Min 09/08/2006 ' 841 �
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Wichita Falls, Texas
MPEC Event Center
September 8, 2006
Item 1
The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas met in special session, and conducted
a joint meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission on the above date in Room 10 of the
Multi-Purpose Events Center at 1:30 o'clock p.m., with the following members present:
Lanham Lyne - Mayor
Ray Gonzalez - Mayor Pro Tern
Jim Ginnings - Councilors
Linda Ammons -
Dorothy Roberts-Burns -
Rick Hatcher -
Charles Elmore -
Darron Leiker - City Manager
Bill Sullivan - City Attorney
Lydia Ozuna - City Clerk
Mayor called the meeting to order.
Item 2
The second public hearing was conducted on the proposed tax rate for Fiscal Year 2006-
2007.
Mayor declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Jim Dockery informed that this was the second of two required public hearings on the
proposed tax rate. Council is scheduled to vote on the tax rate at the next regular Council meeting
September 19, 2006.
Mayor commented that keeping the tax rate the same, although the appraised values are
going up, will create additional revenue for the City.
Mayor called for additional public comments. There being none, Mayor declared the public
hearing closed.
This concluded the City Council's special meeting.
Mayor declared the joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning and Zoning
Commission open.
The following members of the Planning & Zoning Commission were present:
Casey Cleary, Chair
Charles Barr, John Stephenson, James Bradberry, Deborah Morrow, Kevin
Callahan, John Kidwell, and Ripley Tate
Item 1
A proposed ordinance was discussed amending Article V, Outdoor Storage, and Article IV,
Weeds, Rubbish and Unsanitary Matter, of Chapter 46, Environment, and Sections 2000 and 3540
of Appendix B, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances.
842
Item 1 continued
It was noted that this was the third time Council had discussed this issue. The objective is
to meet several needs, some of which are citizen driven and some are objections, which are
business driven. The Council wants to find what is best for the citizens of Wichita Falls.
Councilor Gonzalez stated that he would refrain from voting or taking any action, citing a
conflict of interest.
Mayor noted that this was primarily for discussion and he would like for Councilor Gonzalez
to participate in the discussion.
Mr. Dave Clark showed a few slides having to do with outdoor storage reflecting what is
seen from the streets of the City. This was to demonstrate what needs to be considered today.
The problem with the Ordinance has been with the enforcement because of the definitions,
as well as concerns about what the community should be. Council discussed this at their Strategic
Planning Meeting and directed Staff to review the ordinance and make recommendations.
The following are proposed changes originally submitted by Staff and recommended by the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
1) Insertion of a "Purpose" to indicate intent, which was prepared by Planning & Zoning.
2) Definitions were clarified to reflect the same language in both the Code of Ordinances
and the Zoning Ordinance.
3) An appeal procedure not applicable to the Code of Ordinances was eliminated.
4) Fencing requirements were altered to include more about their dimensions,
appearance, and when they are required and when they are not. Compliance with
fencing requirements under this ordinance revision was to be retroactive.
Mr. Clark noted that the factor of definitions had been very problematic to staff particularly
in the enforcement. Definitions needed to be clarified and put in sync.
He referred to a memo he had submitted to the City Council and Planning & Zoning
Commission and listed the factors to be discussed today and provided additional information.
1) Insertion of a "Purpose"
2) Definitions clarified; some read differently in the Code of Ordinances than in the Zoning
Ordinance.
3) Penalty Clause - Section 46-157 wording was clarified by the Legal Department to
ensure it was enforceable.
4) Appeals — Section 46-158 had an error which was struck.
5) Section 146-126 Culpable Mental State - City Attorney informed that this is a
technicality to comply with new legislation.
6) Fencing — Mr. Clark recommends that any new salvage yards be required to be
screened. The proposed ordinance provides that existing legal outdoor storage or
salvage yards must comply within two years. Protection of residential areas would be to
remove the requirement for fencing outdoor storage within 300 feet of a public right-of-
way and require fencing along that part of the outdoor storage within 200 feet of a
residence or multifamily use. Leaving the original clause would eliminate any fencing on
Sheppard Access Road, Scott Street, and other areas that come into play in the City.
Legal outdoor storage or salvage yards across from residences are required to be
fenced. The side streets would also need to be addressed. There does not need to be
so much concern about back yard connections. That is the area we have considered
again if there is a retrofit to be done, which would include existing chain link fences.
They could use wooden or aluminum slats inside the chain link fence, but not the
Venetian blind. Permanent material would provide what we are trying to accomplish.
Mrs. Cleary gave input from the perspective of Planning & Zoning Commission.
The ordinance already exists but the problem is enforcing it. The wording had gray areas
such that it could not be enforced. The Planning & Zoning Commission looked at it from the
perspective of how to change the wording in the ordinance to help the City beautify itself. Also, we
wanted a purpose statement that would make sense to the residents as well as to us. We needed
the residents to show pride in the City, and we felt the purpose statement would help clarify some
issues. The way we addressed Sheppard Access Road was to put in residential and I asked that
thoroughfares be included, which would impact Sheppard Access Road. She added that a lot of
this has already been cleaned up. We also suggested that vegetation that is hardy to this area be
used. Mr. Jack Murphy has some good ideas about that. It could be screening as well as
beautification. I suggested that the stipulation that does not allow the use of vegetation be
, 843
Item 1 continued
removed with the possibility of the City providing some help. I have seen two businesses that have
the mesh screening that attaches to the chain link fence and it provides screening and looks good.
We tried to come up with a solution that would not target any particular individual. It targets
the City as much as anyone else. It helps the City provide a more appealing look. We are all
concerned about the future of the City and what we would like to see happen here. Everybody
should take issue in trying to make the City look better.
Councilor Elmore felt that the mesh and vegetation were excellent ideas. He has a
concern that there is more trash than outdoor storage, but does not know how to get people to
clean up their trash or do something with their trash.
Councilor Ginnings asked if the proposed changes make the ordinance reinforced to
residential areas, which was one of Council's points of concern and direction. Mr. Clark replied in
the affirmative.
Councilor Ginnings felt they needed to address and include something of a contemporary
standard. He commented that some of the obscenity laws are defined in terms of what is offensive
to the community, and he felt the City needs something like that. He liked Mrs. Cleary's idea about
having some standard appearance to go by. It would improve the appearance of the City as well
as lives. The idea is if we all had some common denominator of what is nice in appearance it
would help. We should have something in there that would give us enforcement on a basis of
contemporary standard for non residential requirements. He is in favor of allowing vegetation with
some direction as to the type of vegetation.
Mr. Clark read the definitions of outdoor storage, outdoor storage yard, and fencing
materials, and went over the exemptions regarding motor vehicles, building materials, farm
equipment, among others. Industrial users are exempt from one thing - storage yards. The issue
of grandfathering was mentioned and Mr. Clark noted that it is an issue that needs to be decided.
Mr. Ginnings was not in favor of grandfathering.
Vegetation was brought up and Mr. Murphy informed that they had success with juniper
shrubs and holly. The fastest growing is the juniper. Mrs. Cleary suggested that Mr. Murphy serve
as a consultant and put a program together. Mr. Clark stated that the existing ordinance does not
allow vegetation because of the maintenance involved.
Councilor Hatcher commented that salvage yards are a type of business that will be found
in every city. He did not think that the City should put an undue burden on this type business. He
is in favor of grandfathering under certain circumstances. He urged those who are here to get
some pride and try to clean up their property. He suggested that from this point forward screening
could be required, however, he did not think it should be required unless the property backs up to
a residence.
Councilor Elmore agreed with that. Councilor Roberts-Burns was in favor of the mesh
screening and the use of vegetation for screening. Councilor Ammons was also in favor of using
vegetation.
Mayor hopes that we can come up with an ordinance that works and takes care of
everyone's needs.
Mr. Kevin Callahan asked if there was any way we could put together tax abatement for the
people that we are asking to spend a lot of money on screening. He felt that the City should be
willing to put some of their money in there for that.
Mayor felt the thoroughfares should be taken care of differently. Councilor Gonzalez
thought the main thoroughfare at SAFB should be considered because it is a four-lane.
Stan Thomas, 4187 Airport Drive, business address, felt this was an unfunded mandate
and did not want anyone telling him how to run his business. He felt that putting up fences would
increase crime and graffiti. He said that the Council was discriminating and this whole ordinance
was ridiculous. It is selective enforcement.
Councilor Ginnings asked Mr. Thomas if he thought he could do whatever he wanted as
long as it did not involve health and safety. Mr. Thomas responded in the affirmative. Councilor
Ginnings stated that he was in business where there are standards, and this is not a ridiculous
ordinance. We are here today to hear from the public, and Mr. Thomas, you are talking about a
health issue.
844
Item 1 continued
Kay Rickson, 503 Stessco, stated that Stessco is a street of things you do not want. She
detailed the various sights on Stessco Street that included many junk cars, trash, swimming pool
filled with garbage, RVs, "meth labs", old school buses, salvage yard, weeds, tall grass, horses,
horse trailers-some filled with trash, and other unsightly things. They are doing what they want to.
One location that has no utilities is used for weekend keg parties. All this is what we have had to
live with for a long time. She was in favor of screening.
City Council recessed at 3:00 p.m. and reconvened at 3:15 p.m.
Mayor noted that there was not a motion and second regarding this ordinance and called
for such.
Moved by Councilor Ammons that the proposed ordinance be adopted.
Motion seconded by Councilor Hatcher.
Willie Vaughn, 3210 Iowa Park Road, stated the following reasons for his opposition:
unfunded mandate, selective enforcement, too expensive to screen, causes more theft, and
potential clients cannot see what he has to sell.
Councilor Ginnings asked if an appeal process could be inserted in the ordinance for
economic omissions and interpretations of the ordinance.
Mayor commented that there was a clause in the proposed changes that the Community
Development Director can make decisions on that. Mr. Clark stated that there are instances when
it is needed. It meets the intent of the ordinance.
Councilor Ginnings asked if vegetation was included in this. Mayor replied that it has to be
added in as a definition
Moved by Mayor Lyne that the proposed ordinance be amended to include vegetation in
the definitions, and to include the changes for the alternate considerations recommended by the
Planning Department.
Motion seconded by Councilor Roberts-Burns.
After several questions and comments from Council, City Attorney suggested that Council
consider allowing Staff to draft wording and submit to Council to avoid any confusion about what
action Council wants to take.
Mayor suggested tabling this.
David Brock, 1819 Hines, asked for clarification on the 200 ft. requirement as to whether if
it needs to be fenced within 200 feet from a residence or not if you are more than 200 feet from a
residence.
Mayor agreed that this needs to be defined.
David Brock was against having to put any money into making something look better, and
trying to eliminate people from certain areas. He felt that if the City is not going to help with this
then they should not require them to do it.
Mayor informed that a revised draft will be available at City Hall and on the City's website.
Tim Chase, BCI, did not believe that the time frame to accomplish this was realistic. It gets
down to time and money. It can be achieved in 15 years, but if the City is willing to put some
money into it the time frame can get closer to 2-3 years. The larger property will be given a portion
of their tax credited like Kevin Callahan mentioned. No matter what you do there will be some that
will oppose it. It comes down to how you implement length of time; a larger property could take
five years.
Mrs. Cleary mentioned that used materials for fencing are addressed in the ordinance.
She suggested deleting #4 under Required Fencing. Councilor Elmore suggested eliminating the
last sentence in #1.
10 845
Item 1 continued
Moved by Councilor Hatcher to table this item.
Motion seconded by Councilor Elmore and carried by the following vote.
Ayes: Mayor Lyne, Councilors Ginnings, Ammons, Roberts-Burns, Hatcher, Gonzalez,
and Elmore
Nays: None
City Council adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 2006.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Lydia Ozuna
City Clerk
NOTICE OF MEETING
Special Meeting Of The Mayor And City Council And Joint Meeting With
The Planning And Zoning Commission Of The City Of Wichita Falls, Texas,
To Be Held At The Multi-Purpose Event Center, Room 10, 1000 Fifth
Street, On Friday, September 8, 2006, Beginning At 1:30 P.M.
City Council: Mayor Lanham Lyne, Councilors Jim Ginnings, Linda
Ammons, Dorothy Roberts-Burns, Rick Hatcher, Ray
Gonzalez, and Charles Elmore.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA-
1 . Call to Order
2. Conduct A Public Hearing On The Proposed Tax Rate For The 2006-
2007 Fiscal Year.
JOINT MEETING AGENDA:
1 . Ordinance Amending Article V. Outdoor Storage, And Article IV.
Weeds, Rubbish And Unsanitary Matter, Chapter 46 Environment,
And Sections 2000 And 3540 Of Appendix B, Zoning, Of The Code
Of Ordinances (Council Bill #200)
2. Adjourn
Wheelchair or handicapped accessibility to the meeting is possible by using the
handicapped parking spaces and ramp located off the north parking lot on the
Fifth Street entrance. Spanish language interpreters, deaf interpreters, Braille
copies or any other special needs will be provided to any person requesting a
special service with at least 24 hours notice. Please call the City Clerk's Office at
761-7409.
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board
at Memorial Auditorium, Wichita Falls, Texas on the day of
, 2006 at o'clock (a.m.)(p.m.).
City Clerk