017 of 17

Council Member Castleman seconded the motion.

Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Mangum, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday, and Council Members Castleman and Svatik

Nays: None


2. Discuss, consider and act upon Resolution 17-03 voting to appoint one nominee to the Board of Managers of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District. Nominees are:

Sue Tejml - Nominated by Copper Canyon, Corinth, Flower Mound, Hickory Creek, Lewisville and Trophy Club

David Terre - Nominated by The Colony Chrystal Davis - Nominated by Carrollton

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum made a motion to appoint Sue Tejml to the Denco Area 9-1-1 District Board of Managers.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday seconded the motion.


Nays: None


3. Discuss, consider and take action regarding an ordinance amending the Town's Subdivision Ordinance, Ordinance No. 06-221, as amended, by repealing existing Subsection (A), "Zoning Requirements," of Section 2.2, "Statutory Procedures," of the Subdivision Ordinance and replacing it with a new Subsection (A) of Section 2.2, "Statutory Procedures," to address in said Subsection (A) zoning requirements and lots of record, by providing certain requirements for a lot of record and setbacks for such a lot of record.

(NOTE: In 2011 the Town adopted a "lot of record" ordinance for inclusion in the Town's subdivision ordinance. When various provisions in the subdivision ordinance were repealed and placed in the new Engineering Design Manual, it was discovered that the "lot of record" ordinance was not included. Consequently, to ensure that the "lot of record" ordinance is included in the subdivision ordinance (and is readily accessible on-line), it is being "re-adopted" to make sure there is no question that it is included in our subdivision ordinance.)

Mayor Tejml stated the NOTE was inserted by Town Attorney Welch.


6/26/2017 of 17

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum questioned whether the Lot of Record ordinance was ever in the Engineering Design Manual (EDM). Town Attorney Welch stated that some parts of the subdivision ordinance are in the EDM, such as the intersecting street ordinance.

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum stated that it appears the Lot of Record ordinance which was adopted in 2011 was somehow removed (possibly a technical error) from the subdivision ordinance by Franklin Legal (the company that codifies the Town’s ordinances). Town Attorney Welch stated that the ordinance was mistakenly repealed by Franklin Legal; he has experienced this before with Muni Code and Franklin Legal. The Town could argue with Franklin Legal regarding why the ordinance was repealed, however, it would be easier and quicker to adopt a new Lot of Record Ordinance. Regardless, the Town still needs this provision and so it needs to be put back into the subdivision ordinance, otherwise the Town has no Lot of Record provisions. Without the Lot of Record provisions, residents don’t know what their building setbacks should be. Town Attorney Welch stated that the Town realized that the Lot of Record ordinance was missing when working with other lot of record properties, (i.e., Mobile Drive and Black Jack).

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum asked why the Council had to reapprove the ordinance since it was adopted in 2011. Town Attorney Welch explained that the ordinance needed to be readopted so people know where to look for lot of record details and what the requirements are if their lot is a Lot of Record. At the current time, if someone searches for “Lot of Record” in Franklin Legal, all that will come up for the Town of Copper Canyon is the definition of a Lot of Record.

Council Member Svatik asked whether the Lot of Record ordinance would impact anything that had been previously discussed during the meeting. Town Attorney Welch stated no and explained that the ordinance is the same as the 2011 ordinance. Council Member Svatik stated that he would like to check the 2011 ordinance and therefore wait on passing the new Lot of Record ordinance.

Town Attorney Welch stated most Lot of Record ordinances address lots that are platted prior to the incorporation of the Town.

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum referencing 646 Chinn Chapel, questioned whether the Lot of Record ordinance date could be changed to 1990 rather than using the Town’s incorporation date. Town Attorney stated that the date could be changed in the Lot of Record ordinance; however, it would not help the lot discussed earlier in the meeting, since the lot was never platted.

Mayor Tejml stated that the lot of record issue was raise when residents living on Mobile did not have the required lot width, as required in the Town’s zoning requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Mangum stated that there are several ½ acre lots on Chinn Chapel that would be considered Lots of Record. Town Attorney Welch


6/26/2017 of 17

stated that without the Lot of Record ordinance, these properties, since zoned R2, would not know their building setbacks. At this time the Town does not have provisions for the lot of records.

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum, in reference to 646 Chinn Chapel, asked if there were any other options for the land owner. Town Attorney Welch stated that the Town could consider changing the Lot of Record ordinance by using the date of 1990 rather than the Town’s incorporation date and by adding the verbiage ‘sold off by metes and bounds’. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Cannaday expressed concern that other properties in the Town that were sold by meets and bounds could be affected. It might make sense for 646 Chinn Chapel since it’s surrounded by ½ acre properties, however it might not for other lots sold by metes and bounds that are located in larger estate properties.

Town Attorney Welch stated that the issue when property is sold by metes and bounds, is that the sale is filed with the County and the Town is not notified.

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum motioned to table Agenda Item #3 until the next Council meeting.

Council Member Svatik seconded the motion.


Nays: None


XI. TOWN COUNCIL - DISCUSSION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (A Councilmember may request that an item be placed on a subsequent agenda for consideration. Any deliberation shall be limited to the proposal to place the subject on a subsequent agenda.)

Mayor Tejml mentioned that the Bandera drainage issue may need to be addressed at a future council meeting.

XII. TOWN COUNCIL - ADJOURN

Mayor Pro Tem Mangum made a motion to adjourn.

Council Member Svatik seconded the motion.



6/26/2017 of 17

Nays: None


Meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.

APPROVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL THIS _______ DAY OF _____________________

____________________ ____________________________Sue Tejml, Mayor Sheila B. Morales, Town SecretaryTown of Copper Canyon Town of Copper Canyon

APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS _______ DAY OF __________________

APPROVED:

_______________________Andre NicholasChairman, Planning & Zoning Commission

ATTEST:

_________________________Sheila B. Morales, TMRCTown Secretary


6/26/2017 of 17

afdde05a... · web viewmotioned to recommend to the town council to approve the construction...

Documents