Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111306R CC Min CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL AND REGULAR SESSION (with the Zoning and Planning Commission) MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2006 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD. 5:00 P.M. The City Council convened in Special and Regular Session in the Municipal Building (3800 University Blvd.) on November 13, 2006, with the following members present: Mayor Ballanfant presiding, Council Members Cohen, Segal, Woods and Yehle. The City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, Finance Director, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director, Parks and Recreation Director, Building Official and Assistant to the City Manager were also present. The notice for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Texas Government Code, Chapter th 551, on the 10 day of November 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Special Meeting Sidewalks. Matters related to sidewalks including a status report and update on the sidewalk project. Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Chris Peifer reported that in 2000 the City embarked on a sidewalk improvement program with the passage of the Sidewalk Proposition for 5 million. In 2002 the City received an additional 1.5 million from METRO. Subsequently, City Council adopted a Sidewalk Master Plan to outline the priorities for addressing areas that had sidewalk deficiencies. The City has awarded four sidewalk contracts since that time. City Council has approved the maximum change order allowed by law to each contract in order to maximize the savings on construction. Sidewalk bid items were also added to the 9, 10 & 11B infrastructure contracts to minimize inconvenience to the residents. In November of 2005 and February of 2006 City Council revised the master plan to include additional sidewalks. In preparation for this update and in order to quantify the work yet to be completed and consistent with the revised Sidewalks Master Plan, City staff walked the areas to ensure specific identification and measurement. As a result of this study we have ascertained that the City contains 66,390 linear feet of sidewalk currently yet to be completed. Although the greatest portion of this work is contained within existing contracts a relatively smaller portion will require a change order to complete. A brief summary of the status is as follows: City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 Amount (LF)Cost / LFTotal Sidewalk (LF)66,390$37.00$2,456,430.00 Prof. Svcs. & Construction Invoices in Process$295,731.00 $2,752,161.00 Funding Sources: Cash Currently Appropriated$1,485,985.00 Metro Funds Appropriated$640,976.00 Interest on Deposit$25,200.00 $2,152,161.00 Amount needed to complete Sidewalk Master Plan:$600,000.00 The City needs approximately $600,000 to complete the remaining portion of the Sidewalk Master Plan. Funding is currently available in the Metro Fund, estimated balance of the Infrastructure Project Fund and the General Fund Balance. Staff anticipates returning to City Council in December or early January with a change order to complete the remaining portions of sidewalks. Streetlights. Matters related to streetlights including planning and implementation. City Manager Michael Ross reported that in 2006, the City completed the improvement to the City Center with the installation of decorative streetlights. Council has expressed a desire to evaluate a comprehensive street light program to provide for new streetlights. There are two costs associated with installing and maintaining streetlights. The first is the one- time installation cost and the second is the monthly operating cost to provide maintenance and electricity. At this time, the City of West U receives an annual allocation of 50 galvanized cobra head streetlights from CenterPoint Energy. The allocation allows for the installation of these lights at no cost to the City. If the City wanted more than 50 lights installed per year there would be an additional cost of up to $500/light. Additionally CenterPoint will install cobra-head lights on existing wooden telephone/power poles at no cost. If the City chooses a decorative fixture (similar to the Town Center) instead of the standard cobra head streetlight, the City is responsible for the difference in cost to install an ornamental streetlight. Depending on the decorative streetlight selected the additional cost can range from $600-1,500 per light. It is expected that Council would choose one of three options for lighting. Based on Chapter 6: Street Lighting and Miscellaneous Lighting Services in the CenterPoint Tariff the probable lighting selections would be as follows. Schedule* TypeWattAD**E** Metal HalideCobra Head 100$10.67$23.67$17.97 2 High Pressure SodiumCobra Head100$3.32$13.18$8.11 * Monthly maintenance & electricity cost per light. ** Lights installed on decorative pole. City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 Currently, the 2007 Budget allocates $63,800 to the CIP Contingency Fund. Additionally, the City has received a one-time lump payment of $233,000 for a sales tax audit rebate. At the Council?s discretion the $233,000 may be transferred to the CIP Contingency Fund to fund a Streetlight Program. After discussion of this item, the City Council agreed to transfer the $233,000 to the CIP Contingency Fund, where it would be available for a variety of projects, including streetlights. They requested that the Staff bring back a report of the locations of the installed streetlights and current readings of the light levels. Bond Election. Matters related to the November 7, 2006 City Bond Election, including the West University Place Recreation Center, Colonial Park, Parkland Acquisition and comments and recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Board. Members of the Parks and Recreation Board present at the meeting were: Chair David Stephan, Janine Schueppert, Paul Brace, Laura Theis and Mardi Turner. They presented the following report: The Parks Board met last evening, November 8, 2006, and one of the primary topics of discussion was the November 7, 2006 Municipal Bond Election. The consensus of the Board is that in light of the very close results in the recent bond defeat of propositions 1 and 2, they feel it is imperative that the exact nature of the community's concerns regarding the current facilities be more carefully studied. The election results on all three proposals were within five points of each other, with approximately 55% of registered voters turning out. While the issue is still fresh on the minds of the residents, the Board would like to direct attention to addressing the specific public concerns. From public media and discussion it appears that many people who voted against propositions 1 and 2 were not necessarily opposed to improving the Park and Recreation facilities. They were however concerned with the ?price tag? and there seemed to be a fear of "writing the City a blank check". The Board would like to clearly address these concerns by means of hiring a qualified firm to effectively conduct the necessary research and development elements regarding the redevelopment of the Colonial Park Recreation Center & Swimming Pool and the West University Recreation Center, to include a quantitative study that ranks demand for amenities and identifies an acceptable price point. We feel the project needs to be time sensitive, in order to have a new bond proposal in front of the voters in the May 2007 city elections. Otherwise; the existing facilities will continue to deteriorate without any decisive plans/action and the next nearest window of opportunity to present a bond election would be in November 2008. The West University Place Parks and Recreation Board respectfully recommends that City Council consider the following course of action: 1) Hire a professional market research firm to perform a systematic analysis of the community demand and willingness to support the redevelopment of recreational amenities within the community, with regard to the facilities at both Colonial Park and the West University Place Recreation Center. ( December 2006 through January 2007 ) 3 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 2) Follow the Market Research with employing a Design Firm to: Develop preliminary designs for the preferred development Project Phasing Plan for the preferred development Provide firm cost estimates with line items points Develop a comprehensive operations and maintenance budget for the preferred development ( February through March 2007 ) 3) Appointment of a Bond Committee to effectively and publicly promote and discuss the particulars of the proposed bond package, preferably 60+ days in advance of the election ( April through May 11, 2007 ) The City Council discussed the recommendation from the Parks Board. This item will be addressed at a future Council meeting. 3936 Marlowe Street; Weslayan Street. Matters related to 3936 Marlowe Street (Peden property) and Weslayan Street (from Bissonnet Street to Bellaire Boulevard), including easement or right-of-way matters, house under construction, legal defense, permits, administrative proceedings, pending or contemplated litigation or a settlement offer, and purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property and related issues. The City Council agreed to allow City Manager Michael Ross, City Secretary Kaylynn Holloway, City Attorney Alan Petrov, Building Official Debbie Scarcella, and Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director Chris Peifer to attend the Executive Session because their presence is necessary for the Council?s consideration of the issues. At this point in the meeting, the Mayor publicly announced that a closed, executive session would be held and identified the section of the Open Meetings Law under which the meeting would be held. Closed Executive Session to be held under Section 551.071 and Section 551.072 Texas Government Code. After the announcement, the City Council conducted a closed, executive session beginning at 6:20 p.m. After the closed, executive session, the Mayor announced, in open session, that the City Council had concluded its closed, executive session at 6:35 p.m. The City Council adjourned the Special Session at 6:35 p.m. Formal Session 4 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 Public Hearings. Public Hearings were held before the Zoning and Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of West University Place, Texas. The purpose for the hearings was to provide an opportunity for parties in interest and citizens to be heard in relation to proposals to amend the City?s Zoning Ordinance as follows: Buildings in Rear Yards Members of the Zoning and Planning Commission, ZPC, present at the hearings were Chairman Steve Brown, Vice Chairman Jeffrey Horowitz, Les Albin, Robert Inaba and Mac McManus. Also attending the meeting was Legal Counsel Jim Dougherty. Mr. Brown explained the hearing procedures. Mr. Brown requested that City Secretary Kaylynn Holloway report as to the notices of the hearing. Ms. Holloway stated that the notice of the hearings was published in the City?s official th newspaper on or before the 16 day preceding the date of the hearing and mailed to the persons on the utility billing list by depositing them in the United States mail on or before the ninth day preceding the date of the hearing. Mayor Ballanfant called the public hearings before the City Council to order. ZPC Chairman Brown called the public hearing on ?buildings in rear yards? before the Commission to order. Building Official Debbie Scarcella reported that the Zoning Ordinance allows buildings to project into the rear yard provided the building meets the criteria established by Table 7-6, Note 3. The proposed amendment would amend Note 3 of Table 7-6 to allow only detached accessory buildings to be located in rear yards or Single Family Buffer yards. Further, the proposed amendment would also require minimum separations between a building in a rear yard and other buildings outside the rear yard. The minimum separations would be 7% of the building site depth (measured from main wall to main wall) and 5% of the building site depth (measured between the closest parts of the buildings). The proposed amendment allows connection of buildings by ?breezeways,? within specified limits. The principal purpose of the amendment is to create building separation. Today, homes are allowed to build high, solid structures extending from the front yard area to the rear yard, encompassing not only the principal structure, but also garage areas. Requiring separation should: (1) help firefighters control house fires (particularly those originating in rear garages), (2) provide better emergency access to areas behind houses, (3) help prevent overcrowding, and (4) allow more light and air to reach rear yards and adjacent properties. 5 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 Members of the public were invited to ask questions or speak concerning the proposed amendments. Byrlan Shively, 4 Town Oaks Place, stated that she was an architect and was not in favor of the proposed amendment. She commented that the amendment did not protect the older homes. Jackie Richey, 3718 Arnold, stated that she was strongly opposed to the amendment. She commented that an attached garage would allow her to have a bigger backyard. Robert Reid, 5815 Lake, stated that he was strongly opposed to the amendment and that the City was getting into ?style policing?. Norman Wilson, 3825 Swarthmore, stated that she was not in favor of the amendment and if the City was concerned about safety then it is safer to have an attached garage. William Cirioli, 6340 Westchester, stated that his plans were under approval for his new house at 3502 Nottingham and that they would not meet the requirements of the proposed amendment. He stated that he was opposed to the amendment. Dave Bergt, 3512 Rice, stated that he was in favor of the amendment because it would provide additional sunlight for the neighbors. Craig Hughes, 2904 Tangley, stated that he strongly opposed the amendment because it would create more front-loading garages and massive homes. Michael Talianchich, 2708 Werlein, stated that he opposed the amendment and if it was approved then he would likely only build front-loading garages, which offered no privacy. Lawrence Wheeler, 2911 Robinhood, stated that he was not in favor of the amendment and that an attached garage added an additional fire escape exit. Dan Scheffer, 3727 Georgetown, stated that he was a builder and that he was opposed to the amendment. Marge Moore, 5630 Buffalo Speedway, stated that she was concerned with the language of the proposed amendment because it could be interpreted to affect miscellaneous accessory buildings. David Crow, 4039 University, stated that he was opposed to the amendment because citizens need more flexibility to build on the smaller lots. Charles Whiteford, 3210 Rosemary Park Lane, stated that he was a builder and his clients all want security when getting from their garage to their home. Tony Canino, 6353 Mercer, stated that he was not in favor of the proposed amendment and that the homeowners deserved a choice. 6 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 Al Richey, 3718 Arnold, stated that he opposed the amendment and that it was a waste of the city?s time and money to legislate this kind of amendment. Chairman Brown read the following comment cards that were given to the City Secretary. Joe Foster, 4125 Coleridge, asked what was the date and year of when the Building and Standards Commission approved a request for a variance. Eric Scheller, 2916 Lafayette, commented that the proposed amendment was a severe restriction to the homeowner?s rights. He asked if existing homes would be required to remove the connection. There being no other persons wishing to speak, a motion was made by Commission Member Inaba, seconded by Commission Member McManus, to make all statements, exhibits and documents a part of the official record of this hearing and to close the public hearing. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Chairman Brown, Commission Members Horowitz, Inaba, Albins and McManus Voting Nay: None Absent: Commission Members Beloff and Silver Front Porches ZPC Chairman Brown called the public hearing on ?front porches? to order. Ms. Scarcella reported that the Zoning Ordinance allows porches to project into the front yard provided it meets the criteria established by Table 7-6, Note 1.2. The proposed amendment would add a separate limit on the height of porches that project into front yard areas. The height limit would be equal to the required depth of the front yard. The proposal would only allow front yard porches on a building site in a residential district with a front yard depth of 20 feet or more. The principal purposes of this amendment is to impose a height limit based on the size and scale of the site, which should help prevent overcrowding and ensure adequate light along the street. Members of the public were invited to ask questions or speak concerning the proposed amendments. Linda Lowe, 4214 Oberlin, stated that she opposed putting restrictions on front porches. Karl Caillouet, 4214 Oberlin, stated that he strongly opposed the amendment to front porches. 7 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 Steve Stelzer, 2709 Albans, stated that he was opposed to the amendment because balconies were an important part of the architecture of the homes. Patsy Graham, 6346 Mercer, stated that she opposed the amendment to front porches. Chairman Brown read a letter from Kim King, 6603 Rutgers. In the letter Ms. King stated that she opposed any changes to limit front porches because she had an older cottage and was planning on replacing her porch. She was concerned that she would not be able to rebuild the porch, as it exists now. There being no other persons wishing to speak, a motion was made by Commission Member Inaba, seconded by Commission Member McManus, to make all statements, exhibits and documents a part of the official record of this hearing and to close the public hearing. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Chairman Brown, Commission Members Horowitz, Inaba, Albins and McManus Voting Nay: None Absent: Commission Members Beloff and Silver The ZPC adjourned their meeting at 7:56 p.m. The City Council recessed the Regular Session at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened at 8:02 p.m. Citizen Comments. Mayor Ballanfant invited citizens who wished to address the City Council to come forward as their names were called. David Cole, 4104 Cason, stated that the new sidewalk installations lacked consistency in the quality of work. He asked what plans the City had to replace the streets in the areas that did not get new streets. Jennifer Long, 4029 Swarthmore, requested that the Council buy a new cover for the Colonial Park pool. She also complained about the personnel and upkeep of the facilities at the pool. Michael Talianchich, 2708 Werlein, stated that he voted against Proposition 1 and 2 because of the associated costs. He encouraged the Council to move forward with new plans for the Colonial Park and Recreation Center facilities. City finances, facilities, programs, and the 2007 Budget. Matters related to city finances, facilities, programs, and the 2007 Budget including revenues and expenditures for current and future years for all funds, and capital improvements, priorities and 8 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 related programs and expenditures, including recreation facilities, parkland and other park projects, police and public works facilities, street lighting, sidewalks, drainage and flood control, traffic and parking and other public improvements, City projects and Ordinance No. 1834. Mayor Ballanfant read the caption of Ordinance No. 1834 as follows: An ordinance approving and adopting a budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2007 appropriating funds for such budget; and containing findings and provisions relating to the subject Copies of Ordinance No. 1834, in the form proposed for adoption, were available in the Council Chambers. Finance Director Walter Thomas reported that the Ordinance appropriates a total of $37,880,130 for operations, debt service and capital for the year beginning January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2007. A property tax rate of 40.2 cents per $100 in assessed value is necessary to provide funding for the 2007 Budget. A motion was made by Council Member Cohen, seconded by Council Member Woods, to adopt Ordinance 1834 approving and adopting a Budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2007 on the second and final reading. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Ballanfant, Council Members Cohen, Segal, Woods and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None The motion passed 5-0. Ad valorem taxes for tax year 2006 . Matters related to ad valorem taxes for tax year 2006 including Ordinance No. 1835. Mayor Ballanfant read the caption of Ordinance No. 1835 as follows: An ordinance adopting and setting a tax rate; levying and assessing ad valorem taxes for tax year 2005; confirming and granting exemptions; and containing findings and provisions relating to the subject Copies of Ordinance No. 1835, in the form proposed for adoption, were available in the Council Chambers. 9 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 Mr. Thomas reported that a property tax rate of 40.2 cents per $100 in assessed value is necessary to provide funding for the 2007 Budget. The tax rate is allocated between the General Fund and the Debt Service Fund as follows: General Fund19.247.761% Debt Service21.052.239% 40.2100.000% The ordinance also confirms and grants an over-65/handicapped exemption of $110,000. Mayor Ballanfant encouraged the Council to further reduce the tax rate to $.40 cents per $100 valuation. A motion was made by Council Member Cohen, seconded by Council Member Yehle, to approve a property tax rate of $040.2 per $100 valuation and approve Ordinance No. 1835 on the second and final reading. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Council Members Cohen, Segal, Woods and Yehle Voting Nay: Mayor Ballanfant Absent: None The motion passed 4-1. Water rates and other fees. Matters related to water rates and other fees including Ordinance No. 1836. Mayor Ballanfant read the caption of Ordinance No. 1836 as follows: An ordinance relating to water rates; amending the fee schedule of Code of Ordinances of the City of West University Place, Texas; and containing findings and provisions relating to the subject. Copies of Ordinance No. 1836, in the form proposed for adoption, were available in the Council Chambers. Mr. Thomas reported that the 2007 Budget appropriates a total of $4,963,650 for operations, debt service and capital for the Water and Sewer Utility Fund for the year beginning January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2007. The Budget projected a 3% increase to Water and Sewer rates in order to keep pace with automatic increases in the rate charged for treated water from the City of Houston and increases in the other costs of service. 10 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 The monthly increase in utility bills is summarized in the table below: GallonsMonthly UsedIncrease 0.843,000$ 1.869,000$ 3.0615,000$ 5.2625,000$ Ordinance 1836 also increases the following fees to reflect current costs or market conditions: Electrical Work Permit Application Fee from $10 to $15 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Permit Application Fee from $5 to $15 Plumbing and Gas Permit Application Fee from $10 to $15 Signs Permit Application Fee from $10 to $15 Utility New Service Connect from $25 to $30 Delinquent utility customer cutoff fee from $30 to $50 A motion was made by Council Member Cohen, seconded by Council Member Woods, to adopt Ordinance No. 1836 on the first reading. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Ballanfant, Council Members Cohen, Segal, Woods and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None The motion passed 5-0. Rescheduling City Council meeting. Matters related to rescheduling the City Council regular session meetings in December 2006. A motion was made by Council Member Cohen, seconded by Council Member Yehle, to change the dated of the December 25, 2006 Council Meeting to December 4, 2006. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Ballanfant, Council Members Cohen, Segal, Woods and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None 11 City Council Regular Session, November 13, 2006 The motion passed 5-0. City Council minutes. Matters related to the minutes of the Regular and Special Session conducted on October 23, 2006. A motion was made by Council Member Woods, seconded by Council Member Cohen, to approve the minutes as presented. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Ballanfant, Council Members Cohen, Segal, Woods and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None The motion passed 5-0. Council Reports. There were not any reports given during this agenda item. City Manager Report. There were not any reports given during this agenda item. Adjournment. With no further business to come before the City Council at this time, a motion was made by Council Member Cohen, seconded by Council Member Segal, to adjourn the Regular Session. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Ballanfant, Council Members Cohen, Segal, Woods and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None The motion passed 5-0. The City Council adjourned the Regular Session at 8:21 p.m. 12