Loading...
Min 03/03/1998 118 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building March 3, 1998 Items 1 & 2 The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas met in regular session on the above date in the Council Room of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 8:30 o'clock a.m., with the following members present: Kay Yeager - Mayor Don Johnston - Councilors Dan Shine - Angus Thompson - Bill Daniel - JW Martin - Harold Hawkins - James Berzina - City Manager Greg Humbach - City Attorney Lydia Torres - City Clerk Mayor Yeager called the meeting to order. Invocation was given by Reverend Daniel Marrero, Fountain of Living Water Church. Item 3 Brett Holland, Fire Department, was honored as Employee of the Month for the month of March. Mayor presented him with a plaque, City pin, transit tickets, dinner tickets, and a check. Mayor recognized the Notre Dame Lady Knights basketball team for their TAPPS 3A State championship and congratulated their coach Danny Anderson on their success. Mayor proclaimed the month of March as "Adult Literacy Month" in Wichita Falls and encouraged all citizens with reading needs to seek the assistance of the Adult Literacy Council. Mayor proclaimed the month of March as "Professional Social Work Centennial Month" in Wichita Falls and asked citizens to support the appropriate programs and activities celebrating 100 years of social work. Item 4 Stanley Grover, 3006 McNiel #223, is a member of the Barnett Street Church, and they plan to move a double-wide trailer on the area located at the corner of Barnett Road and Seymour Highway. They are asking for an exception to sidewalk and curb and gutter requirements and are requesting that they not be required to pay for this until actual installation. Judy Cline, 3805 York, requested a waiver to build a home on her existing lot. She was denied a variance by the Public Works Director. When her contractor went to get a work permit she was informed that the lot would have to be platted. The Planning Department informed her she had to get access to three sewer lines on the east side of her land to get a permit. These lines would cost approximately $6000 and would not be hooked up to the existing sewer line currently in use. This is putting her lot in limbo. She cannot afford sewer lines for three homes and it would be cost prohibitive. She requested a waiver for Appendix A Subdivision Chapter 32. She stated that if this is not granted her land would be worthless. She mentioned the variances under which her circumstances fell. She said Council was her 119 Item 4 cont'd. last hope because she could not afford to buy any more land and her current home was in need of major repairs which would be cost prohibitive. Gracie Gregg, 4606 Cove Road, was representing Friends of the Library. They are concerned about the proposed development of the 2nd floor to accommodate Parks & Recreation classes and activities. They felt Council needed to investigate the possible negative impact of placing a recreation center on the upper floor of the Library. We request Council consider all the aspects of the proposal for the 2nd floor of the Library. Mayor commented that the Council appointed a committee made up of Councilors Shine, Johnston and Daniel to oversee the Library reconstruction, and they have toured the 2nd floor of the building looking at future use of that building but nothing definitive has been decided. Your comments will be taken into consideration. Bob Mathews, 2616 Bretton Road, was representing a group commonly known as the Committee for Preservation of the Kemp Library. We are concerned with the ultimate fate of the Kemp Library. He read a letter to the Mayor and Councilors requesting that the Kemp Library be used as a historical museum housing artifacts and documents that relate to the early formation of Wichita County. In addition, they request that any and all bids which will be opened on March 5, 1998 be rejected. Mr. Mathews suggested that Council maintain ownership of the Kemp building to keep it from deteriorating. We would like time to put together a comprehensive plan for operation of a historical museum in the Kemp building. He hopes to leave a better history to those people to come. Mayor provided information on the current process. We have advertised, as per law, for RFPs. We have several options when those proposals are opened on March 5, 1998. One is to reject all the proposals and start the process over again. Second option is that it gives us the opportunity to receive proposals and sit down and work with whichever proposals we deem the most appropriate. We have a lot of flexibility on Thursday in the approach we take at that point. I suggest that if you have nothing ready, other than a letter, that it be submitted as your proposal by 10:00 a.m. on Thursday morning Item 5 The Minutes were approved as distributed. Items 6a-7b City Manager gave a briefing on the items listed in the Consent Agenda. Councilor Martin requested that Item 6a be moved down to the Regular Agenda. Moved by Councilor Johnston that the consent agenda be approved with the exception of Item 6a. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None a Items 7a-7b Minutes of the meeting of the following boards and commissions were received. a. Water Resources Commission, February 6, 1998 b. Commission on Human Needs, February 16, 1998 120 Item 6a RESOLUTION NO. 24-98 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT MR. ROY RESSEL, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COORDINATOR OF THE WICHITA FALLS-WICHITA COUNTY PUBIC HEALTH DISTRICT, AS THE LOCAL RABIES CONTROL OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS. Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 24-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Councilor Martin asked if there had been any action from the cities of Burkburnett, Iowa Park, and Electra for coordinating purposes in this matter. Mrs. Barbara Clements replied that they were not aware if those cities had appointed anyone, but they would look into it. Councilor Martin commented that there should be a central point for the County for all of this. He suggested that these cities be contacted to see if they would go along with the City of Wichita Falls and the County to appoint Mr. Ressel as the rabies control authority. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 8a A public hearing was held to receive comments regarding the amendment to the proposed use of funds in a previously approved consolidated plan. Mayor Yeager declared the public hearing open. Mr. Clark informed that the purpose is to consider reallocation of funds which have now become available that are considered to be un-programmed funds in the Community Development Block Grant Program. The bulk of these funds, which totals $226,860, have come from projects that have come under bid or under budget. We propose to reallocate funds to the following projects: Reconstruct 3rd St. from Sunset to Polk Mill & Overlay on four streets Additional cost for Vocational Enrichment Corporation Extension Complete the East Side YMCA Project Indirect Costs for CDBG Program These projects would total more than the amount available, therefore, we propose that the Eastside initiative be utilized from HOME funds, and that funds from the Rental Rehab Project be moved over to accomplish some of these projects. The Council Committee on outside funding has looked at this proposal and approved it. Mayor allowed for public comment. There being no one who wished to be heard, Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Item 9a ORDINANCE NO. 16-98 ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATION TO THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR ADDITIONAL GRANT REVENUE RECEIVED FROM TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT ACCEPTING SAME Moved by Councilor Martin that Ordinance No. 16-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. 121 Item 9a cont'd. Councilor Martin asked Mr. David Lehfeldt if he was familiar with the bio-degradable compost bin. Mr. Lehfeldt said he was not but he would look into that type of bin. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9b ORDINANCE NO. 17-98 AN ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 25-69 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A TRANSIENT SHOW AT THE NOTRE DAME HIGH SCHOOL 22ND ANNUAL SPRING FESTIVAL ON MAY 1, 2, AND 3, 1998 Moved by Councilor Johnston that Ordinance No. 17-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Peggy Foix, Chair for the Notre Dame Festival expressed appreciation to the City for past participation and invited everyone to attend their festival. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9c ORDINANCE NO. 18-98 ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 5-59 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES WHICH PROHIBITS GIVING ANIMALS AS PRIZES OR INDUCEMENTS Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No. 18-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9d ORDINANCE NO. 19-98 REQUEST TO REZONE PROPOSED LOTS 38 THROUGH 41, BLOCK 34, FOUNTAIN PARK, SECTION 20-B FROM SINGLE FAMILY-1 TO LIMITED OFFICE ZONING; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Ordinance No. 19-98 be passed. 122 Item 9d cont'd. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Mr. David Clark provided a general process of the platting and developing format in our City. The first step in the development issue is a preliminary plat which is a layout of a subdivision that is used to check out the general layout of the street. That is the basis for the development of what becomes a final plat which is done in smaller sections from the preliminary plat. That is done so that as the developer sees that as affordable and worthwhile economically for him, he can at this time complete the final plat at which time the details of the development are established with water, sewer, street, utilities, etc. We understand that with the Fountain Park development this has evolved and changes have been made over time from what was originally conceived and developed as it has now, following the preliminary plat steps and its provisions and the final platting. Recently the developer has established a final plat for a small piece that would include the extension of Mallory Drive. That final plat has been accepted. It is my understanding that other than an area near the United, which had a recent zoning change, there have been no other zoning changes. In this instance, the Fountain Park development has been developed over time. To the north on Seymour Road is General Commercial, to the south along Kell is General Commercial and Multi-Family Residential, on McNiel there is Single Family-1. The proposal is rezoning from Single Family-1 to Limited Office. The intent of the offices is to be in the sense of a residential character to look like homes. Councilor Daniel asked Mr. Clark to remind Council how the Ordinance works and what legally we are required to do regarding zoning. Mr. Clark explained the zoning process. He added that in this case Planning & Zoning voted against this rezoning 5-2. There is a large contingency from the neighborhood here today and Council has a copy of a petition submitted from these residents. Mayor said that one concern raised from the residents was that if this rezoning was allowed this would be the first step of additional encroachment to the north of this particular parcel. Mr. Clark stated that it is up to the developer what he will do in the future, but if he wants to change the zoning he would have to go through the two step process of the Planning Commission review and the Council review to change any zoning. Councilor Martin was concerned because residents had purchased their home with the understanding that it was a single family area and to get away from the commercial aspect. He fears that the integrity of the community would be messed up if this waiver was allowed. Mr. Clark stated that Staff is here to facilitate the process in the Council's decision. Councilor Shine asked if Mallory Drive and St. Andrews Circle are permanently platted. Mr. Clark said that the plat shows extension of Mallory Drive, from Fairway to Wendover and a cul-de-sac, St. Andrews Court. The four lots are between Wendover and the existing commercial zone and the access would be off of Wendover and Cannon's Park Court, which is a cul-de sac. Councilor Johnston asked if Mallory Drive and St. Andrews are platted in final. Mr. Clark responded that they are. Status of area east of Wendover is that there has been a preliminary plat but no final plat; however, to the north of there, which is Whitehall, it has been final platted. Councilor Shine mentioned that there was a lot of concern around the area of Mallory Drive and the fact that it may extend further and he was trying to find out what the final plat involved. Mr. Clark explained that a final plat establishes the format for final construction with a review by Public Works and other utility companies to check out how utilities are set out, easements needed, and the logic of connection to the utility system. Then the developer is ready to construct those streets. Councilor Johnston asked what impact this would have if that area converted to limited commercial on drainage and runoff? Mr. Bonnett replied that they would have to look at the runoff coefficient, and basically that would be a percent of the area which would be impervious; we would just have to look at it at the time of construction and make sure it falls under the storm water ordinance. Councilor Johnston asked if an area this size requires retention? Mr. Bonnett replied that if it is over one acre and commercial it would. Councilor Daniel clarified that based on the retention ordinance legally there could be no more runoff after construction than prior to construction. Mr. Bonnett concurred. Councilor Daniel asked that if something were built then there would be no change. Mr. Bonnett replied in the affirmative 123 Item 9d cont'd. Councilor Shine asked if this was not passed could it be requested at some other time? Mr. Clark replied that it is any property owner's right to ask for rezoning. Councilor Shine wondered if limited commercial would not be a better situation than major development ending up in that area. Mr. Clark stated that the folks who would be purchasing lots along Mallory Drive would be the ones who would back up to a limited office development, so they would know that as they purchased their property. Having a limited office buffer against commercial is a logical planning principle because limited commercial could be a lot of things. pow Councilor Hawkins asked if there was a fencing requirement between a limited office and a single family residential area? Mr. Clark replied that it depends on the use, if it were developed as duplexes - no, but if it was developed as offices - yes. Mayor asked about any `" ` sign requirements if it develops as limited office. Mr. Clark replied that the zoning ordinance does include sign regulations which requires ground mounted signs with maximum of 30 square feet and one sign per lot. Mr. Clark informed that the hierarchy of zoning is Single Family-1 which is the most restrictive, Single Family-2, Multi-Family, then Limited Office. It goes on from there to different degrees of commercial up to heavy industrial. Councilor Daniel commented that concerns he had heard were that if this were designated Limited Office then right across from Wendover there would be an effort to have it rezoned Multi-Family. Mr. Clark stated that the frontage of Wendover is still Single Family-1 and any change to that would require the same process. Councilor Thompson asked Mr. Clark's opinion on what the overall affect would be if this area were rezoned. Mr. Clark stated that he believed this would be of little affect. The access is going to be principally from Kell. Wendover goes on in but the design of the neighborhood really does not make Wendover go through. If you are trying to come in from the north you really want to have to get to that point, you are not going to have to wander through the neighborhood to reach those offices. It is four lots and it is a buffer for general commercial zoning. I don't find it objectionable and the Staff did recommend approval of this rezoning. Mayor mentioned another concern was the traffic that would come through Mallory off Fairway if this rezoning were allowed. Mr. Clark stated that Mallory would go across to - Wendover but people have the option of going down McNiel or around Kell. I think the bulk of traffic generation will come from Kell, and I do not believe traffic will be much of an issue. Michael Lam, President Skyline Developers, 3501 McNiel, commented that Staff has done a good job of presenting what we want to do. We desire a buffer area between our general commercial and residential areas. We use land planners to arrive at this to assure protection of values and that it is right. Mr. Lam provided background information on Fountain Park. Over 35 years we have fashioned a community which is very desirable to live in and we have hired the finest people that we know of to assist us in its development. It has some natural buffers, but we also need to create some. The Code states that limited commercial is to be used as a buffer between high volume areas and single residences and we are using what the Code calls for. Fountain Park is 95% complete and our track record reflects that we have done things right. Mr. Lam addressed three issues mentioned today. Property values - according to Jim Henderson, Certified Appraiser, rezoning the four lots will not adversely affect property values in the rest of Fountain Park. Encroachment - lots north of this rezoned area have been final platted Single Family residences, and in 35 years we have never come back and asked for an area that has been final platted to be rezoned as something else. We have asked for areas to be rezoned that were in either a preliminary plat or not platted at all. Our commitment is to put single family homes in there. Lastly, unplatted property east of Wendover is unique in that it backs up to General Commercial and to some Multi-Family. Our plan today is that those would _„ be Single family all the way down to the commercial and because the way they are situated would not require a buffer. We feel we have properly met all of the residents' concerns and we have done sound planning. Councilor Hawkins asked if the price of the lots would be increased or decreased depending on how this was zoned. Mr. Lam replied that they would either remain the same or increase because of increased development cost. Councilor Hawkins asked for the time frame to build Mallory Drive on through and St. Andrews. Mr. Lam replied that as soon as the contracts are let. Councilor Hawkins asked if he will be building them at the same time as Canon's Park, and that if his commitment was to build single family residences so there cannot be any creeping into that area. Mr. Lam answered that that was correct 124 Item 9d cont'd. Councilor Daniel asked if there had been a plan submitted to the Planning Department for rezoning east of Wendover for Multi-Family. Mr. Lam replied that as the landowner that has not been done. Mr. Lam addressed the storm water detention issue by stating that Canon's Park drains directly to our regional detention pond so water will not be flowing into any other street. Mr. Jim Biggs, Engineer, explained how the drain actually flows and concluded by saying that no one from Fountain Park or Kell would be able to see any affect of the drainage from Canon Park. The detention pond was built according to the Ordinance, before it was recently revised, and was built for the 100 year storm. Councilor Daniel commented that the purpose of zoning is to protect the integrity of neighborhoods and protect property values, and that is why we have looked so intently at the property immediately surrounding a given development. He asked Mr. Lam why he would do something that would down grade the value of these lots he wants to sell. Mr. Lam replied that he hoped he wouldn't, and his plan is not to. Whatever I do will enhance the value of the property that we have to sell and that is one of the reasons we are here today. Councilor Hawkins asked if he had any indication of wanting to build an office into any of those four lots. Mr. Lam stated that they have had inquires from real estate people, CPAs, one-person offices, etc., however, we do not have anyone waiting to sign a contract. Councilor Hawkins asked if he would consider mixing small offices and duplexes? Mr. Lam said he would not, they would not mix. Councilor Martin expressed his opinion of accepting the recommendation of a commission which Council has appointed. Betty Wagner, 3001 Whitehall, resides in the primary area affected by the proposed rezoning application. She is representing 100 households in that area, and informed that at the February 3, 1998 Planning & Zoning meeting they had submitted 181 signatures in opposition of this proposed rezoning. Mrs. Wagner offered a correction to the Planning & Zoning minutes on page 4 of 8 to reflect the number of signatures as 181 instead of 100. Since that meeting they have contacted some fifty additional persons. When we residents examined a plat of this addition prior to selecting a lot and committing hard-earned savings to build our dream home, we were convinced that our area would retain its single family dwelling designation as depicted. We were aware of the commercial corridor that borders us on Kell west, but we had every confidence that Fountain Park would not be further invaded by commercial properties. The different plats examined by different people at different times vary in design for the area as to placement of park, fountain, and traffic circle, but we accepted these changes as it became apparent that the park and fountain and circle were not to be as shown. Ultimately they disappeared. What we cannot accept is the invasion of commercially oriented property which was not shown in the original planning of Fountain Park. We stand in opposition to the proposed rezoning of single family dwellings to office space. Our concerns are as follows: the devaluation of our home property, heavy traffic increase with various types of vehicles off Kell West and other arteries to reach the commercial zone, and the peace and quiet we now enjoy. Another concern is the defacement of Wendover and Kell West entrance to the Fountain Park community. An attractive brick wall entrance was suggested which would be a true buffer. Other concerns were the fear of expanded rezoning for commercial and multi- family development if the current rezoning application is passed, and water drainage problems resulting in flooding in various areas. Mrs. Wagner asked Council to give consideration to this pleading and vote against the proposed rezoning. She also requested that any Council member who has a vested interest or stands to gain financially in this rezoning proposal or any other one plan in close proximity to excuse himself in the process of voting. The following persons spoke in opposition of the proposed rezoning. Alan Rainey, 2704 Cooke, Realtor, mentioned that these concerns need to be addressed early on in the development, not in the end of the development. A discussion ensued in regards to the best use of those lots. A point was brought up by Councilor Hawkins that the limited office zoning :throughout the United States has been accepted as one of the best soft buffers available between the more expensive residential areas and commercial areas. These soft commercial areas have proven time and again not to be deteriorating to the neighborhoods, it has been proven to have helped the neighborhoods. 125 Item 9d cont'd. Other persons who spoke in opposition of the rezoning were as follows. Lou Wagner, 3001 Whitehall Kevin Martin, 4514 Wendover Joy Enderle, 3014 Whitehall Hans Enderle, 3014 Whitehall Michele Wichman, 3009 Lombard Philip Haigood, #1 Lennox Court Elaine Kennedy, 3033 Whitehall Residents asked for a commitment that Mr. Lam would proceed with the extension of Mallory Drive to Wendover and to go forward from there. Their primary concern is an encroachment in Fountain Park beyond Canon's Park. Several solutions were presented by the residents. Speaking in favor of the rezoning was Mrs. Carolyn Hill, 3003 Whitehall. She mentioned that many of these persons were her friends and some were her neighbors, but she did not agree with their concerns. Her primary concern would be that changing the zoning of a property that is adjacent to a lot that someone has already purchased would not be fair, however, this is not the case. Anyone whose residential lot would back up to the back of these four lots zoned limited office would be aware of zoning before their purchase, and that seems fair to me. Also, the idea of a buffer street which is a dead end all to itself before the full blown commercial and residential areas makes a lot of sense and is one way to go. I have not been convinced that the concerns of property devaluation, water drainage, traffic, safety, etc., would necessarily result. I believe it would be a mistake to respond on the basis of emotion rather than fact. I had a similar experience in another area, but as a result of our street being open, traffic decreased. The experts were right and it did work to our advantage. Regarding encroaching, Mr. Lam is honorable and cares about others, and his track record is good and he will not mess things up in Fountain Park. My husband and I feel that rezoning would not be a problem and it could work to our advantage in Fountain Park. I believe Mr. Lam can be trusted to do what he says he will do. Mr. Lam stated that he felt they had adequately addressed the residents' concerns and would stand by their track record and ability on what they have done in the past and will do in the future. Our feeling is that we will be willing to commit to sell and restrict those four lots to limited offices in any way whether through deed restrictions or contractual, if that is possible. Also, we have had the best people and talents available to make the highest and best use of our land. I will be happy to meet with these people, but I have had the best planning done and the residents' solutions suggested today have been gone over and rejected for a lot of reasons. We brought to you what is the best solution to this problem. Council discussed the possibility of amending the ordinance to restrict this use to limited office use. City Attorney advised that they needed to come back with another ordinance which is a vehicle we currently don't have of limiting to that one use. We do not have that kind of zoning classification and I think you are asking if by motion you could amend the existing ordinance to restrict it to one use and I think it needs to be brought back. Councilor Hawkins asked about a conditional use. Mr. Clark informed that there is a conditional use clause in many of the aspects of planning and zoning ordinance, and Planning & Zoning has the authority to put in conditions when they approve those land uses that are so specified. You have the authority to amend the Zoning Ordinance, but that is starting all over and going back through the whole process again. Under the Zoning Ordinance I do not think you can contractually say you want to limit things to one case. I don't believe that is the function of the Zoning Ordinance. City Attorney concurred with Mr. Clark and added that is considered contract zoning and the Courts have upheld that to be illegal. Council expressed their concerns for both parties involved and wanted to make the best decision. They have given much thought and consideration to this issue and it is an issue which is not easily reconcilable. Council discussed this issue at length with the concerned residents and the developer. Moved by Councilor Thompson tc on the table the motion concerning rezoning of Lots 38 through 41, Block 34, Fountain F om Single Family-1 to Limited Office zoning. Mayor felt that was up to Mr. Lam u,, whether he would like to do this. Mr. Lam stated that he preferred that this issue be voted on today, but he would be happy to meet with the 126 Item 9d cont'd. residents. He said that they had spent a lot of time and effort in these plans and believe they have arrived at what they think is the best possible use. Motion died for a lack of a second. Council stated how difficult this decision was to make. Mayor explained that according to State statute a vote on this issue requires a single majority and not a super majority. Motion on rezoning Lots 38 through 41, Block 34, Fountain Park, from Single Family-1 to Limited Office zoning carried as follows. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Daniel, and Hawkins Nays: Councilors Thompson and Martin Mr. Lou Wagner, 3001 Whitehall, expressed appreciation to the Council for the time they had given them, for hearing them out and answering their questions. Mr. Tom Kennedy, 3033 Whitehall, asked if citizens had the option of referendum in this issue. City Attorney replied that State law did not allow that. Council recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 11:15 a.m. Item 9e ORDINANCE NO. 20-98 REQUEST TO REZONE PROPOSED LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, BLOCK 6, SOUTHLAND ADDITION, WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, FROM SINGLE FAMILY-2 TO LIMITED OFFICE ZONING; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Johnston that Ordinance No. 20-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Mr. Dave Clark informed that the petitioner was here earlier but he left because there was no sitting available and he cannot stand for a lengthy period. Mr. Clark informed that there was no discussion by Planning & Zoning and there was no opposition to this request. Mayor asked if the southeast corner was a doctor's office. Mr. Clark replied that he thought so but did not have the map with him to confirm that. Councilor Daniel asked if this was the first rezoning moving off of Brook. Mr. Clark responded that he did not recall another rezoning off Brook. This would deepen the zoning already off Brook and allow for kinds of development. The only rezoning in general vicinity is several blocks down and that is Bethania Hospital. Councilor Hawkins asked for a map depicting the zoning and how this will tie into the other zone. Mr. Clark said he did not have the map with him but could have it brought down shortly. Moved by Councilor Hawkins to lay on the table the motion concerning the request to rezone proposed Lots 1 through 4, Block 6, Southland Addition, from Single Family-2 to Limited Office zoning. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine and carried by the following vote. 127 Item 9e cont'd. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9f ORDINANCE NO. 21-98 AN ORDINANCE WAIVING SECTION 4220(I), OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, GOVERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A CARPORT IN THE FRONT SETBACK AREA AT 1813 DEER PARKWAY, WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Ordinance No. 21-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mr. Dave Clark informed that the required notices were sent out and there were no objections. Councilor Shine was concerned that there were no other carports in the area. Albert Shilanski, 1813 Deer Parkway, owner, stated that he found it hard to understand that another man on the street behind him had a carport approved without coming to the City Council, and he cannot get his approved. He felt his reasons were as valid as the other man. Councilor Hawkins stated that one of the things we are trying to do with this is to keep the integrity of the neighborhood to ensure that everyone has the same footing as we are reserving this for the people you elect to serve you. Mr. Schlensky explained that there are carports on the street directly behind him, which is Central Freeway. There is just not one in his block. City Manager addressed Mr. Shilanski's question by saying that we are not supposed to approve this and issue permits for persons unless they come through this process. It clearly cannot be done. I won't tell you that some people do not go through the process like you have done; sometimes we just don't know it even takes place. I have enough confidence in what we are suppose to do to tell you that we just hand permits, but I am not going to tell you it doesn't happen. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9g ORDINANCE NO. 22-98 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY WAIVER OF SECTION 32-57(A), RATES FOR SEWER SERVICE, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2803 OLD JACKSBORO HIGHWAY AND AUTHORIZING RATE ADJUSTMENT Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Ordinance No. 22-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. City Manager stated there was a leak in this location and it went through the meter. According to the Ordinance anything that is metered is charged unless there is a waiver. We 128 Item 9g cont'd. do not think this got to the sewer line, therefore we brought it to the Council for action. This is only for the sewer. Mayor asked about a statement in the commentary regarding staff preparing suggested changes to handle future requests administratively. City Manager explained that that is just a general concept which we would want to work on with Council to see if there is any interest and see if it would work. Sometimes discretion could be given on administrative capabilities to take care of these. If the owner was in disagreement with staff they could come before Council. This is something you may want to consider at some point. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9h ORDINANCE NO. 23-98 ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EQUITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,000 FOR THE CITY'S MATCHING REQUIREMENT FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION ASSOCIATED WITH THE 1-44/U.S. 287 ELEVATED HIGHWAY PROJECT Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No.23-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. City Manager informed that we have two businesses east of 6`h and Bluff Streets, and according to the State they would go in and allow us to make an offer to these two businesses based on partial-taking. Knowing how the plan will actually be realized when completed, we think for many reasons we should look at a full-taking, and my understanding is that one business is interested. The State would pay the partial and our cost would be the difference, which at the appraised value is $21,000. After this we would have to go through negotiations and possibly the condemnation process, but hopefully not. We do not know the exact dollars just the appraised value. Mr. George Bonnett stated that we do not know the demolition cost but there will be some off-setting costs such as keeping utilities for both businesses. Councilor Johnston asked about a side assessment because there is a possibility of lead and acid contamination because of the battery business currently located there. Mr. Bonnett added that there is an old fuel tank there and that is a concern, however, that will be there no matter who owns it. I think we have to recognize that there is a down side to it. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10a RESOLUTION NO. 25-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS CALLING FOR A REGULAR CITY ELECTION ON MAY 2, 1998, NAMING POLLING PLACES AND ELECTION OFFICIALS Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 25-98 be passed. 129 Item 10a cont'd. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. City Clerk informed that the Resolution included a rate increase for the election workers. The hourly rate increase will be from $5 to $6. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10b RESOLUTION NO. 26-98 A RESOLUTION DETERMINING NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF RIGHT- OF-WAY FOR THE 1-44/U.S. 287 ELEVATED PROJECT, APPROVING THE APPRAISALS, SETTING JUST COMPENSATION, AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 26-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins POW Nays: None Council recessed at 12:44 p.m. and reconvened at 1:35 p.m. Item 10c RESOLUTION NO. 27-98 RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE EXPANSION IN OPERATING HOURS FOR THE WICHITA FALLS TRANSIT SYSTEM BROWN ROUTE Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No. 27-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Daniel. Councilor Hawkins asked that Staff look into extending the route to the area of Expressway Village, Lincoln Heights, Eden Hills, and Sunset Terrace. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 130 Item 10d RESOLUTION NO. 28-98 RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR AN URBAN MOBILITY PROJECT DESCRIBED AS THE CALL FIELD RELIEVER PROJECT Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No. 28-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. George Bonnet explained that this is a proposed new street which would run from Maplewood to Kemp to line in at McNiel and does not have anything to do with the Call Field Road Reliever. He clarified that this is a consulting engineering project, and this amount is for the preliminary engineering, not for a study. In response to a newspaper article Mayor clarified that we are anticipating using State and federal money to do this and that would not be possible without doing this particular study beforehand. Mr. Bonnett concurred and added that the construction cost would be roughly $2.5 million and that is 80% paid by the federal government. By doing this you will end up picking up 20% of the construction cost, 100% right-of-way acquisition, relocating utility work, etc., and you will have the flexibility of obtaining 80% ISTEA funds if you choose to proceed later. Councilor Shine commented that Council had no choice; either we accept this or abandon the project. Mr. Bonnett agreed and added that it could be taken in segments. Actually, what you are getting is preliminary engineering for $115,000. Councilor Shine said that it was mistakenly picked up as an engineering study by some. Mr. Bonnett clarified that it was preliminary engineering and not a study. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 10e RESOLUTION NO. 29-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, APPROVING THE PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Hawkins that Resolution No. 29-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Shine. Mr. Clark clarified that the Vocational Enrichment Center had asked for an additional $15,000 for a total of $40,000. He added that this $15,000 can come from the Rental Rehabilitation Program. Moved by Councilor Hawkins that additional funding of $15,000 be moved to the Vocational Enrichment Center from the Rental Rehabilitation Program. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None 131 Item 10e cont'd. Original motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Councilor Hawkins pointed out that we accessed an additional $100,000 by doing this. Mr. Clark concurred and added that they have had a private donation in the amount for $90,000 for the bulk of the remainder of the project. Item 11 a RESOLUTION NO 30-98. RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID AND CONTRACT FOR LEACHATE STORAGE IMPOUNDMENT PROJECT AT THE WICHITA FALLS LANDFILL Moved by Councilor Martin that Resolution No. 30-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 11 b Moved by Councilor Johnston that bid be awarded to Smith's Greenhouse in the amount of$19,496.25 and to Dream Valley Farms in the amount of$3,362.40 for the purchase of Annual Spring Flowers. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 9e Council agreed to take from the table, the motion relating to the rezoning of proposed Lots 1 through 4, Block 6, Southland Addition, from Single Family-2 to Limited Office Zoning. Mr. Clark stated that this was approved by Planning and Zoning and there was no opposition. He provide the map which showed the different uses. Councilor Daniel stated that commercial zoning was originally limited to that first lot along Brook, north and south. He asked if we were setting a precedent for making it deeper off Brook or has that precedent ,. already been set? Mr. Clark replied that he did not think this would be setting a precedent because this is at the end of the run. When you talk about along Brook you are going beyond the one and two lot depth but you are doing that immediately adjacent to other limited office. There is a transition up there and you are moving into a further developing area. Councilor Daniel stated that three or four years ago when we looked at development on the west side of Brook, there were some neighbors who said that as long as we limit this to the lots that front Kell that was okay, but not to bring it any closer to their homes. Basically, limit it to the first lot on Brook. Are we changing policy? Mr. Clark replied that he did not think that policy was being changed. Twenty-five property owners were notified of this rezoning and signs were put up; five replied in favor and none were opposed. 132 Item 9e cont'd. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Daniel, Martin, and Hawkins Nays: None Item 12a Discussion of and consideration by the City Council of permitting the re-leasing of lots held by the City at Lake Arrowhead and Lake Kickapoo. Mr. Clark informed that they have for some time been looking at trying to recommend some policies to Council based on research regarding the lake lot development at Lakes Arrowhead and Kickapoo. We previously submitted a proposal that was worked out with the Lake Lot Committee on the crappie houses, docks, piers, etc., and we did not make it quite clear in the questions that were asked on how we had resolved and discussed this with the Environmental Protection Agency about the water conditions and future potentials. But it was with that research in mind that we made that recommendation. Beyond that, the question remains whether to get into a re-leasing of the lots that become available at the lakes. The concerns that staff would mention principally have to do with the following. The primary use of the lakes is for the City's water supply, secondary use is for recreation and it also has a residential environment. With the construction of residences one of the first concerns, which is a larger concern at Lake Kickapoo, is that we have had a recommendation from the Health Department. The size of lots there along with the newer regulations regarding development of leaching fields, sewer connections have been a problem. The Health Department believes that should not be allowed at all considering the size of lots. We also believe that at Lake Arrowhead with the amount of construction that there has been over the years, and with - additional construction we face a question of at what point is the City going to be asked to do construction of a complete sewer and treatment system. Furthermore, we have been working on a more permanent staff to oversee the lake lot administration, and we have clarified the leasing circumstance, and have been working on the details of cleaning up the area with the cooperation of the residents at the lakes. We have had some demolition and cleaned some things out. Along the way there has been a question that if someone wanted to take over a lot could they tear the building down themselves. In that case, we refer to a long standing policy with the City that we will not sell properties that are "red-tagged" and ready for demolition. On the other side, if you decide you want to re-lease and reuse the lots for new construction then we would recommend that detailed thought be given as to how that would be done. Detailed consideration should also be given in order that the distribution of those lots is fair and equitable in the determination of maintenance and contruction standards with looking at new leases also as a quality development issue. Councilor Shine said that his concern is Lake Arrowhead where there are viable lots. We had a recommendation from the Lake Lot Committee to re-lease lots and I do not think that Council has made a clear cut decision on whether to re-lease them or not. I will be satisfied with what Council decides. There are a lot of problems at Lake Kickapoo and there are a lot of areas that you do not want to re-lease for numerous reasons. However, Lake Arrowhead does have viable lots and if we are going to keep a recreation area viable why not re-lease those that come back to the City for a time that equals the time that averages out there. It seems like prudent and good business to re-lease those type of lots. Now when they become available, we may want to publish it and come up with some way to lease them. My point is that Lake Arrowhead has a lot of valuable lots that people could enjoy for a practical lease. I would just like to have the issue cleared up. Mayor asked Councilor Shine which lots he referred to when he spoke about re-leasing lots at Lake Arrowhead. Was he referring to lots not currently leased at all that could be possibly leased or lots that have been leased and for some reason leaseholder has chosen not to continue the lease so that the City has those back now. Councilor Shine replied that the ones that were leased at one time but are not now leased because we chose not to re-lease them at this point. It seems it would be better to re-lease them for a time frame, you set a criteria for the lease by some practical avenue of leasing lots that have been leased once before. 133 Item 12a Mr. Clark stated that it is true that Lake Arrowhead has been surveyed and that Lake Kickapoo has not so the lot development there is something else. There are about 40 lots at Lake Arrowhead that are currently not leased and 15 at Lake Kickapoo that may be desirable lots. He clarified that when some one has a lake lot lease they have the right to transfer that if they want to move or do something else. When a lease is not transferred and is vacated and comes back to the City, those are the properties we are talking about. Councilor Martin asked if all lots at Lake Arrowhead are accessible by a road. Mr. Clark replied that they were. Councilor Martin felt that before we can come to a conclusion we need to come up with some guidelines as to how we want it done and surveying the lots. There are too many unanswered questions to make a decision. Mr. Clark stated that they ` would be happy to develop policy drafts and how that might be accomplished. My understanding is that a survey of Lake Kickapoo would be quite an accomplishment. Councilor Shine commented that the Committee recommended not to survey Lake Kickapoo. We are mixing up the lakes and we need to set a policy for each lake. Mr. Clark said that when they submitted the policies dealing with piers, docks, crappie house, etc., it did look at both lakes and it did have a split for both lakes. There were some things you could do at one lake but not at the other. We would hope that in order to begin cleaning up the piers, docks, lakes that you would consider splitting up these issues. Councilor Hawkins agreed that the lakes would have to be considered separately, consider Lake Arrowhead and then Lake Kickapoo. We need to separate them and first decide if we are going to re-let lots on Lake Arrowhead, then tackle the Lake Kickapoo area later. Councilor Thompson mentioned a memo from Planning referring to leasing lots for residential purposes and lists the reasons why we should give it second thought. He mentioned those reasons. When we make a decision of whether we are going to lease or not, are we going to consider the information that they have provided or is this going to be factored in? It would seem to me that would be reasonable. Councilor Shine mentioned that Council had not had time to read that memo because it was provided only today. Councilor Hawkins commented that the figures they are using are based on the old $40 a year lease, which was a lesser amount than we had. He suggested that they put a little insight and forethought in that every five years we take a look at the cost of the lease again. We are talking about a completely different generation lease than we now have. We do not have to go with the current Lake Arrowhead lease. Mr. Clark mentioned that along with that, when it came to the refinement of the existing leases at the lakes and the question of piers and docks, we actually ended up recommending four types of leases. Councilor Hawkins stated that we are at a new threshold here where we can completely look at a different type lease and what we are going to require. We can put restrictions on it that we did not have in the past. Councilor Johnston commented that this town is growing and that Lake is an asset and an attraction. Having a lake out there that people can use and rent houses on are all a part of the enhancement of the quality of life in Wichita Falls. As we keep growing, that demand is going to increase. We need to look at these realistically and say it ought to be paying for itself out there; it won't for some time because of the older leases, but we need to be looking. What does it cost us to maintain that particular section with lots on it and what will eventually be the revenue stream. If we take that approach we may decide there are some areas that we are not going to lease but It is going to take a lot of study to come to that point. But I think it is too valuable an asset to write it off by saying we are not going to re-lease. Councilor Daniel said that you might determine that it costs X amount of dollars to offset the cost of leasing a piece of land and if nobody pays it, that answers the question. Councilor Daniel mentioned that thirty years ago the original primary use was water resource and secondary benefit was presented as recreation. However, we are in a new day and the government is putting more and more restrictions on water quality. Therefore, the emphasis on water quality is greater and on recreation less. If we make a decision to re-lease lots it has to pay for itself, it has to offset everyone of the negatives and everyone of the problems that it might cause on water quality. Councilor Johnston stated that we should approach it from both sides of the issue rather than just decide we are not going to lease lots. Councilor Daniel suggested that Council vote at the next Council meeting on the rules regarding docks, piers, crappie houses, etc. He added that re-leasing be discussed as a separate issue from this. Mayor asked for a consensus to ask staff to come back with an in- depth study on what it would take to re-lease lots at Lake Arrowhead and that it be treated 134 Item 12a cont'd. separately from those at Lake Kickapoo. Councilor Daniel suggested that it be discussed in a worksession. City Manager stated that Staff clearly is not in favor of the re-leasing but you are asking us to prepare a paper if we were in favor of re-leasing and how we would do it. Councilor Thompson added that the costs, EPA, demands for roads, etc., be included. City Manager added that it will be an objective paper from both sides of the issue. Mr. Clark asked if Council was talking about two things. One is the proposed policy on how lots would be re-leased, the ramifications, etc., and the other would be to bring back the resolution for the adoption of the rules having to do with crappie houses, piers, etc. in two weeks. Council concurred. Councilor Martin asked if the building code is enforced out there. Mrs. Newcomb replied that was true under the new leases only. She said that leases at both lakes are not recreational leases but are permanent residences. I agree that we do need to develop some recreation for the citizens but I do not know that more private leases for permanent homes is the answer. Councilor Daniel commented that that was a good point; it could take another form like city parks or garden leases, etc. Mrs. Newcomb said that what she is saying is that we have come a long way in three years but we need a couple of more years to clean this up and get to a point where we can get to re-leasing. But as you read the memos provided to you there is another issue at Lake Arrowhead on encroachment which is a big issue. Councilor Hawkins stated that was the reason why he mentioned that we need to take new steps and take new strides. He suggested that garden leases are in place and he would like to see that those who have a garden lease to get them to survey their property. Mrs. Newcomb said that there was no starting point. Mr. Bonnett informed that there was no base line, there are state routes and you would have to run them in and there is a potential to do this; however, this would get very expensive. Item 12b Councilor Shine reported that he and Councilor Johnston had toured the Library and the job is done. He expressed concern with articles in the paper and on the news which insinuated that it had been held up, which it was not. There were some changes that had to be corrected, but as of today it is complete. The architects and contractors did an excellent job. Mayor expressed appreciation to Councilors Shine, Johnston, and Daniel for their work on the Library Committee. The ribbon cutting ceremony will be June 28. Councilor Daniel commented that it was a fortuitous set of events that brought us to this point that fell into place. I think we are very fortunate, we got a good deal and the contractor did a great job. Councilor Daniel reminded that the American Chapter of the Red Cross is putting on the Taste of the Town tonight at MPEC. The proceeds go to benefit the American Red Cross. Councilor Thompson commended the Housing Department for selling another building downtown which will allow for more in-town housing soon. He mentioned an article in Sunday's paper regarding housing and code enforcement, and he asked that Council hold a worksession on in-fill housing and code enforcement. He believes that the code enforcement procedures are due to the polices established by the Council. He would like for Council to look at that because in-fill housing will be very viable. Lastly, he asked about the traffic survey on 101h Street. Mr. Robert Parker informed that the survey has been done and he will provide a recommendation very soon. Councilor Johnston asked that the water retention areas for which the City is responsible be prioritized and an estimated cost attached. He suggested that when the opportunity presented itself that these be addressed, possibly one a year. Mayor expressed appreciation to Dr. Howard Ferrell for his effort in getting the Dallas Cowboys here. It is a great opportunity for not only Midwestern State University but for the City of Wichita Falls and probably this part of North Texas and Southern Oklahoma. This is an opportunity to show that our community is a type of community that's a foundation in the heart of America. With a great deal of cooperation we can showcase Midwestern, Wichita Falls and our quality and style of life, which is why we have elected to live here. We can join together to show everyone that we are indeed the city that faith built. Mayor asked that Council discuss, some time soon, what role we might feel the City needs to play in historical preservation. 135 Item 12c Mr. Robert Parker presented a report on the old siren system. He has had several requests, from Chillicothe and Burkburnett, to donate sirens to their cities, which is an option. Other options are to take sealed bids and sell them. Commercial value is very small. We have not used them or blown them since last year and have no intent to. If donated, we would take down anything above five feet as well as the poles. City Manager informed that we are going to research further the option of another governmental unit requesting them. Burkburnett has requested four and they will take a couple more for parts; Chillicothe wants one and would be interested in taking two. It is a good opportunity to be a good neighbor and make these available to other cities, if it is legal to do this. This is not on the agenda but it is a look into it and if you find a good deal, we can make it official at the next Council meeting. Councilor Hawkins suggested using the next TML meeting to make them available. Councilor Johnston suggested offering them to the cities in Wichita County first. Council concurred that Staff proceed. Mr. Robert Parker informed that four new sirens are due to arrive at our location this week and we will install them. City Manager informed that hopefully in two weeks they will have some figures in way of an appropriation from the hotel motel use fee in regards to the Dallas Cowboy Project. Mrs. Barbara Clements reported that the newly annexed area survey deadline was March 1. With 92% not responding, we really do not have much guidance in the area as far as the problems which might need to be addressed out there. Report was presented to the Health Board, and they agreed to meet with the Council or the public if necessary. Councilor Daniel suggested a worksession task force meeting with the Health Department and Health Board to possibly come up with recommendations to the Council for waivers of grandfathering. Mrs. Clements said that they would be willing to do that , and added that the same people who spoke at the public hearings tended to be the same who responded to the survey. We could possibly get more input. Mr. Ruben Warren concurred with Mrs. Clements and added that they were somewhat split on what they wanted done. As a general theme what they wanted was to continue to do what they had already started. Some were satisfied with the issues brought to Council. Councilor Martin asked if the 200 foot setback had posed a major problem. Mrs. Clements replied that most who wanted change were in that area. Mr. Warren stated that it is going to be difficult to keep their animals at proper distances from other residents, given the way the lots are laid out. It is going to be a struggle for some of them to meet the requirements. Mr. Daniel said that the primary concern has to be for sometime down the road, what kind of environment are we fostering for the future. For the people who were brought in the annexed areas they were already there, by defacto they have accepted the situation. Personally, I feel we ought to accommodate those situations to a right extent and make provisions for the future. That would be my hope for this worksession that you might have. Mrs. Clements stated that the complaints were not in the area of setbacks, they were in the animals running at large and dead animals. Councilor Hawkins mentioned the 200 foot setback and stated that the concerns he has heard are that if they do not move their fence or get a waiver they will be ticketed. Grandfathering of that fence line will not alleviate the responsibility of the people to keep it clean and it could still be a health issue. That is something that will need to be looked at on an individual basis. Mrs. Clements commented that if you were to do that, I think a number of residents within previously existing city limits of Wichita Falls may come forward with the same type request knowing that they would have a similar situation. Councilor Shine asked if the moratorium on time was going to be a problem. Also, is Planning and Zoning working in the same guidelines. If we have a workshop we need to tackle both issues at the same time. Mr. Clark replied that he felt they are separate issues. Councilor Shine asked if an area was made commercial, for instance horse stables, would the health requirements change? Mrs. Clements replied that there were some setbacks that apply to specific commercial operations. She asked Council direction on what type of 136 Item 12c cont'd. meeting you want arranged. It was suggested that the Health Department, Health Board, Planning Department Staff and affected persons meet and prepare a proposal to be presented to Council. Councilor Daniel suggested publishing proposed rules to encourage persons in the annexed area and others to participate in this worksession. City Manager passed out a report and updates on City projects. This will be on the next Council agenda for discussion. The City Council adjourned at 3:10 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of I 1998. KA HRYN A. Y AGER/ MAYOR f ATTEST: fi Lydia Torres City Clerk