Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011209R CC Min®rw C The City of West University Place A Neighborhood City CITY COUNCIL Bob Kelly, Mayor Bob Fry, Councilmember Phyllis Cohen, Councilmember Chuck Guffey, Councilmember Michael Talianchich, Councilmember STAFF Michael Ross, City Manager Alan Petrov, City Attorney Thelma Lenz, City Secretary CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES City Council of the City of West University Place, Texas, met in special session Monday, January 12, 2009, in the Municipal Building, 3800 University Boulevard, West University Place, Texas, beginning at 5:00 p.m. to consider the following: Council and staff in attendance: Mayor Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem Fry, Councilmembers Guffey, Cohen, and Talianchich, City Manager Ross, Assistant City Secretary Schultz, City Attorney Petrov, Police Chief Walker, and Parks and Recreation Director O'Connor. MAYOR KELLY CALLED THE SPECIAL MEETING TO ORDER AT 5:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. Recreational Facilities Matters related to the City's recreational facilities. City Manager Ross, Parks Board Chair Russ Schulze and Jeff Gerber with PGAL presented this item. Mr. Schulze provided some background and stated that at a recent Parks Board meeting, Mr. Gerber brought forward existing and new design concepts for discussion. He said different ball fields were reviewed as well as three options of the pool being either on Bellaire, behind Bellaire, or up on the north side backing up to the residents. He said the Parks Board unanimously liked the plan which will have the pool back on the back fence, but the Board wanted to be sure that it would satisfy the residents on Ruskin. Mr. Schulze said another Parks Board meeting was called to discuss all the different ideas and Jeff Gerber has brought forward another scenario. Mr. Gerber spoke to explain the different configurations and the thought process for each. He stated that in one option the pool was taken completely away from Bellaire, maximized the parking and took the building completely out of the danger zones of the ball fields, but there were concerns from the Park Board members that this option wasn't as good to the neighbors as possible. He said an alternative that creates a positive for the neighbors is to the move the buildings closer to Bellaire and create a park-like buffer zone and recreate the Colonial Park feel. Councilmember Talianchich suggested putting the building over the pool, which he believes will be cheaper and a nicer looking structure. He said it can be a larger one-story building and it would allow for more parking, green space and would take it out of the ball field. Mr. Schulze said the location issue is mostly what they want Council to consider tonight. City Council Meeting, January 12, 2009 Mr. Ross stated that for planning purposes, Council needs to confirm that the two or three properties that need to be acquired by the City will at some point in time be owned by the City so that Mr. Gerber can optimally layout the facilities and plan as if they will be part of the site someday. If not, Mr. Gerber will need to start segmenting those from the planning and not show parking in those areas. Mayor Pro Tern Fry moved to approve Plan 4 contingent on a positive recommendation from the Parks Board. Councilmember Fry seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Guffey, Cohen, and Talianchich Noes: None Absent: None Mayor Pro Tern Fry moved to approve for the planning of this project that we include the ultimate purchase by the City the residential lots on West Point adjacent to the Recreation Center property. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Guffey, Cohen, and Talianchich Noes: None Absent: None 2. Real Estate Matters related to the acquisition or sale of properties. Discussion on real estate matters will be held in closed executive session in accordance with Section 551.072 of Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code (discussion about the value or transfer of real property and other real estate matters). At 5:35 p.m., Mayor Kelly called the Executive Session to order. Members present included Council, City Manager Ross, Mike Welch, City's Real Estate Appraiser, Jeff Gerber with PGAL, Parks Board Chair Russ Schulze, Parks and Recreation Director O'Connor, and Assistant City Secretary Schultz. Mayor Kelly adjourned the Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. 3. Convene into Open Session Council reconvened into Open Session at 6:00 p.m., with no action taken. Mayor Pro Tern Fry moved to adjourn the special meeting at 6:05 p.m. Councilmember Cohen seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Guffey, Cohen, and Talianchich Noes: None Absent: None ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING (BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS) Mayor Kelly called the regular meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Regular Agenda items were as follows: Pledge of Allegiance City Council Meeting, January 12, 2009 Pledge to the Texas Flag Boy Scout Troop 266, Den 10, led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Pledge to the Texas Flag. Notice: Matters related to the notice of this meeting. Assistant City Secretary Schultz confirmed the notice of this meeting was duly posted in accordance with the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. 4. Public Comments This is an opportunity for citizens to speak to Council relating to agenda or non-agenda items. Speakers are required to address Council at the microphone and give their name and address before addressing their concerns. [Note: State law will not permit the City Council to fully discuss, debate, or consider items that are not on the agenda. Items that cannot be referred to the City Staff for action may be placed on the agenda of a future City Council meeting.] There were no comments from the public. Note: Agenda Item 8 was taken out of order and discussed at this time. See Item 8 for action. 5. Subterranean Structures (Basements) Matters related to the excavations and other subterranean structures, including possible code amendments and related issues. Zoning and Planning Commission Chair Steve Brown presented this item and stated that this concern was brought to him by City Planner Debbie Scarcella because of an increase in construction permits for homes that included basements. Mr. Brown stated that currently there are no regulations governing basements and similar underground structures in West U, except for that portion which would be under water in a 100- year flood. He said the FEMA regulations which are supported by City Code prohibit basements in that part of town, but in the parts of town that are in the 500 year flood plain there are no limitations. Mr. Brown said after substantial preliminary discussions with the Zoning and Planning Commission and the Building Standards Commission, both Boards concluded that basements present potential risks to both property owners and occupants and City ordinances should be amended to address those risks. He said there are two approaches, the first being to institute a broad prohibition of subterranean structures and simply not allow them and the second would be to allow them with strict regulations. He then presented the pros and cons of both options. The pros of prohibition are we wouldn't have to add very much to the City's Code, it makes common sense, it can help to control density and intensity abuse, and it creates uniformity across the City not just in the 100-year flood zone. Mr. Brown stated that the cons to prohibition are that it possibly encroaches on the flexibility of property owners to use their property how they see fit and it prevents some traditional uses (i.e. wine cellar). Regarding the second option, allow but regulate, he said the strongest pro for this option is that it respects property owners rights to allow them to have the flexibility to build something they might like in the basement. It might also bolster the tax base by making some of the properties more appealing and having a higher market value for some buyers. Mr. Brown said if these structures are allowed, then regulating will be essential to make them safe from flooding and fire as well as to protect neighboring properties. The cons of this option are that even if regulated something could go wrong and it could possibly impact of neighbors in the excavation, the possible impact on density and infrastructure, and it increases property damage and personal safety risk in case of a flood or fire. City Council Meeting, January 12, 2009 Mayor Kelly asked if basements would come under the existing square footage limitations for size of lot. Mr. Brown responded that is one of the issues and they have made no determination as they are still deciding which one of the courses of action to take. He said, though, he thinks that if we allow and regulate them he would think that the Zoning and Planning Commission would be likely to say that they wouldn't need to be added to the framed area. Mr. Brown asked whether Council wants them to take the simpler route, which is simply to prohibit them or if they feel it's important to protect the homeowners' rights as much as possible and allow and regulate them. Councilmember Talianchich stated that he believes in protecting property rights and has no problems with basements. He said we would just need a structural engineer to design the retaining walls and have another structural engineer to check it. He said with two engineers, there should be no problem with the structure failing. He also said we would need to provide a sequence of construction by the design engineer and use draw piers so that no vibration occurs and that it should also be included in the 80 percent rule. Councilmember Guffey said he agrees with Councilmember Talianchich about protecting property rights, but also thinks we need to think about the rights to the other citizens. He asked Mr. Brown if any one has inquired with insurance companies and asked them if West U started building basements in the City would insurance rates go up for everyone. He said anything that would affect neighbors, the rest of the City or insurance rate, should be prohibited and said he disagrees with Councilmember Talianchich about the 80 percent rule. Councilmember Cohen stated that if the basement is going to essentially be a room size, someone is going to live in them whether there is a bathroom there or not, which is something the Boards need to consider when considering regulations. Councilmember Fry said it bothers him to think that we would add another layer in our Code for the builders. He said simple would be better. After additional discussion, Council directed the Boards to develop regulations and bring them before Council at a later date. 6. Tree Ordinance Matters related to the City's Tree Ordinance. Urban Forester Craig Koehl presented this item and stated that amendments to the existing ordinance are being requested for the following reasons: • Removal of trees for new construction is currently allowed, but is very restrictive for removal by property owners who are not proposing any sort of construction • At time a property is sold, the existing ordinance penalizes owners who have voluntarily planted and nurtured trees to maturity because it requires that any perspective developer/builder provide significant replacements for those large trees that will be removed and property owners who have not contributed at all to the establishment of the City's urban forest are somewhat rewarded because there is very minimal planting required on a lot that currently has no trees. • A 30-inch diameter Live Oak tree can be removed and replaced with two 15-inch diameter wax myrtles, which are basically shrubs. The existing ordinance also allows the replacement trees to be two inches in diameter and the ordinance does not protect a two inch tree. A tree is not protected until it is at least 6 inches in diameter. • It does not have growth space requirements and so several of the lots are being significantly overplanted. City Council Meeting, January 12, 2009 It does not address species or genus diversity, which exposes the City to a disease epidemic. Mr. Koehl said the BSC has been evaluating and reviewing all the concepts and what is being brought forth tonight is the consensus that came out of the BSC for the proposed amendments. Mr. Koehl then discussed the existing ordinance concepts and each proposed amendment. See attached Exhibit "A" for the current and proposed key provisions. In regards to the trees allowed to be removed, Councilmember Talianchich asked Mr. Koehl to explain "unreasonably impeding use or structure." Mr. Koehl stated that, historically, it was interpreted that the only way that the City Forester could grant a permit for removal of a tree is if it was immediately in proposed construction. Regarding the replacement calculation provision, Councilmember Cohen asked for clarification. Mr. Koehl explained that a 30-inch diameter tree has a given canopy area and that when that tree is removed the replacement trees would have to meet the canopy of the tree that was lost, collectively. He said, however, if there were two large trees it is possible that just one of those trees could meet the minimum canopy requirement for that lot, so the second large tree could be removed without being replaced. Councilmember Cohen asked the rationale for making people replace trees that probably should be removed anyway and said it might look better in the City to take out the ugly trees and not have to replace them to allow the pretty trees to be seen. Mr. Koehl said the City's goal is to provide a canopy city-wide and if a tree has to be removed it provides an opportunity for a canopy. Councilmember Talianchich asked if staff has considered that canopies are almost irrelevant in the rear yards, especially with new homes, because CenterPoint cuts anything in a 5-feet easement and requires 7-feet from the lines, which does not allow room for canopies. Mr. Koehl said one evaluation looked at was what is the potential canopy for the City and where could we realistically have canopies. He said he believes a significant portion of the canopy can be obtained over the street area if a large enough tree is planted and in given time the canopy will extend over the street. In regards to canopy definition, Councilmember Cohen stated that one of the critical issues is the canopy requirement and what it is. There was further discussion regarding canopy definition, minimum size, species and diversity of trees, replacement trees, qualified trees, and growth space. After discussion and questions from Council, Councilmember Cohen said at this point she doesn't believe that all of Council has the same goals and feels it should be discussed more in a workshop for clarification. Mayor Kelly agreed and a workshop will be tentatively set at a meeting in February. 7. Consent Agenda All Consent Agenda items listed are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member requests in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A. City Council Minutes Approve City Council meeting minutes of December 8, 2008 and City Council special meeting minutes of January 5, 2009. Ms. Thelma Lenz, City Secretary City Council Meeting, January 12, 2009 No action taken. Due to corrections to the Minutes, they were pulled and will be added to the next agenda for approval. 8. Certificates of Obligation and General Obligation Bonds Matters related to the market update, finance plan, and schedule of events for Certificates of Obligation and General Obligation Bonds; and approving a resolution authorizing publication of intention to issue Certificates of Obligation. Finance Director Daugherty presented and explained that the Certificates of Obligation are for approximately $800,000 in the Bellaire Boulevard/College Avenue Water and Sewer Line project that needs to be funded and an additional $425,000 for emergency power generators. As to the number of generators that amount will purchase, Mr. Ross stated this amount includes six diesel generators, which will outfit all of the facilities (public works, city hall and the police department). Ryan O'Hara, RBC Capital Markets provided Council with an update of the financing plan and schedule. Councilmember Cohen suggested that natural gas generators be included in the bid as an option. Councilmember Cohen moved to approve the resolution authorizing publication of intention to issue Certificates of Obligation. Mayor Pro Tem Fry seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Gulley, Cohen, and Talianchich Noes: None Absent: None 9. Fee Schedule Matters related to the City's Fee Schedule including review of proposed changes and consideration of an ordinance on the first of two reading. Mr. Ross presented and stated that one fee change relates to the redevelopment of contaminated sites that are outside of our jurisdiction but happens to be within five miles from a city's operated water well. The other fee is related to the alcohol permitting variance Mayor Pro Tern Fry moved to approve the ordinance adopting the schedule on the first of two readings. Councilmember Cohen seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Guffey, Cohen, and Talianchich Noes: None Absent: None 10. Executive Session (if necessary) Council reserves the right to at any time during the session convene in a closed session pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, for reasons including but not limited to: Section 551.071 (consultation with legal counsel to seek or receive legal advice or consultation regarding pending or contemplated litigation); Section 551.072 (discussion about the value or transfer of real property and other real estate matters; Section 551.074 (personnel matters); 551.076 (deliberation about security devices); Section 551.087 (deliberation regarding economic development). No additional executive session. 11. Convene into Open Session Not applicable. City Council Meeting, January 12, 2009 12. Adjournment Councilmember Cohen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Fry seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED. Ayes: Kelly, Fry, Guffey, Cohen, and Talianchich Noes: None Absent: None Prepared by: A. Lenz, City Secretary Date Approved: C)~-/M~M4, y(s 215 5t UN/yF9 s m ~lXXAS Exhibit "A" Key Provision Current Proposed • Protected trees During construction: 6-in.+ At all times: Trees for which a permit is required for Otherwise--- ---4-in.+ (all Classes) and removal or damage ---in/near street area: 6-in.+ ---Any tree planted as replacement ---anywhere: 12-in.+ • Trees allowed to be removed --Diseased, damaged, dead --Diseased, damaged, dead Categories of trees which maybe --Hazardous --Hazardous removed or damaged (but only if --Low-value (Class IV) --Low Value (Class IV) authorized by permit) --Unreasonably impeding use or structure --Unreasonably impeding proposed use (existing or proposed) or structure --Any tree, if minimum canopy standard is maintained --Stand Im rovement/Su ression • Heritage trees (No special provision) BSC approval required in/near street or Class I or 11 trees, 24-in.+ rear and (Stronger justification needed • Trees that must be replaced --Any tree that is not "Low Value", All, unless minimum canopy standard met Trees which must be replaced, if Hazardous, Dead, Diseased, or dying removed or damaged • Replacement calculation Inch-for-inch, by diameter, but--- Canopy4orcanopy (sq.ft.) up to minimum Number/size of trees required to be ---reduced by tree evaluations canopy standard planted to replace trees removed or ---reduced if high-value trees (6-in.+) damaged will remain Exception: Stem-for-stem to replace hazardous, diseased, damaged, dead, stand improvement/suppression (up to minimum canopy standard). • Replacement location 1": On the site or in adjacent street area 15 On the site or in adjacent street area Where replacement trees must be 2nd: In reasonable proximity to site 2nd: In street area within 1,000 feet planted, listed in order of preference 3rd: Through tree trust (in reasonable 3rtl: Street-front/side yards within 1,000 proximity to site, within City limits) feet 4": Through tree trust refer City fund • Replacement size, species ---2-in, sometimes 4-in. ---4-in. (but 2-in. if replacing hazardous, Minimum size and species of replacement ---Class I or II mostly diseased, damaged, dead, suppressed) trees ---Class I or II • Permit types Two--- One-- 'tree permit' Basic types of permits that can ---building permit with "tree (Simple, no-cost option for minor permits) authorize tree removal or damage disposition' conditions --'tree permit" • Tree evaluations 10 categories, 40 possible points Abolished (Class I or II trees that have How trees are evaluated (the score is less than 25% canopy dieback count used in the calculation for replacement toward min. canopy standard) trees • Minimum planting standard ---2 to 7 trees (depending on site size) Must meet minimum canopy standard. Minimum tree requirement for each site ---Size 2-in.+ Altemative with BSC approval: (triggered by major development) ---Class I or 11 (unless pre-existing) ---One per 1,500 sq. ft. of site area ---Size 6-in.+ ---Class I or II • Diversification of the Urban Forest Not addressed Requires diversification by genus • Planting trees in street areas Allowed Strongly emphasized and in some cases required • Removing trees in street areas (No special provision) BSC approval required if 4-in.+ Class I or II (Stronger justification needed) • Canopy Definition (No definition; canopy not used) Formula: Note: Critical Root Zone is similar (diameter of trunk in inches) squared concept. x 3.14 = area of canopy in square feet Note: Canopies of newly-planted trees will be boosted, b set factors.