Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/30/1985 City Council 002138 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 The JOINT WORK SESSION of the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of The Colony was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on the 30th day of September 1985, with the following members in attendance: City Council Larry Sample Mayor Rick Harris Councilman Tom Arrambide Councilman Helen Gray Councilman Don Amick Councilman Charles Dodds Councilman Planning and Zoning Bob Fiumara Place 1 Tim Solohubow Place 3 Bruce Sopas Place 4 Bill Sharp Place 5 Harvey Bradley Place 6 Tom Cravens Place 7 with Councilman Marlene Poole and Planning and Zoning Commission member Place 2, Earl Brantley absent to personal business, however, a quorum was established. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES, AMENDMENTS, CODE OF ORDINANCES AS FOLLOWS: A. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS BY AMENDING APPENDIX A - ZONING BY ADDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO SATELLITE AND RADIO RECEIVERS AND TRANSMITTERS. City Manager, Janice Carroll explained that this is an entirely new ordinance that should be considered and then introduced Eric Stanton, Building Official to go over the ordinance. Mr. Stanton stated that this ordinance addresses Satellite dishes,Microwave receivers, and Ham radio towers. He stated that legally existing equipment of this kind which is already in place would fall under the "grandfather clause" explaining that if the owners got a permit before installing the equipment then it is legal and if no permit was acquired, then it is illegal. Mayor Sample asked if this ordinance address T.V. antennas. Mr. Stanton said yes, that T.V. antennas can be 60' above ground level. Council Amick asked it would be legal to require a privacy fence to cover the dishes, antennas and towers. Bob Fiumara, Planning and Zoning (P&Z) member asked if was unsafe for a child to walk up to a dish and if so could that fact be used in order to require fencing. Eric Stanton stated that he would have to check with City Attorney on that point and would do so. Mayor Sample said he felt towers should not be any higher than the length from the base to the property line. (Set back equal to Height) Janice Carroll then noted that there are no definitions in the ordinance, defining Satellite dishes, Microwave antennas and Ham Radio Towers, Etc. It was a general concensus of both the Council and P & Z that the ordinance would be ready for passage with the follow- additions. 1. Definitions 2. Fencing requirment around satellite dishes and ground mounted towers. 3. Set back equal to height. E. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 00213 - OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS, RELATING TO OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS BY ADDING ARTICLE IV RELATING TO IN-HOME CHILD CARE CENTERS Janice Carroll noted that this particular item had come up originally about two years ago, when someone notice that there is a section in the Zoning ordinance that defines a day care center as a place where there are more than four (4) children kept, and that this section requires that if a person does keep more than four (4) children in their home they have to come before the Planning and Zoning commission and reques a Specific Use Permit, at a cost to that person of $100.00. She further stated that this was assigned to the P & Z at that to review the entire zoning ordinance and recommend changes and that the Ordinance proposed is an alternative to the current Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Bob Fiumara said that a woman had come to the P & Z meeting where this ordinance was first brought before the public and asked what controls the city had over child care and he stated that there is little the City could, that the State licenses child care facilities but that the State has only one person and cannot get out to inspect these facilities on a regular basis. Fiumara also said that the fee tenatively set in the new ordinance was $50.00 for permitting in home child care facilities. Mr. Fiumara said that there were several women present at the P & Z meeting previously mentioned and that they were extremely upset over this propsoed ordinance. He said that for that reason P & Z was holding off taking any action until the City Council had a chance to review the ordinance. Mayor Sample stated that he felt the only way the City could possibly ~ enforce the current Ordinance is by complaint basis, since a City Inspector cannot just walk into someone's home to see if they are in fact keeping more than four 4) children, without a warrant or an invitation. Janice Carroll said that staff recommends changzng the current ordinance to comp into compliance with state guidelines. Mayor Sample then requested to see a copy of the State guidelines. Councilman Amick asked if the P & Z still wants to address this problem~~ if the Council decides to veto this particular ordinance as it is written. Mr. Fiumara said yes they do because they feel that the ordinance currently on the books is not being enforced and that it would be unfair to ask in- home child centers to request a Specific Use Permit, and that there needs to either be an ordinance that is enforceable or remove that section of the Zoning ordinance regarding to in- home child care from the current ordinance. Councilman Amick also asked if other cities had been surveyed and if so how were they handling this problem. Councilman Harris stated that he felt the only way to enforce the ordinance would be by complaint basis only. P & Z member, Bill Sharp said that was discussed and the P & Z meeting during the Public Hearing. Bruce Sopas, P & Z member said if an Ordinance is on the books then it should be enforced and if not then it should be changed or taken off the books. He further stated that the current ordinance is not feasible because it costs the sitters too much money and it consumes a great deal of time on the City's and the P & Z commission's part. Mayor Sample said that he doesn,t see any reason our ordinance is not already consistent with State guidelines. He stated that the State sets the rules and regulations for Child Care. The Mayor went on to say the the City Zoning ordinance is de- signed to keep single family areas as single family areas and if we change the ordinance we are asking for trouble. He felt the number allowed could be changed to accomodate more children and then enforce the ordinance on a complaint basis only. The Mayor also said the purpose of zoning is to divide the City between commercial and residential. Councilman Amick read a survey that had already been done in the cities of Plano, Carrollton, Lewisville and Allen. All of these cities have child care under their zoning ordinance. Mr. Fiumara and Mr. Sopas both stated that having it under zoning may be the right place but that our ordinance requires the Specific Use permit and that is what they want to see changed. Councilman Amick requested that these other cities be contacted and asked how this question is addressed within their zoning ordinance. A general concensus of the Council and the P & Z was not to enforce the current ordinance until this could be further inves- tigated. Bob Fiumara suggested a 60 day moratorium but Mayor Sample said he felt that was unnecessary because he felt this ordinancewas not enforceable anyway. At this time the Mayor stated he would hear from the floor. Linda Ponce, spokeswoman for several sitters in the City, spoke regarding home child care. She stating that child care is not a profit making job. She also stated that sitters are checked by the State and the United States Department of Agriculture. She also passed out a statement she had prepared regarding the proposed ordinance. The statement is attached3to these minutes as Exhibit "A". Ms. Ponce went on to say that she feels no ordinance is necessar~ The Mayor said he feels some ordinance is necessary to keep people in line. Ms. Ponce then said that if the ordinance is passed or the old ordinance is enforced the only persons penalized are~the registered sitters, not the ones who actual violate the law. She also stated that she felt if this happened the City would be forcing good registered sitters to go "underground" to keep from having to pay the fees, since they do not make enough money to afford the fees. Angela Stanford~with the State of Texas Home Child Care Association was in the audience and spoke. She stated she was not there to represent the sitters in The Colony. She said that in the cities of Grand Prairie and Irving the limit on children is four (4) and the cost of sitting has gone to $85.00 per week in order to make up for not being able to keep more children. She stated that she felt the number should be raised to six (6) which does comply with State guidelines. Ms. Stanford went on to say that in-home child care preserves the neighborhood and that it is good for children to be able to stay in their own neighborhood. She said it is unlikely that all six parents would be there at the same time to pick up their children so the problem of too many cars is not usually a problem at all. She said that another advantage to home child care ~is~ the care giver is there for the "latch key" children in case they need an adult, and also the care giver acts as an informal crime watch. Tim Solohubow, a P & Z member asked Ms. Ponce how many children she could responsibly handle. She stated that she could easily handle 12 children, however not for all day sitting. She said some of that 12 would be only there for the afternoon. (after school) It was the general concensus of the Council and the P & Z to survey other cities and see what althernative they could suggest, before changing the current ordinance or passing a new ordinance. B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS, AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY RELATING TO ZONING BY THE AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN SECTIONS THEREOF; ADDING A MULTIPLE-FAMILY-3 AND MULTIPLE-FAMILY-4 ZONING DISTRICT Eric Stanton stated that he had taken a work sheet as prepared by the P & Z and given it to the attorney asking for an appro- priate ordinance to be drawn up incorporating these changes. He stated that basically the ordinance creates Mf-3 and MF-4 zoning classifications, and makes some to changes to the MF-1 and MF-2 classifications. Stanton then read the changes one by one as follows: 002136 1. Create MF-3 and MF-4 Zoning Classifications 2. Density on MF-1 is changed from 15 per acre to 10 dwelling units per acre plus a 50% bonus increase of 15 per acre with the application of bonus plan, which P & Z will be working on. 3. Density on MF-2 is changed from 25 per acre to 12 dwelling units per acre plus 50% increase to 18 with a bonus increase 4. The newly created MF-3 will be 16 dwelling units per acre with a 50% bonus of 24 with application of bonus pla~ 5. MF-4 will be established as a planned development, or a site plan can be done, the ordinance does not really address that. 6. Height restrictions remain the same except for MF-3, which is up to three (3) stories, MF-4 established as a P.D. or in site plan approval. Dwelling Area 7. MF-1 is changed to an 800 square foot minimum to MF-1,2, & 3 - Average'of'all units in the project must be 800 square feet with no one unit being less than 600 square feet. 8. Front yard set backs now is 25 feet from property line, will be changed to read if more than 2 stories are proposed, and if the buildings are adjacent to a SF, D, TH,,MF-1, MF-2, MF-3,MF-4 district where there are structures less than three (3) stories high, an additional twenty-five (25) feet are required plus two times (2X) the height of the poriton of the building above two (2) stories, to be measured from the property line. 9. Parking presently at 2 spaces per dwelling unit will be changed to 2½ spaces, average per dwelling unit. 10. On Site Storage (Brand new provision) ~ of the square footage of each dwelling must be for storage. 50 square foot of each unit must be provided as dead storage. This is meant to include the parking of boats, R.V.s, and trailers which will be prohi- bited in a regular parking lot. 11. Brick Requirement - None now, changed to read that 40% of total exterior wall area below the highest plate line must be ~rick, stone or other masonry. 12. All living units shall be separated from all other portions of the building by one (1) hour rated fire walls, including attic space, There was a lengthy discussion regarding the minimum square foot reqirements in the MF-1,MF-2,MF-3. General concensus was that they were satisfactory. Councilman Harris questioned Section 16 on page 7, (2) and (3). He felt that this was stating that you could not park a boat trailer in the drive way but could park it in the back yard. Eric Stanton said that this had been reviewed with the attorney to see if it conflicted with the recent ordinance amendment regarding prohibiting parking in the front yard. It was requested that this bee looked again by the attorney to determine if these two paragraphs were in conflict with each other or with the parking ordinance passed recently. The Mayor asked that the minimum square footage requirement for SF be raised to 1400 square feet. ( That will be done through an amendment and brought back before the P & Z and the Council.) 00213'" C. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS AMENDING CHAPTER 6 ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 6-20 THROUGH 6-62, INCLUSIV~ RELATING TO SIGNS. Mr. Stanton stated on the last page of the ordinance as pr~ sented in their packet, there is a summary sheet stating the changes as proposed in the ordinance. He then opened the floor to questions. The Mayor asked about the provision for political signs. Eric explained the change stating that there could be one sign for each item on an election ballot, with each sign not being more than 3 squre feet in size and located only on residential lots. There was some discussion regarding vehicular signs. After reading the definition it was decided to leave the provision as written. There was a very lengthy discussion regarding garage sale signs. Several options were discussed. One of which was presented by Councilman Amick, to permit garage sales, limiting the number allowed per year and allow signs in the yard and on the right of way with permission of the owner, and to limit the size of the signs. Another suggestion was to allow garage sale signs only in one or two areas within the city. Generaly, there were no decisions made regarding the garage sale signs but to leave as written for now. The Mayor asked if the merchants had looked over the ordinance and had any input. Harvey Bradley, P & Z member said the merchants had gotten a copy and there had been no complaints. D. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS, ORDINANCE NO. 61, IN REGARD TO: HOME OCCUPATION, CARPORT SETBACKS, AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL. Eric Stanton stated the amendments as provided with this ordinance: 1. Home Occupation -A hame occupation specifically excludes the operation of a repair shop or garage, antique shop, beauty shop, barber shop, plumbing shop, manufacturing process, or similar sales or service activity on residen- tial premises. Materials and vehicles used in connection with any commercial use on a residential lot or tract shall not be stored on said residential lot or tract except for company vehicles of less than one (1) ton carrying capacity used for passenger transportation only. There was some discussion regarding this change but the general concensus was that it was satisfactory. 2. Carport Setbacks - Where a garage or carport is designed and constructed to be entered from an alley or side street, such garage or carport shall be set back from the side street a minimum distance of twenty (20) feet to facilitate access without interference with the use of the street by other vehicles or persons. Provided that any such garage - or carport constructed in connection with a duplex type use in a "D" district shall be allowed (10) feet from the ex~ terior posts allowing a maximum overhand of two and one-half (2½) feet, except that carports accessed from the rear property line a minimum distance of three (3) feet from the exterior posts allowing a maximum of 1½ feet. In a single family zone, carports accessed from an alley may be set back five (5) feet from the rear property line with a two and one-half (2½) foot overhang. 3. Approval of a site plan or development plan will be required for all development involving a planned development district, a specific use permit, a single-family attached or townhouse project, a shopping center, any institutional development, an apartment project, a mixed use community development, a mobile home park, any development where more than one main building or use is proposed on a lot, a tract or any development, additiona or alteration of any lot, tract, building, structure or site when it is determined by'the Building Official that such development, addition or alteration will have any environmental,aesthetic, or operational impact on the surrounding area. There was little discussion regarding this particular ordinance and all were in agreement that this ordinance should be passed as written. 2. CLOSED DOOR SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE 6252-17, OF V.A.C.S., SECTION 2G, REGARDING PERSONNEL. After re-convening in open session, with no further business to discuss, Councilman Dodds made the motion to adjourn the meeting and Councilman Harris seconded the motion which carried with all members voting Aye. Mayor Sample adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. APPROVED: . p e, ayor ~ ATTEST: Patti jone~etary