Loading...
Min 03/27/1985 681 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building March 27, 1985 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. Gary D. Cook Mayor Thomas E. Swift Charles Thomas Charles Harper Councilmen Craig A. Wilson Bill Palmer James A. Welburn James Berzina City Manager H. P. Hodge, Jr. City Attorney Wilma J. Thomas City Clerk Fred L. Werner Chief Accounting Officer The invocation was given by Philip W. McLarty, First United Methodist Church. Item 3 Moved by Councilman Thomas that minutes of the two meetings held on March 5, 1985 be approved. Motion seconded by Councilman Welburn, and carried unanimously. Item 5a Mr. K. T. Medlinger requested an appearance for waiver of the residency period required in order to obtain taxicab chauffeur' s permit. Mr. Medlinger was not present. Moved by Councilman Thomas that this matter be tabled. Motion seconded by Councilman Wilson, and carried unanimously. Mr. Medlinger was in the audience near the end of the meeting. Moved by Councilman Thomas that the matter be brought off the table. Motion seconded by Councilman Welburn, and carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 29-85 ORDINANCE GRANTING WAIVER OF SECTION 31-41 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF A TAXI CHAUFFER'S LICENSE TO K. T. MEDLINGER. Moved by Councilman Wilson that Ordinance No. 29-85 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilman Thomas. Mr. Medlinger stated that he has lived in Wichita County about five months. He cannot comply with the six-months continuous residence requirement in the ordinance. The motion for passage of the ordinance was carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Councilmen Swift, Thomas, Harper, Wilson, Palmer, and Welburn Nays: None 682 Item 5b Discussion was held on a proposed ordinance waiving ordinances concerning municipal enforcement of deed restrictions on Lots 8 and 9, Block 12, Southland Addition, Wichita Falls, Texas (1822 Lucille Street) . A motion was made by Councilman Thomas for discussion, that the ordinance be passed. The motion was seconded by Councilman Palmer. Tom Huckaby and Mrs. Carolyn Penland appeared concerning an application for occupancy for operation of an adult day care center. Mr. Huckaby stated that this is governed by restrictive covenants, but the city attorney has refused to approve it. He stated that it is not a proper use of the occupancy permit, nor is it a proper exercise of the authority given to the city attorney. The city attorney is given authority to bring suit. The authority for occupancy is something given to the fire marshal to make sure it is safe. There is nothing in the code regarding occupancy permits that would require any action of the city attorney to approve occupancy permits. The only legislative authority the city attorney has is to enforce restrictive covenants. The city attorney' s office does not enforce the restrictive covenants as written, but enforces them as they want to. They may or may not enforce a covenant, depending on how they feel about the particular area. They are enforcing re- strictive covenants when they violate the proposed zoning, or when they have citizen complaints. They are not enforcing restrictive covenants on Brook Street because they do not want to. Mayor Cook explained that the Council is being requested to waive the enforcement of deed restrictions by the city. What we need to address this morning is the ordinance concerning municipal enforcement of deed restrictions. Mrs. Penland stated that they are here today requesting a temporary waiver. They are asking only for time to locate another building, and prepare it for occupancy. She stated that she has asked to meet with this group in the community, but no one has ever got back to her. They will take down their sign, if that is what is required. Their lease expires on January 20, 1986, and they will be out on or before that day. She stated that she is aware of some of the complaints. The business was opened February 18, 1985, but they do not have anyone there at present. They have people waiting to get in. There is no full time occupancy at night. Councilman Thomas was concerned that it would grandfather their business in that location for zoning. Mayor Cook noted that if zoning should be enacted during the time this business is there, it would grandfather the business. Roger McKinney stated that if zoning were adopted, it would become a non-conform- ing use, and it would go with the land, and not with the lessees of the land. It would grandfather this land. Councilman Harper stated that her friends have contacted him, and he suggested that they go into the neighborhood, and have those people come here to tell us that they do not object to it. He has not had any information that they do not object; in fact, to the contrary. Councilman Thomas asked if we could draw up an agreement with the property owners and Mrs. Penland to cover this? Mrs. Penland was told that if she would put up $5,000.00 as a guarantee, they could work with her. Gary Hopkins appeared as a representative of the Southland Association. He stated that the issue was what could she do? He made those suggestions several weeks ago. The confidence of the neighborhood is needed. This is too late. In his estimation she is asking for a waiver. This is the only protection they have for their neighborhood. Mayor Cook expressed the concern of the council in granting this waiver, and the possibiltiy of subsequent passage of the zoning ordinance, which would continue this property as commercial use. He understood from Mr. Litteken that there was the possibility of preparation of some binding document to back up this agreement. The agreement has not been drafted, and the Council is concerned that this property would be open for continued commercial use after zoning is in effect. Councilman Thomas asked if there is a garage located on the back of this property, and Mr. McKinney stated that there is. Mr. Huckaby stated that they are on separate lots. Mr. Hopkins stated that there is no protection for future use. He feels that Mrs. Penland is asking the neighborhood to bear too much. She is stuck on the ten months. There are people who live on the block with 43 percent return on the waiver request. The Planning Board voted not to recommend it. Mr. Huckaby stated that these people have invested thousands of 683 Item 5b, cont'd. dollars in renovating this place to make it usable, and meet state specifications. They are willing to walk away from that in 10 months. They ceased operations when requested by the City. They are not actively soliciting patrons. Deed restrictions cannot be enforced in court. All they want is an occupancy permit. There is already a non-conforming use. Mrs. Penland stated that the property is on the market for sale. City Attorney H. P. Hodge stated that we had two ordinances after the tornado. The first one authorized the City Attorney's office to join in or enforce deed restrictions to maintain the character of the neighborhood. This ordinance stated that if the deed restrictions had been waived, and were not enforceable, then the city attorney should not go to court. Shortly after that we had a situation where someone could go to the Building Inspection Department and take out a permit for a commercial building in a residential area. The second ordinance was passed so that anytime a person sought a permit to build a building for commercial uses in a residential area, the permit would not be granted. Councilman Palmer asked if after the ordinance is passed, and someone wanted a permit for 10 months, does anybody have the authority to grant this request? City Attorney H. P. Hodge stated that it would seem to him that a non-conforming use right could be waived by the property owner. Anything that happens, the owner of the property would have to be involved. Councilman Palmer asked if the zoning ordinance were already passed, would that keep it from being grandfathered? Mr. McKinney stated that he would not issue a permit. Councilman Swift noted that they could appeal it to the Zoning Commission. Councilman Palmer asked Mr. Hopkins about the garage? Mr. Hopkins stated that the city attorney is trying to work with him to keep it from operating. Mr. Hopkins stated that they attempt to enforce deed restrictions. They do not want one more business. They are putting the responsibility on Mrs. Penland to bear the brunt of the mistake in judgement. Councilman Thomas asked if they had legal binding methods to not grandfather this property, would he object? Mr. Hopkins stated that she should go to the 47 property owners involved. Moved by Councilman Harper that this matter be tabled until these two contestants settle their differences. Councilman Wilson stated that the City is being asked to waive municipal enforcement of deed restrictions. He felt it was not reasonable to ask Mrs. Penland to talk to 47 people. Councilman Harper explained that the Council is not trying to enforce a contract with anyone else, but to protect the interest of the city. Mayor Cook stated that this doesn't work. We have the city involved in private matters, and we need to move into the 20th century to address these issues. Councilman Thomas asked if we could have an agreement with the neighborhood and the city? Mayor Cook stated that the only decision the Council can make today is to waive existing ordinances, and the residents can go to court. If we don't waive the ordinance, the occupancy permit will not be issued, and the city attorney would be forced to join in. Ne finds it difficult to believe that restrictions could be upheld in court. Motion to table was seconded by Councilman Thomas, and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Councilmen Swift, Thomas, Harper, Palmer, and and Welburn Nays: Councilman Wilson Item 6a RESOLUTION NO. 38-85 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CONTRACT TO PERFORM UTILITY RATE STUDY OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS. Moved by Councilman Thomas that Resolution No. 38-85 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilman Palmer, and carried by the following vote. 684 Item 6a, cont'd. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Councilmen Swift, Thomas, Harper, Wilson, Palmer, and Welburn Nays: None Item 6b RESOLUTION NO. 39-85 RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 26-85 AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE WICHITA COUNTY SOCCER REFEREE ASSOCIATION FOR THE OBTAINING OF SOCCER OFFICIATING SERVICES. Moved by Councilman Palmer that Resolution No. 39-85 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilman Wilson. Councilman Thomas asked about the difference in expenses for the men' s and women' s leagues? Mr. Hursh stated that it was the number of officials. The motion was carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Councilmen Swift, Thomas, Harper, Wilson, Palmer, and Welburn Nays: None Item 7a Bids were considered for Weeks Park golf course maintenance equipment. It was recommended that the bid be awarded to Watson Distributing Company in the amount of $6,239. Moved by Councilman Harper that the bid be awarded, as recommended. Motion seconded by Councilman Palmer. Councilman Thomas asked about the bid from Colonial ? Mr. Hursh explained the difference. He also stated that no one handles the equipment locally. It is specialized equipment for golf courses. He stated that if they go out of the district they get a courtesy bid, but it is not a legitimate one. The motion was carried unanimously. Item 8a Discussion was held on a request for a tax refund to United Savings of Texas, in the amount of $1,530.15. Moved by Councilman Thomas, for the discussion, that the refund be granted. Motion seconded by Councilman Welburn. It was explained that this is for city and school . The City is only refunding $1,530.00. Cindy Procknow, Tax Collector, stated that there are delin- quencies. Councilman Swift stated that he would rather keep this amount for one year, and go after him for the other deliquencies. Councilman Harper asked if we could hold it? City Attorney H. P. Hodge stated that the Council does not have to approve it. Miss Procknow stated that this is commercial property. Councilman Palmer felt that this is money we do not have. The motion was carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Cook, Councilmen Wilson, Palmer, and Welburn Nays: Councilmen Swift, Thomas, and Harper 685 Item 4a The public hearing was opened on the proposed zoning ordinance. Mayor Cook stated that the Council will first address the requests which they had received. He further stated that it would not be productive to hear from 99 people, all saying the same thing, but they want to hear from those interested. Gary Hopkins appeared for the Southland, Curlee, and Lee Wilson, and Brook Avenue addition, from llth to Speedway. He requested that this area be shown as Single Family 2 on Brook Street, and to show the present businesses as non-conforming use. He stated that a zoning ordinance must first and foremost protect the neighborhood. He noted the importance of protecting Brook Avenue because of its historic and architectural structures. They asked for, and received support from the Landmark Commission, for consider- ation of the zoning ordinance to not allow commercial usage two lots deep. The criteria needs to be strict to set up a business in a residential area. Mary Jim Graham, 1710 Huff, stated that there is parking on Huff Street. They have a neighborhood watch program, and they have attempted to improve and maintain their property. Other people are doing the same thing. She stated that Mrs. Hamilton tried to keep the property from being commercial , and she attempted to help her. They want an area convenient to downtown, but they don't want downtown in it. Sally Hedgel , 1607 Lucille, stated that to allow business in the neigh- borhood would lead to the demise of the neighborhood. She stated that they are being victimized in their neighborhood by those who use some of the pro- perty for cheap storage. Any money made in the areas will be at the expense of those who live there. They do not want commercial in their area. She requested that they be allowed to stay as a residential neighborhood. Sid Litteken, 1804 Pearl , appeared for the Southland, Curlee, and Lee Wilson additions. He stated that these people have come to them with aggres- sive homeowners ' ideas. The growth of young people is evident in these neighborhoods. He mentioned several things the community has done to maintain the residential character of their neighborhoods. He stated that they are afraid of another Kemp Street. They have several programs in mind to protect the neighborhood. They don' t want any more businesses on Brook Street. Councilman Thomas stated that there is a business on the second lot of Collins Street that has been there for 40 years. He asked Mr. Litteken if they are wanting people to ask for waivers, and he stated they are. Council- man Thomas questioned the waivers being granted. Councilman Wilson stated that he has a problem in taking this on an item by item basis, and not let it get into the political arena, so that everyone is playing by the same rules. He further stated that he believes spot zoning is not healthy. We need to avoid that kind of situation. He stated that the purpose of the limited commercial district is to try to create a buffer. There is a place for this in our city. Gary Hopkins stated that they would prefer to let the free market take its course. They feel it is not inevitable that it will go commercial . It may steer them away from this area. They don't want the zoning ordinance to give them carte blanche. Councilman Wilson noted that he heard them say slow growth control . This is spot zoning. They want single family 2. Mr. Litteken stated that a better use of the land has been established by the residents as single family. Mayor Cook noted that the main limited commercial use is for offices. Most of these in the area are offices. Real estate and dental/medical purposes has not generated a lot of traffic. We are not talking about retail use. Councilman harper asked about a procedural matter, asking if the Council can act on these things as they come up? Mayor Cook did not think they could act on them from an official standpoint. Councilman Harper stated that he did not want to get into another hearing on it. Mr. McKinney stated that they held public hearings on the draft. After the hearing is closed they can instruct the staff to make any desired changes in the document before it is brought back for adoption. Andy Lee and Henry Dvorken appeared. Mr. Dvorken stated that he is one of the commercial intruders on Brook Street. As a realtor, he is particularly sensitive to residential neighborhoods remaining that way. He stated that the original developers planned Brook Street widened, no additional right- of-way had to be purchased because it was already there. The thing to do is to create a buffer between the neighborhood and Brook Street. This ordinance will accomplish what they want it to do. The Planning Board spent many 686 Item 4a, cont'd. hours on Brook Street. This far, and no further, would seem to him to be an equitable compromise with the neighborhood. A majority of these buildings are offices. The logical thing to do would be to compromise with a two lot deep buffer zone, recognizing that Brook Street is a four-lane street. Council- man Harper asked if Southwest Parkway is a street like Brook, as far as traffic is concerned? Mr. Dvorken agreed that it is, stating that residential use continues to decline. Councilman Harper disagreed with that statement. He noted that he lives on Southwest Parkway because he wants to, but if his neigh- bors thought his lot was going commercial they would not be pleased at all . Councilman Harper asked Mr. Dvorken how single family 2 would affect his property? Mr. Dvorken stated that it would prevent any further use of it. He stated that the configuration of his building is residential . Councilman Harper submitted that there would not be any difference in his use. Mr. Dvorken stated that he has leased out the property as residential . He is in the process of replatting these lots into one. Mayor Cook noted that one lot was grandfathered as commercial , and the other would be single family 2. Councilman Harper commented that he already has parking on it. There are no resident owners living on the second lot because they wanted to get away from the traffic. Mr. Dvorken stated that no one with any aspirations would want to live on an arterial street. Councilman Harper thanked Mr. Dvorken, stating that he had as many aspirations as anyone else. Andy Lee, 2103 Wenonah, stated that the only way these historical struc- tures were revitalized is because they are now commercial . He mentioned Kell House, and others. In going back to the information presented to the Planning Board, the properties mentioned in Ellen Beasley's report have no reference to second or third lot development. Owner occupied properties west of Brook are 46-48 percent. East of Brook, owner occupied properties are about 30-45 percent. The whole city is about 55 percent owner occupied. Councilman Harper stated that was the point he wanted to make. They are not that much different from the rest of the City. As far as a buffer area, Mr. Lee is not opposed. He stated that Brook Street is a major corridor to the medical district. He stated that south of Kell is sensitive. He did not agree with the commercial development in that area. He further stated that he is in favor of the zoning ordinance. The City Attorney stated that if they want to take action to make a change in the draft ordinance today, it will be permissible. Ralph Perkins appeared as Chairman of the Planning Board, stating that the staff made a land use survey to determine current uses of the property. Along Brook Street, almost every lot has some kind of commercial on it, as well as the second lot in many cases. He mentioned Carl Davis and the Texcolor lab are already two lots deep. Mr. Dvorken' s property is commercial , but with a residential use. They recommended two lots deep, as a buffer. The zoning ordinance is primarily for the purpose of the residences in the city; however, they also had to consider commercial . The Southland Association is an example of what citizens in Wichita Falls can do. Irene Cheatham, Ardath and Brook, stated that they purchased the second lot in case they needed it for a business. This lot was used for business for 25 years. She stated that large trucks across the street caused the bricks in the houses to crack. She did not feel it would be advisable to make the whole street residential because the bricks keep falling off. You cannot sell it for residences. Councilman Harper asked about making it all commercial ? She would not suggest that the whole street be made commercial . Kathy Barbour, 1670 Victory, stated that they live in the Lee Wilson Addition. They like the neighborhood. The deed restrictions say nothing about corner lots being intended for commercial use. The area south of Kell was not ever intended for commercial use. They have finally got the neighborhood to fix up their houses. They have spent twice as much fixing it up as they paid for it. Mrs. Barbour stated that Mrs. Cheatham' s business was one of the biggest eyesores south of Kell . She supports both sides of Brook as being zoned for residential use. Mayor Cook noted that there are not many existing businesses on the East side Kell . Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the deed restrictions in the Lee Wilson Subdivision have expired. This is the reason they need zoning so desperately. Mrs. J. B. Hathorn, Jr. , 1660 Victory, stated that she is opposed to any more commercial businesses on the corners of Brook Street. They are concerned about the neighborhood, and the protection of children. Councilman Thomas asked if she if familiar with the definition of limited commercial ? She stated that she is, but feels it would not be beneficial to get more businesses. 687 Item 4a, cont'd. Councilman Harper requested the staff and Planning Board to come back and tell the Council what it would be if we zoned those areas along Brook Street as limited commercial , and the rest of it as single family 2, and 4 what would happen if they used Mr. Hopkins proposal ? Councilman Thomas wondered if the owners would let the property deteri- orate on Brook Street, and City red-tag it? What happens to the corner then? He does not feel they can sell the corner lots on Brook for residential . He would hate to jeopardize a neighborhood by getting deterioration at their door. Councilman Harper and Mayor Cook agreed that people do not mind living on a corner lot on a highly traveled street. He again stated that he has as high aspirations as anyone else. Gerald Leopold, 2507 Amherst, feels that now is the time to deal with the problems. This is the time to stop commercial encroachment of commercial property in Sykes Addition. There is no commercial development on the South side of Southwest Parkway between Sike and Holliday Creek. He sug- gested that this property East of Sikes Addition to Holliday Creek be labeled single family 1 or 2. Councilman Harper stated that in 1955 he worked with the firm that did the Sikes Senter development. Mr. Ginnings ' house was the only house that has been there until just recently. Land was given to the City for a park. No title was transferred. A new owner took over. Several years ago they heard a request to build a park in Sikes Estates. The area is in a flood plain. There is a proposal to extend Taft Boulevard across to Lake Park Drive. This is potentially a very expensive piece of property to be dealing with. At one time it was platted as residential property when the Leopald and Harper families purchased their properties. Mr. McKinney stated that they have had a recent plat that indicates it be zoned as commercial . J. I . Ginnings, 5201 Lake Park Drive, supported the proposal of Mr. Leopold. At any given time you will have residential properties bordering on vacant land. This is nothing unusual . There are two sides to the question posed by a developer, who asked why would anyone purchase an expen- sive home next to vacant land; or why would anyone purchase undeveloped land next to expensive homes, and expect to do just anything he wanted to do with it? Mr. Ginnings stated that whatever is done with the Seabury property should also be done with a strip of land which touches his property. He is satisfied to leave his single family, but he has no more basis to grant limited commercial adjacent to residences than his. He stated that he does not want general commercial next to his property. He prefers the single family 2 designation. He stated that traffic has picked up on Lake Park Drive. Ralph Perkins stated that the original designation was arrived at as to what is presently existing. The latest plat they had indicated an office cul de sac. They zoned it limited commercial . The developer came back and stated that he had changed his mind, and wanted it general commercial . The first ten or fifteen lots indicated they did not want it to be general commercial , but single family 1 or 2. They went back to the limited commercial to buffer between general commercial and single family. Mr. McKinney stated that it would not qualify as a non-conforming use because it is vacant property. Mr. Perkins stated that usage does not have to be shown on the plat. Mrs. G. C. Bennett, 2505 Amherst, stated that Sikes is a desirable place to live, and requested that single family designation be retained there. Ken Hanes appeared regarding modular homes in the Faith Village area. He requested that the Council include manufactured housing in the ordinance so they can compete. He would like them to address the aestetics of manu- factured housing. He stated that he talked with Mr. McKinney and Mr. Mukerjee, who stated that it is the aesthetics they objected to. He stated that they can address the aesthetics. All they are asking is that they be treated no different than any other builder in Wichita Falls; that they be allowed to place any home in any neighborhood, if it meets the aesthetic value of the neighborhood. Councilman Harper asked who sets the neighborhood standards? Mayor Cook read from legislation be proposed. Mr. Perkins stated that they had to define what is the difference between mobile and manufactured homes? Also, if deed restrictions were 688 Item 4a, cont'd. not in effect, who does determine the standards which should be used? They were not sure how they were going to protect the neighborhoods unless they maintained the mobile home subdivisions as they now exist. Mr. McKinney stated that the problem he has is the difference between mobile home and modular home. Councilman Thomas stated that most of the houses in the $40,000 to $50,000 subdivisions are modular homes because most of them are built somewhere else, and hauled in. Councilman Wilson asked Mr. Hanes who he would be satisfied with making the determination of whether it is aesthetically pleasing? Mr. Hanes stated that he would be satisfied with a staff member making that determination. Bob Fitzner stated that the City will lose a large tax base if manufactured housing is not allowed in the city. Mr. Hanes noted that he detects a note of fear in these homes. The City has the right to tell them what they can put in the city. Mr. McKinney stated that TML is not supporting the senate bill that Mr. Hanes referred to, and that he also feels very uncomfortable that a staff member is making that determination. You would have to look at every home in the subdivision. Councilman Thomas asked what we are doing now on homes that are being built? Mr. McKinney stated that they go according to the Code. Councilman Thomas stated that manufactured homes are produced to get the price down. Councilman Swift feels they should have a fair chance, as long as they comply with the ordinances. Mr. McKinney stated that there are two single family additions in this ordinance. Cal Aaron, 2406 Brentwood, stated that the mobile home dealers, as a group, do not want to do anything that would retard the growth of Wichita Falls. The Zoning ordinance can be very restrictive in a very negative way if we are not careful . Availability of affordable housing is a very important consideration when industry is trying to select a home. They want to be treated equally. He stated that California is five years ahead of us in housing. He showed pictures of a subdivision of manufactured housing. He stated that they are not opposed to a zoning ordinance, but it can be very critical to them as far as their future is concerned. It has already started in office complexes and apart- ments, as well as single family units. Councilman Harper asked Mr. Aaron if he feels the zoning ordinance is too restrictive to keep people from moving into the city? Mr. Aaron stated that he feels it does, as far as housing is concerned. He stated that manufac- tured housing can supply the need for housing much faster than anyone else. Mr. Aaron stated that he is mainly interested in what they could do for people. Richard Zietcroff, 5400 Burk Road, stated that they have seven acres across from the base, and this area has been slow to develop. Under this proposed ordinance, general commercial would preclude any type of modular housing or apartments. Mr. McKinney stated that they would not be allowed in a general commercial area. Mr. Zietcroff feels that small efficiency apartments would be the best usage of this property. We need to broaden the definition. The property is located at Missile Drive and Burk Road. Councilman Wilson asked where it is in the ordinance that you could not build a modular apartment complex in a general commercial area? Mr. McKinney stated that they could do this. It is single family usages which are not allowed. Councilman Harper requested that the staff get ordinances from other cities which allow manufactured housing. Jeanie Thompson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that whatever we decide now will have to be amended, if the bill passes. Mr. Hanes stated that manufacturers do not want this bill , so it will not pass. A lot of them don' t want to meet the standards. The meeting recessed at 12:50 P.M. , and resumed at 1:30 P.M. Joe Mike Pistocco requested that a boundary be changed between 7th and 5th, and Austin East to the alley. He stated that the way it is now, he could not build a sheet metal building. He would like this area to be placed in general commercial . He also requested that shopping malls in the central busi- ness district over 15,000 feet be allowed, but not conditional . If it were necessary to put enough land together for a shopping mall , with secrecy, it would be beneficial if there were no conditions involved. Mr. Perkins stated that a shopping mall should have some close scrutiny before it goes in. Anything over 15,000 square feet becomes conditional use. Councilman Wilson stated that he believes there are merits in what he is saying, not only here, 689 Item 4a, cont'd. but in other places in the city. Councilman Harper recommended that it be changed to 100,000 square feet anywhere in town. Ed Barrett, 800 Fillmore, appeared regarding 9th and Fillmore, stating that this is presently general commercial use. He requested that it be re-zoned to limited commercial on two lots in question. The Council agreed to his request. Jim Goines, 1011 3rd Street, did not think this ordinance should be adopt- ed without a vote of the people. Councilman Wilson stated that some .other people have said the same thing. There are no two ordinances which are alike. This one is different, and still needs to be refined. With everyone involved, this has been a very open format to try to make it responsive to the needs of the community. We have had numerous hearings, and have sought input from all members of the community. It will be imperfect, but they want to hear what he doesn't like about it, and what will be unfair to him. Mr. Goins stated that he is not sure that there are any things in it which are unfair to him. Councilman Thomas stated that the Council has to make the decision. They asked for a confidence vote of the people before, and the Council chose not to adopt it. Mr. Goins stated that he lived in the river development area. Councilman Wilson stated that he would like for Mr. Goins to look at the ordinance, and see if there are any things in it which would adversely affect his property, and let him know. Mayor Cook explained that from the beginning it has been stated that the Council would adopt the ordinance; that there would not be a vote on it. Many hearings have been held, and much work has gone into it. Councilman Palmer stated that most of what we heard has already been through board hearings. Mr. Perkins stated that they could put some information together for the Council . Mayor Cook recommended that at the meeting on April 2, we take the input and information to the Planning Board; that we make recommendations and instruct the staff to draft the final report for the Council 's consideration. Councilman Thomas wanted grandfathered businesses to be grandfathered to another like use category business without further review. He also mentioned that no drive through food service or repair service of any kind should be allowed in limited commercial . The public hearing was closed. The next one will be held on April 2. Item 8b Councilman Thomas stated that he had a request from the Rolling Meadows people regarding payment of their water bill , and deposit on the water meter. Councilman Wilson asked how many alarms we have received? We may need to consider fining them people on too many calls, but perhaps forgetting the registration. Mayor Cook commented that to repeal the ordinance without having spent any time under it, may be premature, and would be almost as bad as the two o'clock closings. Councilman Thomas stated that once we get all of them in, there is no way to keep up with who has the alarms. How will we know who is registered? Chief Harrelson stated that it will not increase personnel . Councilman Wilson stated that his comment was not to repeal , but fine those people who exceed so many alarms. Councilman Thomas requested that he, Councilmen Wilson and Welburn, and the City Manager meet with the Chief. Councilman Harper read a letter from the Clean Community Commission regarding the parking of cars in front yards. 690 The City Council adjourned at 3:05 P.M. PASSED AND APPROVED this Ojf,�j day of 1985. z0zI��00;�Z* ry Co Mayor ATTEST: Wilma J. Thomas, CMC, City Clerk