Loading...
Min 01/05/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 5, 2016 Page 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building January 5, 2016 Item 1 - Call to Order The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas met in regular session on the above date in the Council Chambers of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 8:30 o’clock a.m., with the following members present. Glenn Barham - Mayor DeAndra Chenault - Councilors Tim Ingle - Brian Hooker - Michael Smith - Stephen Santellana - Absent Tom Quintero - Absent Darron Leiker - City Manager Kinley Hegglund - City Attorney Tracy Norr - City Clerk - - - - - - - - Mayor Barham called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. - - - - - - - - Item 2a - Invocation Vicar Jeremiah Heydt, Trinity Lutheran Church, gave the invocation. - - - - - - - - Item 2b - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Barham led in the Pledge of Allegiance. - - - - - - - - Item 3a – Presentation – Lake Wichita Revitalization Committee, Steve Garner and Tom Lang 8:34:12 AM Steve Garner, chairman of the Lake Wichita Revitalization Committee, presented a check in the amount of $158,000 to the city council. He introduced those who are working with the committee in its fundraising efforts and noted the foundations who have contributed to this. - - - - - - - - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 5, 2016 Page 2 Item 3b - Employee of the Month – John Cook Police Department 8:37:59 AM Chief Manuel Borrego recognized John Cook, Police Department, as the Employee of the Month. Mayor Barham presented a plaque, a letter of appreciation, resta urant tickets, and a check to Mr. Cook and thanked him for his service. - - - - - - - - Item 4 - Comments from the Public to Members of the City Council Concerning Items That Are Not on the City Council Agenda. 8:41:36 AM There were no citizen comments given. - - - - - - - Item 5 – 7a - Consent Items 8:41:50 AM City Manager Darron Leiker gave a briefing on the item listed under the Consent Agenda. Mo ved by Councilor Smith that the consent items be approved. Motion seconded by Councilor Chenault and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Barham, Councilors Chenault, Ingle, Smith, and Hooker. Nays: None Item 5 - Approval of Minutes of the December 15, 2015 Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City Council Item 6a – Resolution #01-2016 RESOLUTION NO. 01-2016 Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a John Deere 624K Front End Loader for the Transfer Station through the Buyboard Cooperative Purchasing Program from Yellowhouse Machinery Company in the Amount of $208,700.00 Item 6b – Resolution #02-2016 RESOLUTION NO. 02 -2016 Resolution Awarding Bid and Contract For The 2016 Crack Seal Project To American Pavement Solutions In The Amount Of $99,085.00 (CWF16 -100-12) Item 7 –Receive Minutes Minutes of the following boards and commissions were received: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 5, 2016 Page 3 (a) Planning & Zoning, November 11, 2015 - - - - - - - - Item 8 – Public Hearing Regarding an Amendment to Ordinance #24-92 Rezoning 134.73 Acres of the Canyon Trails Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow Zero Lot Line Residential Development on Tract B and Removing “Congregate Living Center” and the Development Guidelines for “Professional Office Park.” Mayor Barham opened a public hearing at 8:43:19 AM. Loren Shapiro explained the proposed changes to the master plan and the changes that have been made to the application since it was first submitted. Brian Hasse, 2100 Canyon Ridge Drive, spoke in opposition to the item. He said that no one seemed excited about the storage facility, but the issue is the planned intent of the PUD which was adopted 20 years ago. There is no homeowner’s group, no plans for using the open space, not all the housing areas have been developed, no secondary access to the PUD, and no commercial development at the entrance. The PUD is not complete and should not be discarded. He said there is not an overwhelming need to change the PUD and the homeowner s should be able to see the PUD develop as it was planned. The new proposal is not complete enough and will detract from the nature of the community and devalue the property. Michael Rose, 2110 Canyon Ridge Drive, said he and his wife do not support zer o lot line development due to safety issues and overall property values. He also does not support the commercial development. He believes what the developer is saying is not accurate. The promises are not in writing nor enforceable. The property owners offered to purchase the property but were denied. The notice sent by the city was hard to understand and was sent on a Saturday and due to be returned, notarized, by Tuesday. The support of the planning staff should be reconsidered. The street entrance s are on blind curves at steep areas and create a safety issue. Mr. Rose discussed the size and number of zero lot line homes that would be allowed, causing additional traffic. He said the development site plan is only a proposal. The PUD should be preserved. The current entrance is not designed for additional residential development. Roma Prassel, #4 Rockcliff Circle, said her main concern has been with the process. She said the notice was confusing and the time to submit it was short. The residents have not had sufficient notification, not enough time to evaluate the proposal. She asked that the item be tabled for 45 days. Trevor Edwards, 5 Canyon Crest Court, said the residents were invited to a private meeting by the developer when it was re vealed that a member of the city staff appeared from the crowd and tried to organize a vote to determine the resistance to the storage facility. The presence of the staff was nefarious and should not have been allowed. The residents felt the actions and venue were inappropriate for his appearance. He said this appears to be something that is trying to be rammed through. He would like the original PUD to remain in place. He said he would also like the original developer to develop the trails. Jim Dockery said the meeting was held prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and staff felt an obligation to attend to see the response of the residents. Mr. Guess, who CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 5, 2016 Page 4 attended the meeting, was there to help clarify some of the zoning questions that might arise at the meeting. Susan Tate, 2112 Canyon Ridge Drive, said she feels like the rules are being changed. The issue was sent last minute during the holidays and several residents did not see the letter at all. She felt like the numbers of those affe cted is skewed because there are 75 residents in Canyon Trails and the owners of empty lots were also included in the count. If rezoned, the developer can change the proposed plan, and residents must go to court to say it does not meet the standards. She said the whole issue should be tabled for 30 -45 days so the residents can have an opportunity to gather and get information to come up with a plan that would affect everyone in the area. Laura Harper, 8 Desert Willow Court, said she agrees with what has been said. She decided to live in Canyon Trails because of its unique characteristics. She is disheartened that this is even being presented. The Planning and Zoning Commission overwhelmingly denied. Changes should go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, not continually moving up the line. She said the current developer and Mr. Meehan do not live in the subdivision, so their votes should not be considered. The people who live in the neighborhood are disheartened and that is why there is a smaller response. Mary Fuchik, 1604 Tanglewood, said her concern is storm water retention. There is still a problem and she is concerned about additional problems if there are zero lot lines developed. The presentation of the original developer was ideal . She also said the notice was received on Saturday and had to rush to get it notarized. Gary Mehan, 2608 Elmwood, said he works with GM properties. He is the property owner and developer. He regrets the feelings of opposition. The property, in 199 4, was established as a PUD which included residential for most of the property. The front portion was designated as general commercial. When he purchased the property, he looked at it with the original developer and felt it would be best that residentia l development be put against the residential homes. Zero lot line homes are becoming a trend through the United States. In meeting with the residents, there were a lot of misunderstandings and subjectivity. He said he would like to address some of the misunderstandings. He said he would like to address traffic safety, property values, control of the property, and overdevelopment. He sent an email to the city traffic department, noting that the state does not allow access off Seymour Highway. His response from Mr. Beauchamp was that there is nothing in the ordinance that would deny development of the property but that residential use generally creates less traffic than commercial. He said development will involve trucks on Canyon Trail Drive because that is where the development must be. He feels there will be less congestion, and therefore more safety, with residential development. Mr. Mehan said he contacted the appraisal district with their findings and values of five areas that are zero lot lines. He reviewed his findings in the different areas, noting the average per square foot in those areas is higher than the average for Canyon Trails. Mr. Mehan said he has a list of all the builders who built in Canyon Trails, who could possibly be the same builders for the proposed development. Mr. Mehan said there were concerns about overdevelopment. He said there are remaining lots in Canyon Trails, some of which have been sold for development. He said he believes there is misunderstanding from when the development was being built and people thought the property would remain vacant. The reality is that it was not intended to be vacant. The real opposition is that the residents want the property to remain vacant. Mr. Mehan said he plans to develop the property and his business is primarily commercial real estate, but he believes the area is best served going residential. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 5, 2016 Page 5 Jim Biggs, Biggs and Mathews Consulting Engineers, said he was involved in the project since the beginning. The zoning has always been general commercial. The zero lot line homes would be the least dense development other than single family properties. He said the zero lot line developments he has been involved in are upscale. He did a potential layout for a commercial development which requires 266 parking spaces, so that shows the potential for a lot of traffic. He noted that David Rhone still owns lots in the development and would not want to reduce his own property values. He said that the property has been vacant for 24 years, but it was not intended to remain thus. The development will be an asset to the city and property values will increase for the city. When asked about flooding concerns with that type of development, Mr. Biggs said there are grade challenges but the st orm water ordinance would be met. Councilor Ingle said he does not like the process where Planning and Zoning Commission disapproves one thing and then it comes to the council when changed. He said he hopes the residents understand what could be done and that there will be discussion and cooperation. He doesn’t feel like the council should make that decision. Jim Dockery commented that the process started last fall. There have been meetings with Councilor Santellana who had comments about the issue. There have been communication attempts, some of which are complex. Staff’s position is that at the time the application was submitted to Planning and Zoning, staff recommended against the application due to the proposed mini-storage units. There was a lot of opposition from the neighborhood due to that. The application was modified, staff reviewed the application, and from a purely land-use viewpoint felt like staff should make a positive recommendation. There was discussion on sending the issue back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, going through the notice process, and adding time to the process. The amended application would still have had to come back to the city council. Staff still recommends approval based on compatible uses. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 9:44:59 AM. - - - - - - - Item 9a – Ordinance #01-2016 9:45:11 AM ORDINANCE NO. 01-2016 Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 24-92 Rezoning 134.73 Acres of the Canyon Trails Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow Zero Lot Line Residential Development on Tract B and Removing the Use of “Congregate Living Center” and the Development Guidelines for “Professional Office Park Moved by Councilor Smith to table this item until the January 19, 2016 meeting. Motion seconded by Councilor Chenault and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Barham, Councilors Chenault, Ingle, Smith, and Hooker. Nays: None - - - - - - - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 5, 2016 Page 6 Item 9b – Ordinance #02-2016 10:16:48 AM ORDINANCE NO. 02-2016 Ordinance Amending Sections of the Zoning Ordinance to Establish a “Non-Voting Ex-Officio” Member from Sheppard Air Force Base to Serve on: Airport Board of Adjustment (Sec. 6480), Board of Adjustment (Sec. 7800) and Planning and Zoning Commission (Sec. 7900) Moved by Councilor Ingle that Ordinance #02-2016 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Chenault and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Barham, Councilors Chenault, Ingle, Smith, and Hooker. Nays: None - - - - - - - Item 10a – Resolution #03-2016 10:19:57 AM RESOLUTION NO. 03-2016 Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of a Turnkey Grapple Truck Through the BuyBoard Cooperative Purchasing Program from Austin Truck & Equipment, LTD. dba Freightliner of Austin in the Amount of $74,587.00 and Texan Waste Equipment, Inc. dba Heil of Texas in the amount of $70,243.00 Moved by Councilor Ingle that Resolution No. 03-2016 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Smith and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Barham, Councilors Chenault, Ingle, Smith, and Hooker. Nays: None - - - - - - - - Item 10b – Resolution #04-2016 10:28:29 AM RESOLUTION NO. 04-2016 Resolution to Approve Change Order No. 3 for the 2015 Asphalt Street Rehabilitation Project in the Amount of $279,292.45 Moved by Councilor Ho oker that Resolution No. 04-2016 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Ingle and carried by the following vote: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 5, 2016 Page 7 Ayes: Mayor Barham, Councilors Chenault, Ingle, Smith, and Hooker. Nays: None - - - - - - - - Item 10c – Resolution #05-2016 10:31:07 AM RESOLUTION NO. 05-2016 Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Raw Water Purchase Contract with the City of Archer City Texas Moved by Councilor Ingle that Resolution No. 05-2016 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Smith and carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Barham, Councilors Chenault, Ingle, Smith, and Hooker. Nays: None - - - - - - - - Item 11a – Staff Reports There were no staff reports. - - - - - - - - Item 11b – Items of Concern to Members of the City Council 10:33:16 AM Members of the City Council presented the following matters: Councilor Smith thanked the staff for the work during the recent winter storm. Councilor Ingle added his thanks to the street crews. He also thanked the Fire Department and Health Department for the work they did with the City of Electra during their power outage. He said it was an honor to participate in the recognition of John C. White. Councilor Chenault said she received a call from an out -of -country property owner and by the time he received it, the cut off fees had built up. She asked if e -mail could be used. Mr. Dockery said he would address this particular incident, but the normal practice is to send certified mail. Mayor Barham added his best wishes for the new year and also thanked the staff for the work during the winter storm event and for the work done on the Canyon Trail issue. - - - - - - - - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 5, 2016 Page 8 Item 12 - Adjourn City Council adjourned at 10:37:11 AM. PASSED AND APPROVED this 19th day of January, 2016. __________________________________ Glenn Barham, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Tracy B. Norr, MMC, City Clerk