Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031003R CC Min CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION AND JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2003 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD. 6:30 P.M. The City Council convened in Regular Session in the Municipal Building Council Chambers (3800 University Blvd.) on March 10, 2003, with the following members present: Mayor Lewis presiding, Council Members May, Farley, Griffin and Jackson. The City Manager, City Secretary, City Attorney, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Interim Police Chief, City Planner and Building Official were also present. The notice for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Texas Government Code, th Chapter 551, on the 7 day of March 2003 at 4:30 p.m. Formal Session 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: (a) Framed area (b) Yards or ?setbacks? (c) Driveways, etc. (d) Signs Mayor Lewis called the public hearings before the City Council to order. Stephen Pohl, Chair of the Zoning and Planning Commission, called the public hearing on ?framed area? before the Commission to order. Members present were Dick Yehle, Mary Nelson, Mark Boucher, Anne Whitlock, Stephen Stewart and Steve Brown. Mr. Pohl requested that City Secretary Kaylynn Holloway report as to the notices of the hearing. Ms. Holloway stated that the notice of the hearings were published in the City?s official newspaper on February 13, 2003 and in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on th February 20, 2003, which was on or before the 16 day preceding the date of the hearing and mailed to the persons on the mailing list for a regular edition of the City Currents City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 newsletter, by depositing them in the United States mail on February 24, 2003 which was on or before the ninth day preceding the date of the hearing. Mr. Yehle presented the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance. In 1997 the zoning ordinance was amended to include the ?framed area? requirement in an attempt to regulate the ?bulk? size of buildings on residential lots. The current definition allows certain areas not to be included in the ?framed area? calculations. This proposal is to amend the definition of ?framed area? in the zoning ordinance. The purpose is to count space below air-conditioned space and clarify and tighten the existing definition. Members of the public were invited to ask questions or speak concerning the proposed amendments. Linda Smith, 6646 Community Drive, questioned the 80% rule and asked if the amendment would clarify the rule. She stated that she supported the proposed amendment. Susan Row, 6128 Lake, commented that she supported the measures in the presentation regarding the 80% rule and she believes that the City has accomplished its goal in controlling the bulk. But she disagrees with the proposed amendment because it does not accomplish what the ZPC is setting out to accomplish and would personally cost her approximately $10,000 because they are now going to be charged for the air under the 3- foot eave. She stated that if the amendment is adopted, they will redesign the house by getting rid of the 3 foot overhang and push into the back yard. Rob Henshaw, 5801 Fordham, commented that the design of his new home is approximately 3,200 square feet but would be 2,850 square feet if the amendment passes and would not make his home cost effective to build. John Drye, 12 Auburn Place, commented that the proposed amendment would force the houses to go deeper into the lot, which defeats the purpose. Al Galik, 3028 Lafayette, commented that he opposes the proposed amendment. He stated that he agreed with the ordinance as written but that he did not understand the term ?bulk?. Jorge Jimenez, 6636 Wakeforest, commented that he opposes the proposed amendment because it penalizes the people who buy smaller lots. It also creates greater taxes on the properties. Les Albin, 3817 Southwestern, commented that he helped write the 80% rule. He stated that he supported the proposed amendment. 2 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 Three residents submitted comment cards to the Commission. Council Member May commented that if the intent is to create a more harmonious relationship between an existing neighbor and new construction then probably side setbacks and eave height where houses are close together is where you are going to see the contrast. He stated that he did not see further manipulation of the 80% rule as being beneficial. There being no other persons wishing to speak, a motion was made by Commission Member Nelson, seconded by Commission Member Brown, 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 Pohl, Commission members Brown, Boucher, Nelson Whitlock, Stewart and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None Mr. Pohl called the public hearing on yards or setbacks before the Commission to order. Mr. Pohl requested that City Secretary Kaylynn Holloway report as to the notices of the hearing. Ms. Holloway stated that the notice of the hearings were published in the City?s official newspaper on February 13, 2003 and in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on th February 20, 2003, which was on or before the 16 day preceding the date of the hearing and mailed to the persons on the mailing list for a regular edition of the City Currents newsletter, by depositing them in the United States mail on February 24, 2003 which was on or before the ninth day preceding the date of the hearing. Mr. Yehle explained the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance relating to yards or setback. Currently City regulations allow the alternate side setback of 3/7 on narrow sites (lots less than 55? wide). At times this allows structures to be within six feet of each other. Due to concerns about safety this prompted the ZPC to study the setback issue. In an attempt to continue the use of the ?3/7? Narrow Site Exception, an amendment was developed that set the minimum separation between buildings to eight feet. The Building and Standards Commission are also considering additional amendments related to this proposal including: (i) a restriction on side fences and (ii) a requirement for added fire resistance and sprinkling for new buildings built close to side property lines. These restrictions would not affect the Zoning Ordinance. 3 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 Members of the public were invited to ask questions or speak concerning the proposed amendments. Charles Nelson, 3411 Nottingham, commented that the original 3/7 setback amendment was a balance between safety and security and he did not see the proposed amendment of adding one foot as being that much value added. Linda Smith, 6646 Community, commented on the driveway patterns. She stated that she did not know how people had been allowed to build 3/3 setbacks. John Drye, 12 Auburn Place, commented that the ordinance use to read that if the 3/7 setback is being used then the driveway had to be on the same side as most of the driveways on the street. He stated that the impact would be greater on the smaller lots. Les Albin, 3817 Southwestern, commented that he was in favor of the 3/7 setback because it provides for a more efficient land use. Council Member Griffin commented that if a new house is built next to an older home that has windows on the second floor, you are now preventing anybody from saving their family with a ladder if they only have 3 feet. City Manager Michael Ross commented that the Staff received an email from the Chairman of the Building and Standards Commission (BSC). They will be looking at fence restrictions and heights in regards to the setbacks to see what might be done from a building standards perspective. Sprinkler systems may be required if someone wants to build closer than 5 feet from the property line. Also, there may be a need for fire retardant materials if the building is closer than 5 feet. City Planner Nes Tesno commented that originally the staff recommendation proposed that the 3/7 setback be repealed basically due to safety concerns of access and fire spread. Since that time, staff worked on an alternative and came up with the proposals with the fire sprinklers, the regulation of the fences and the fire resistant materials. The BSC has also made some recommendations to Council concerning the fences and the fire sprinkler ordinance. Staff now believes that with the 8-foot minimum separation and with the BSC looking at these other items, they are now in agreement with the course of action at this time. Council Member Griffin asked if the staff recommendation is to wait until all of the issues come together at the same time. Mrs. Tesno commented that she believed that the BSC has recommended to Council to regulate the fences at this time. The fire sprinklers would be a comprehensive ordinance that would have to be considered and the fire resistant material was preliminary approved. So basically the items that the Staff was concerned about was also recommended by the BSC. 4 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 Mr. Ross commented that before the actual building of a home closer than 5 feet occurred, Staff would prefer all recommendations to be in place. Council Member Farley asked that the BSC also add building height to their consideration. Mr. Jimenez commented that he was a member of the BSC and he felt that there should not be a fence at all between 3-foot separations. Fire Chief Terry Stevenson commented that the whole issue was brought forward because the driveway patterns were changed and this is where the issue really lies. Along with that, there are existing ordinances in the building code concerning fire resistant construction techniques. Regarding sprinkler systems, flame impingement on a house is very important as is access and fences. The Fire Department is concerned about access and they never want a 3/3 situation. The eight-foot setback is fine as long as the fence height is restricted. Mr. Stevenson stated that he would like to wait until all of the pieces are put together before a decision is made because one will effect the other. There being no other persons wishing to speak, a motion was made by Commission Member Brown, seconded by Commission Member Nelson, 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 Pohl, Commission members Brown, Boucher, Nelson Whitlock, Stewart and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None Mr. Pohl called the public hearing on driveways, etc., before the Commission to order. Mr. Pohl requested that City Secretary Kaylynn Holloway report as to the notices of the hearing. Ms. Holloway stated that the notice of the hearings were published in the City?s official newspaper on February 13, 2003 and in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on th February 20, 2003, which was on or before the 16 day preceding the date of the hearing and mailed to the persons on the mailing list for a regular edition of the City Currents newsletter, by depositing them in the United States mail on February 24, 2003 which was on or before the ninth day preceding the date of the hearing. Mr. Yehle explained the proposed amendments. The proposal to amend Table 7-5a, Sections 10-102 and 10-103 and Article 2 is as follows: clean up regulations, including 5 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 some cross-referencing, definitions and reorganization; all 30-foot-wide driveway for side facing garages with three or more bays (compared with 20 feet under current ordinance); add measurement rules for maximum driveway width and maximum curb cut width; allow parking pads, stub driveways or other maneuvering areas in residential front yards connected to a major thoroughfare to allow vehicles to turn around and enter thoroughfare going forward. Members of the public were invited to ask questions or speak concerning the proposed amendments. There being no persons wishing to speak, a motion was made by Commission Member Whitlock, seconded by Commission Member Brown, 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 Pohl, Commission members Brown, Boucher, Nelson Whitlock, Stewart and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None Mr. Pohl called the public hearing on signs before the Commission to order. Mr. Pohl requested that City Secretary Kaylynn Holloway report as to the notices of the hearing. Ms. Holloway stated that the notice of the hearings were published in the City?s official newspaper on February 13, 2003 and in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on th February 20, 2003, which was on or before the 16 day preceding the date of the hearing and mailed to the persons on the mailing list for a regular edition of the City Currents newsletter, by depositing them in the United States mail on February 24, 2003 which was on or before the ninth day preceding the date of the hearing. Mr. Boucher explained the proposed amendments. Key changes are: Clarifies that only outdoor signs are regulated Allows signs in vending machines Adds restrictions on ground signs, limits on numbers, location, design and height Adds restrictions on building mounted signs Power line separation Limits display area for fixed signs Allows two semi-fixed signs at unoccupied homes, no limit on size of semi-fixed for occupied homes Raises maximum display area from four square feet to five square feet for signs at single-family residences and imposes max limit to 32 square feet of display area Clarifies that flags are allowed without limit at occupied single-family residences 6 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 Allows banners, subject to certain limits except at unoccupied sites Members of the public were invited to ask questions or speak concerning the proposed amendments. Council Member Farley asked if a provision should be included for the removal of signs when the enterprise is no longer viable. Mr. Pohl stated that it could be included in the proposed amendments. There being no persons wishing to speak, a motion was made by Commission Member Stewart, seconded by Commission Member Brown, 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 Pohl, Commission members Brown, Boucher, Nelson Whitlock, Stewart and Yehle Voting Nay: None Absent: None Citizen Comments. Mayor Lewis invited citizens who wished to address the City Council to come forward as their names were called. Joe Foster, 4125 Coleridge, stated that he wanted to address five issues: (1) The Council should reject the appointment of Michael Hagerty to the Recycling and Solid Waste Reduction Board because it was not done in accordance with protocol. (2) The City of West University ranks #1 in debt per citizen (3) In the 12 months including September 2001, the police department received 2895 false residential burglar alarm calls and they also received 10 more that were valid. At the present time according to the City Attorney, the statue for penalizing people who have excessive false alarms is not actable. (4) In November of 2000 data was reported that of 590 responses by West U citizens, 404 supported the total banning of gasoline powered leaf blowers and nothing has happened since that time. (5) It is distressing that the City Council never gave Chief Begley the vote of confidence after he returned to office. Sidewalks and street improvements. Matters related to sidewalks and street improvements including (a) contract and expenditure with Claunch & Miller, Inc. for preparation of plans and specifications for sidewalk construction. 7 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 (b) contract and expenditure with SWA Group for On-Call sidewalk consulting services. (c) contract and expenditure with Geographic Technologies Group (GTG) for the survey and data collection of sidewalk conditions throughout the City. Mr. Ross explained the above request for contracts. He stated that for a while now the City has been working with the sidewalk consultants, SWA, and the City?s consulting engineers, Claunch & Miller, as well as GTG, to gather data, provide surveying and detail plans. There have been some challenges but they have worked through those and now more of the problems are being handled at a staff level. There are three contracts that are before the Council. Claunch & Miller, Inc. (CMI) will be contracted which will address the preparation of the bid package for the entire City. They intend to put together standard details as well as a complete package for contractors to use. The SWA contract is for continuing on-call sidewalk consulting work to assist the Staff in working with the residents through the micro designs with Claunch & Miller?s input as well. The amount of this contract should be more than enough for the rest of the City. Staff?s intention is to only use what is absolutely necessary and to do more of the work in-house. The GTG contract is for data collection throughout the City of the existing condition of the sidewalk system and also to assist with compiling and examining the data after collection. Council Member Griffin commented that she had called the Staff to get clarification on the GTG contract because she thought that was being done in-house by Brant Gary, the project coordinator. She was told that Brant would have to learn the equipment and that GTG could do the survey very quickly so that work could begin. CMI previously charged the City $120,000 for similar type of work in specific areas. Mr. Ross stated that the dollars spent with CMI included the full design compliment . In talking with the engineers, no matter what level of detail plan you do, field modifications and adjustments are made during construction. So rather than spend all of the dollars to do detail design again, CMI will develop a generic set of specifications which can include items such as linear footage of broken or missing sidewalks and retaining walls. The GTG data can be plugged in and the contractor can start work. Council Member May asked if the prototypes had been developed and what the $99,000 to SWA was going to be used for. Mr. Ross stated that the prototypes are currently being used in the field. The contract with SWA will give them the ability to work with residents on whatever is necessary to explain, negotiate and revise individual micro designs that may be necessary on a particular lot. It is based on what has been encountered thus far in working in areas that 8 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 are under construction now. Staff is not expecting to spend this amount of money and will not spend anymore than is necessary with SWA. More and more will be done at a staff level. Council Member Jackson commented that he thought SWA has wasted a lot of time and money by disregarding the original Sidewalk Committee?s policies and procedures. Mayor Lewis commented that she was not aware that the Project Coordinator?s salary was being paid from the sidewalk bond funds. She stated that she was concerned about the tracking of the hours. Mayor Lewis asked Chris Claunch from CMI if the information from GTG was helpful to their work. Mr. Claunch stated that the information from GTG would be very important in providing quantities and in putting the contract documents together. A motion was made by Council Member Farley, seconded by Council Member Jackson, to authorize City Manager to contract with C&M, Inc. and authorize expenditure up to $65,450.00. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Lewis, Council Members May, Farley, Griffin and Jackson Voting Nay: None Absent: None A motion was made by Council Member Farley, seconded by Council Member Griffin, to authorize City Manager to contract with SWA Group and approval of an expenditure up to $99,000.00 Council Member May asked if the $99,000 included what was previously authorized. Mr. Ross stated that the initial $25,000 had already been spent but he expected the current request of $99,000 to last over the next two years. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Council Members Farley and Griffin Voting Nay: Mayor Lewis, Council Members May and Jackson Absent: None The motion failed. 9 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 A motion was made by Council Member Griffin, seconded by Council Member Farley, to authorize the City Manager to contract with GTG and approval of expenditure in the amount of $32,566.40 A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Lewis, Council Members May, Farley, Griffin and Jackson Voting Nay: None Absent: None Police Chief recruitment process. Matters related to a Police Chief recruitment process including approval of an executive search firm. Mr. Ross stated that he would like to begin the search for a Police Chief and was asking for approval to hire Chuck Rohre of Ralph Andersen and Associates as the executive search firm. A motion was made by Council Member Farley, seconded by Council Member Jackson, to authorize the City Manager to engage Ralph Andersen & Associates in the amount of $13,500 plus expenses. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Lewis, Council Members May, Farley, Griffin and Jackson Voting Nay: None Absent: None City Council minutes. Matters related to the minutes of the Regular Session conducted on February 24, 2003. A motion was made by Council Member Farley, seconded by Council Member Jackson, to approve the minutes as amended. A vote was taken on the motion with the following result: Voting Aye: Mayor Lewis, Council Members May, Farley, Griffin and Jackson Voting Nay: None Absent: None 10 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 Staff report. Mr. Ross reported that members of the Staff met with the representatives from the Union Pacific railroad and they will be present at the next council meeting to discuss the train noise. He also stated that a preliminary engineering report relating to drainage would be presented in April. Council comments Mayor Lewis commented that she met with the METRO multi-cities Mayors to continue dialogue regarding their existing contract. The City Council recessed the Formal Session to convene in Informal Session at 8:55 p.m. Informal Session Racial profiling. Matters related to racial profiling. Acting Police Chief Tod Schneider reported that Criminologist Alex del Carmen prepared the report relating to racial profiling in the City of West University Place. The summary of findings presented states that the West U Police Department has complied with the Texas Racial Profiling Law Board or Commission meetings. Matters related to Board and Commission meetings (Zoning & Planning, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Building & Standards Commission, Parks & Recreation, Public Safety, Senior Services, Recycling & Solid Waste Reduction and Drainage Committee) including reports from Council liaisons. Council Member Farley reported that members of the Parks and Recreation Board and Friends of West University Place Parks met with students from A&M University to discuss the plans for the Rice Pocket Park. Inquiries, requests and complaints. The City Council reviewed matters received from the public and referred them to the appropriate department or will place them on a future agenda for consideration or action. Adjournment. 11 City Council Regular Session, March 10, 2003 With no further business to come before the City Council at this time, a motion was made by Council Member Jackson, seconded by Council Member Farley, to adjourn. The Council meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 12