Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/1985 - Regular Minutes City Council MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Anderson, Boughton, McIlhaney, Prause, Runnels COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Bardell, Assistant City Manager VanDever, City Attorney Locke, Director of Capital Improvements Ash, Director of Planning Mayo, City Secre- tary Jones, Assistant Director of Plan- ning Callaway, Deputy Finance Director Schroeder, Personnel Manager Dickson, Assistant Personnel Manager Lucas, Building Official Perry, Assistant Utilities Office Manager Albright, Purchasing Agent McCartney, Planning Technician Volk, Zoning Official Kee, Assistant Zoning Official Johnson, Planning Assistant Longley, Assistant Parks Director Czimskey, Council Coor- dinator Jones STUDENT GOVT. LIAISON: Mike Hachtman VISITORS PRESENT: See guest register. Agenda Item No. 1 - Signin~ of a proclamation desi~natin~ the week of February 10-16, 1985 as "United States Jaycee Women Week" in College Station, Texas. Mayor Halter signed a proclamation designating the week of February 10-16, 1985 as "United States Jaycee Women Week". Ms. Ricki Holliman and Ms. Vicki Schmidt accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Bryan/College Station Jaycee Women Organization. Ms. Schmidt stated that the organization raises money and pro- vides many different types of classes for the cormmunity. Mayor Halter expressed his hopes that by signing this proclamation more citizens in the community will be made aware of this organiza- tion. Agenda Item No. 2 - ADDroval of the minutes of the Workshop City Council Meeting, January 9, 1985 and the Regular City Council Meeting, January 10, 1985. Councilman Boughton moved approval of the minutes of the Workshop City Council Meeting, January 9, 1985 and the Regular City Coun- cil Meeting, January 10, 1985. 00 7 7 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 2 Councilman Runnels seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. AGenda Item No. 3 - Consider adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $35,000,000.00 Utility System Rev- enue Refunding Bonds, Series 1985, provide the details relating thereto, authorize an agreement with the Paying A~ent/Re~istrar, authorize a Surety Bond in lieu of a Reserve Fund for such Bonds, authorize an Escrow A~reement providin~ firm bankin~ and finan- cial arrangements for the Bonds bein~ refunded, authorize a Bond Purchase A~reement, call certain Outstandin~ Revenue Bonds for redemption and take all other action necessary or appropriate in connection with any of the fore~oin~ matters. Mr. David Fetzer, President of Moroney, Beissner & Co., Inc., presented the item. He stated that the proposed plan to refund the Utility System Revenue Bonds has changed slightly since the meetinG of the City Council and Financial Advisors five weeks ago. He noted that the Attorney General's Office did not approve the purchase of a Surety Bond in lieu of a Reserve Fund for such Bonds because it is a new method of financing. He pointed out that the revised plan provides for the purchase of an insurance policy to Guarantee full payment of such Bonds when due. He noted that the Municipal Bond Insurance Association has committed to issuing the policy which will automatically rate the Refunding Bonds AAA. He explained that this will allow the balance of the current Reserve Fund to be deposited in an escrow account at an unrestricted yield basis. He passed out several schedules re- flectinG the effects of an Advance Refunding of all the city's Outstanding Utility System Revenue Bonds. He noted that this re- funding process will result in a savings to the city of approxi- mately $515,000.00 per year and a total savings of approximately $4,482,143.00 over the seventeen year life of the Bonds. He noted that the interest rate for the RefundinG Bonds ranges from six (6%) percent for 1986 maturities to nine and one/half (9.5%) percent for 2001 maturities. He stated that the Bonds will be underwritten by Rauscher, Pierce Refnes, Inc. and Underwood, Neuhaus and Company. He pointed out that the Bonds will be dated January 15, 1985 and will be delivered on January 30, 1985. He noted that the effective interest rate on the Refunding Bonds is 8.71 percent compared to 9.17 percent on all the city's Outstand- ing Bonds collectively. He discussed the "Arbitrage Yield" regu- lations. 00&7 B REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 3 Mr. Fetzer further noted that since all the city's Outstanding Bonds are being refunded the requirements for the Refunding Bonds and all future Parity Bonds to be issued against the system are being changed to allow for a lower coverage requirement from rev- enues. He stated that the current coverage requirement calls for revenues from the system for the fiscal year next proceeding the issuance to be 1.5 times the maximum annual debt service require- ments on all Outstanding Bonds plus the Bonds proposed for is- sue. He stated that the new coverage requirement will require one and four/tenths times the average and one and a quarter times the maximum. He explained that if neither of the preceding re- quirements can be fulfilled an additional feature has been added to allow the city to take any new rates and apply them to the previous years earnings to determine if the coverage can be met. He stated that these changes will allow the city to obtain addi- tional borrowing without as much net revenue available. Councilman Anderson moved approval of Ordinance No. 1566. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion. Mr. Dick Richards, representing Baker and Botts, presented the proposed ordinance. He enumerated and explained the provisions of the document, including details of the contracts. He noted that the motion as stated is appropriate because the proposed or- dinance includes authorization for the designated city officials to make any necessary changes that might develop as careful study of the process continues. Councilman McIlhaney stated that the city sold $1,500,000.00 in Bonds for the water tower which is presently not being utilized. She asked if these Bonds should be repaid or held to effect more savings for the city. Mr. Fetzer replied that the city should maintain the funds. The motion to approve Ordinance No. 1566 passed unanimously, 6-0. Mayor Halter stated that this procedure requires him to adminis- ter a great deal of paperwork and suggested that Mayor Pro-tem Runnels conduct the meeting while he attended to it. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 4 Agenda Item No. 4 - A public hearing on the question of rezoning 4.48056 acres of land located at the northeast corner of the in- tersection of Texas Avenue and S.H. Highway 6 (Bypass) from Ad- ministrative-Professional District A-P to General Commercial Dis- trict C-1. Application is in the name of John W. Haney, Sr. (85-100) Mayor Pro-tem Runnels presided while Mayor Halter was temporarily absent from the room. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He stated that the rezoning request concerns 4.48056 acres of land from Administrative-Professional District A-P to General Commer- cial District C-1. He noted that the area is reflected as office commercial on the city's Land Use Plan. He stated that the re- quest does not comply with the Land Use Plan, but does comply with commercial development policies with respect to location at the "intersection of thoroughfares". He pointed out that the proposed C-1 area is separated from area residential uses by a 135' A-P buffer. He explained that in September, 1982 the city initiated rezoning of the property to its current A-P zoninG, which is in compliance with the city's Land Use Plan. He pointed out that the current request provides for a C-1/A-P area with an access way similar to the C-1/A-P zoning that was established in January, 1979. He requested that any C-1 zoning in this area be made contingent upon the filing of a final plat at the County Courthouse. He stated that the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved a preliminary plat for this pur- pose and noted that the applicant has filed a final plat with the city, which will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion for consideration. He noted that residents in the Bernadine Estates filed a petition in opposition to this rezoning request, but the petition will not require a three-fourths (3/4) vote of the Council because it does not represent owners of twenty (20%) percent of the property within two hundred feet of the property to be rezoned. He further stated that on 1/3/85 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to deny the rezoning request. Councilman Anderson noted that the amount of traffic generated will depend on the type of C-1 development. He asked if the tract has adequate frontage on Texas Avenue and the Bypass for C-1 development. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway stated that the proposed subdivision plat providing for joint access allows for adequate frontage. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 5 Councilman Anderson asked if this tract meets the requirements of C-1 development. Assistant Director of Planning Callaway replied affirmatively. Councilman McIlhaney stated that she, Councilman Boughton and Di- rector of Capital Improvements Ash met with the State Highway De- partment to discuss the hazardous situation at the intersection located at the Bypass access road and Texas Avenue. She asked if the Highway Department had submitted any proposed plans for this area. Director of Planning Mayo stated that the Highway Department has recommended that the exit ramp be relocated. Mayor Pro-tem Runnels opened the public hearing. that proponents of the rezoning speak initially. He requested Mr. Ron Cruse, representing the applicant, addressed several is- sues that were brought out during consideration of this request at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on 1/3/85. He stated that if this tract is developed as commercial there will not be a problem resulting from increased water or stormwater runoff because the city's ordinance does not allow anymore dis- charge of water off the site after development than it has pres- ently. He noted that this is accomplished through retention ponds in the parking lots. He stated that the ordinance will re- quire looping and an increase in the size of utilities, the cost of which will be borne by the applicant. In regard to noise, he explained that research indicates that the amount of noise gener- ated by the Bypass will exceed the amount of noise generated by a parking lot in a commercial development. He noted that the C-1 property will be separated from a R-1 zone by a fence of at least eight feet as required by ordinance. He stated that another con- cern addressed was the amount of light that will be generated by C-1. He stated that after extensive research, a light, of a type used in shopping facilities and of approximately twenty to thirty feet in height, could not be found that would reach to the R-1 district. He noted that typically this capacity light will be absorbed at approximately 75' to 182' He pointed out that the major concern voiced was one regardin~ traffic. He displayed some graphics concerning traffic generation of A-P versus the re- quested C-1 zoning. He explained that Dresently the site is zoned A-P and could handle a building of approximately 357,913 square feet and 1356 parking spaces. He further pointed out that the proposed use of the site would generate 57,405 square feet of building and 274 parking spaces. He noted that the maximum square footage this site could handle with the proposed C-1 zon- ing and the existing A-P zoning would be 170,457 square feet and a maximum of 638 parking spaces. He noted that with the proposed 00 751 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 6 C-1 zone approximately 30,000 feet of the property is lost to ac- cess. He pointed out that Mr. Haney purchased this tract of land with intentions to build an Ole J.W.'s. He further noted that he had contacted a local appraisal firm to ascertain what effects this rezoning might have on the value of the adjacent R-1 proper- ty. He stated that the appraisal firm determined that this re- zoning would not downgrade the value of the R-1 property and also indicated that in their opinion the most appropriate use of the property is C-1 commercial. No one else spoke in favor of the request, and Mayor Pro-tem Runnels asked for speakers in opposition to the request. Ms. Gail Griffin, 108 Mile Drive, spoke in opposition to the re- quest. She stated that the residents on Mile Drive purchased their property when the adjacent property was zoned R-1 Residen- tial. She gave a brief history of the zoning status of the prop- erty. She noted that after Mr. Haney acquired the property he proposed to develop a truckstop on the tract. She noted that the present A-P zoning was proposed by the city in 1982. She stated that the major issue to consider is traffic. She further stated that numerous traffic accidents have occurred at this intersec- tion, noting that in 1983 there were seventeen (17) accidents and in 1984 there were sixteen (16) accidents. She stated that to add an additional curb cut between Mile Drive and the Bypass ac- cess road would create an even more hazardous situation. She ex- plained that A-P development would generate traffic nine hours/ day five days/week versus C-1 development which would generate traffic twenty-four hours/day seven days/week. She stated that if C-1 development is allowed in this area the amount of traffic generated will increase. She addressed the issue of noise by noting that if C-1 development occurs, additional noise and lights will be generated from both the traffic and the develop- ment itself. She stated that it is her understanding that if the property is zoned C-1 any type of C-1 development will be permis- sible if it meets all the city's requirements for commercial de- velopment. She noted that the residents of Mile Drive have a current value invested in their property that exceeds $1,500,000 on a cumulative basis. She requested that the Council retain the current A-P zoning on this property because it is the most appro- priate zone for the tract. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 7 Mr. Raymond Martyn, 7803 Appomattox, stated that he is a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but was speaking as an in- dividual in opposition to the request. He stated that the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission has studied this tract in detail on two separate occasions in the past year and the Commission unani- mously recommended denial of this rezoning on both occasions for a number of reasons. He noted that in his opinion the most im- portant reason for their recommendation for denial of the request is the protection of the existing residential neighborhood. He noted that in the best interest of the city the rezoning of this piece of property to commercial should be denied. No one else spoke. lng. Mayor Pro-tem Runnels closed the public hear- AGenda Item No. 5 - Consideration of an Ordinance rezonin~ the above tract. Mayor Halter returned to the room and presided during the remain- der of the meeting. Councilman McIlhaney asked if the consultants hired to do the Comprehensive Plan had participated in the study initiated to de- termine the appropriate zoning in this particular area and if the resulting A-P zoning was part of their recommendation. Planning Director Mayo replied that the city and the Planning and Zoning Commission were the only parties who participated in the study of the zoning in this particular area. Councilman Runnels asked if the recommendation for the denial of the previous requests were for the same reasons. Director of Planning Mayo replied affirmatively. Councilman Anderson noted that this tract complies with commer- cial development policies with respect to location at the inter- section of major thoroughfares. He stated that the tract lends itself to commercial uses. He further stated that the issue that should be addressed is what is the logical use of the tract and in his opinion the logical use of this particular tract is C-1 Commercial. Councilman Boughton stated that the Council was correctinG an er- ror in zoninG when they changed the zoning of this particular tract back to A-P. She expressed her opinion that A-P is the correct zoning for this particular tract of land. She further stated that if the Council were to approve any C-1 zoning on this tract it should only be for a very small portion, which is all that is necessary for the construction of an Ole J.W.'s. 00t 753 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 8 Councilman McIlhaney stated that rezoning this tract to C-1 would be a definite step backwards when considering the traffic situa- tion at this intersection. She stated that implementation of safety precautions at this intersection should be complete before development of this tract as C-1 Commercial. Councilman Prause stated that in his opinion a small amount of C-1 zoning on this tract is appropriate and suggested that such a proposal might be considered in the future. Student Government Liaison Hachtman stated his opinion that a 135' buffer between the R-1 and C-1 developments is more than ad- equate. He further stated that considering the proposal of the Highway Department for this intersection there should not be a major traffic problem created. Councilman Anderson stated that the tract is ideally suited for commercial use and the 135' buffer between the R-1 property and the proposed C-1 property is substantial. Mayor Halter stated that this tract has been very troublesome and has been before the Council for consideration on numerous occa- sions. He noted that he had voted against the city initiated proposal which caused the down zoning of this tract. Councilman Runnels moved denial of the rezoning request without prejudice, waiving the 180 day waiting period. Councilman McIlhaney seconded the motion which was approved by vote of 5-1 as follows: FOR: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Boughton, McIlhaney, Prause, Runnels AGAINST: Councilman Anderson Mayor Halter suggested that perhaps an alternate request for C-1 zoning on the tract might be in order. AGenda Item No. 6 - A public hearing to consider an Ordinance amending Section 8 of Ordinance 850 of the City of College Station, Texas, relating to signs, Generally regulating their location, height and area and providing for an effective date. (84-805) Mayor Halter opened the public hearing. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 9 Mr. Sonny Gibbs, representing Starlite Sign Company and Ted A. Howard Development, stated that his firm has been working on de- signing a directory sign for the Village Shopping Center. He noted that they are designing a computerized message center sign that under the proposed sign ordinance will be prohibited. He noted that the current sign ordinance states "no sign shall have flashing lights or moving parts if within fifty feet of a public street" and the sign they are proposing would not be prohibited under this ordinance because it would be located approximately 120 feet away from a public street. He requested the Council's further consideration of signs of this nature. He suggested that provisions for this type of sign be included in the proposed or- dinance, such as inclusion of a specific brand name and require- ments stating that signs of this nature must be equal to or bet- ter than that particular brand. He pointed out that this type of sign is cost-prohibitive, ranging in price from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00, and suggested that the Council provide some type of recourse for individuals who wish to use moving computerized signs. Mr. Jim Gardner listed several suggestions for improvements and clarifications in the proposed ordinance as follows: (1) The definition of Roof Signs would benefit greatly by some graphics and well has the inclusion of graphics in other areas; (2) An ad- ditional definition of billboard as to its technical meaning; (3) Page 5, second paragraph should be clarified by adding "No build- lng permit shall be required for the following signs:"; (4) Bill- boards should be outlawed the same as portable signs; (5) The provisions for the removal of political signs is extremely com- plicated and involves a great deal of red tape which is not nec- essary; (6) A deviation has been made from A-P which allows free- standing signs in areas that are larger than two acres, which is a negative aspect of the ordinance; (7) The provision regulating banners and flags will be hopeless to enforce; (8) Page 10, bill- boards should be added under "PROHIBITED SIGNS"; (9) Page 12, Section 2.Q, the last sentence should be changed to read "This sign shall not be located within the right-of-way"; (10) Page 13, Section 3.B, the nonconformities under the proposed ordinance should be corrected, with the key question being of fairness re- sulting in the application of an equitable amortization program; (11) Clarification of regulations which control the height of a sign by the distance it is from the curb to the top of the sign; and, (12) The fifty foot height exception for the Bypass should be eliminated. 00 755 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 10 Mr. Jim McGuirk, 1110 Marstellar, noted that he is a member of the city's Zoning Board of Adjustments, but was speaking as an individual. He commended the committee that drafted the proposed ordinance. He requested that the Council approve the proposed ordinance in substantially unedited form. He noted his approval of the exception allowing signs to go to fifty feet along the By- pass. He stated his opinion that there should be some procedure for amortizing existing nonconforming signs with regard to height. Ms. Diana Sullivan, representing Ted A. Howard Development Com- pany, addressed the issue of allowinG the use of message center signs under the proposed ordinance. She listed several reasons why the firm was considering erecting a message center sign at the Village Shopping Center as follows: (1) attracts anchor ten- ants; (2) provides support from community; (3) provides a land- mark in the community; (4) creates public interest; (5) displays community service messages; and, (6) appears more aesthetically pleasing to the community. She further stated that these signs are very costly, which will make the abuse of such a provision unlikely. She stated that this type of sign will enable the mer- chant and tenant to advertize in a neat and attractive manner. Ms. Mary Newton, 502 College View, commended the committee that worked so diligently to draft the proposed ordinance. She asked about the procedures for appeal available to individuals who feel they have a legitimate exception to the regulations set forth in the ordinance. She stated that in her opinion she had an excep- tion and had attempted to solve her problem through the proper channels. She stated that there were two options available to her, she could either apply for a variance or she could appeal. She pointed out that if she opted to apply for a variance she could in no way state that her concern was for financial reasons, which would make it very difficult to substantiate a case. She further stated that if she opted to appeal her case she would have to go before the staff and suggest that those who had writ- ten and accepted the ordinance are now misinterpreting it, which would also be very difficult to do. She further stated that in her opinion an almost impossible situation exists for the busi- ness person who feels he has a legitimate exception to the rule, to try and resolve his problem with the current procedures. Mr. Raymond Martyn, 7803 Appomattox, noted that he is a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but was speaking as an indi- vidual. He listed several of his concerns with the proposed or- dinance: (1) The proposed ordinance does not provide for bring- inG into compliance nonconforming signs that are significantly REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 11 damaged; and, (2) The proposed ordinance allows banners and flags in commercial zones and prohibits them in residential zones. He suggested that the proposed ordinance either restrict banners and flags entirely or prohibit them in residential zones and regulate them in commercial zones. Councilman McIlhaney asked if Section 2.R, STRUCTURAL REQUIRE- MENTS, in the proposed ordinance addresses all signs or just non- conforming signs. City Attorney Locke explained that under Case Law a nonconformity of a damaged sign cannot be brought into conformity by city ordi- nance. She noted that Case Law addresses the matter on the basis of intent; that is, the property owner did not intend to abandon the nonconformity. She explained that the problem was addressed by a time requirement, therefore imputing the intent to the property owner. Mr. John Culpepper, representing Culpepper Properties, compli- mented the Sign Committee for their endeavors. He stated his ap- proval of the passage of the proposed ordinance and his hopes that the regulations set forth can be long lasting and adhered to for many years. He asked if the staff's recommendations are in- cluded in the proposed ordinance or only the recommendations from the Sign Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Halter stated that in his opinion the proposed ordinance needs further consideration based on some of the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and issues brought out in this discussion. Mr. Phil Springer, 1203 B Munson, stated that he is in favor of eliminating amortization from the proposed ordinance. He stated that in his opinion amortization of nonconforming signs is unfair and could prove very costly. He noted that amortization is not a recommendation of the Sign Committee. Mayor Halter asked Mr. Springer if he would be in favor of a longer amortization period. Mr. Springer stated that amortization is unreasonable. He fur- ther stated that those signs in compliance with the current ordi- nance should be allowed to exist. Mr. Kenny Broach, representing Broach Oil Company, stated their disapproval of the fifty foot exception on the Bypass. He fur- ther stated that they would like to see all nonconforming signs brought into conformance. 00/ 75- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 12 No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Agenda Item No. 7 - Consideration of the above amending Ordi- nance. Councilman Runnels stated that in his opinion the proposed ordi- nance needs additional work. Councilman Anderson concurred with Councilman Runnels' comment. Mayor Halter expressed his appreciation for the comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission members. He stated his opinion that the regulations pertaining to political signs might be un- constitutional. City Attorney Locke stated that she and former City Attorney Lowell Denton had researched the subject and the regulations ad- dressed are permissible. She listed the two issues addressed in the proposed ordinance as follows: (1) the traffic and traffic safety issue; and, (2) the nuisance after the election and clut- ter issue. Councilman Runnels expressed his concern with the mechanism pro- posed to collect money from political candidates. Councilman McIlhaney asked what the status of nonconforming signs will be if they are annexed into the city limits. Director of Planning Mayo stated that the signs would become non- conforming under the ordinance unless they are "off premise" or "prohibited signs" in which case these signs will be required to be brought into compliance or removed within six months of the date of annexation. Councilman Boughton expressed her agreement with some of the rec- ommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission members who proposed that a damaged sign be made to conform if it were dam- aged to a given extent. Councilman Prause suggested that prior to removal of any signs the Zoning Official should notify the owners. Director of Plan- ning Mayo stated that this provision is mostly used in regulation of real estate signs. Councilman McIlhaney suggested that additional consideration be given to the appeals process that is available to citizens. She noted that she would like to build in protection for the city, but also be fair to the citizens of the city. 00/ -i'58 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 13 Mayor Halter stated that the problem is not the appeals process itself, but rather the conditions under which individuals can make an appeal. Director of Planning Mayo stated that the reasons for appeal are set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Mayor Halter stated that other conditions for appeal may need to be designated. He stated his support of amortization of all non- conforming signs, but suggested that the amortization period be lengthened to a period of five to six years. Councilman Boughton suggested that a Council Committee be ap- pointed to review the proposed ordinance and recommend a final form for Council consideration. Councilman McIlhaney suggested that several members of the Plan- ning and Zoning Commission be included in the discussions. Councilman Runnels moved to appoint a committee to be comprised of three members of the Council and three members of the Planning and Zoning Commission to study the proposed changes and return a final draft of the proposed Sign Ordinance to the Council for consideration in one month's time. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. Agenda Item No. 8 - A public hearing to consider the bids pre- sented for the leasing of minerals in, on and under property owned or claimed by the City of College Station, Texas. City Attorney Locke presented the item. She presented the Coun- cil with a memorandum which summarized the bids and how they were presented as follows: (1) Charles T. Hamilton presented bids on nine tracts with an offer of twenty-five percent royalty; (2) Threshold Energy, Inc. presented bids on five tracts with an of- fer of twenty-one percent royalty; and, (3) RDS Resources, Inc., presented bids on ten tracts with an offer of twenty percent royalty. She noted that the bid by Charles T. Hamilton exceeded in total dollars and royalty all of the other bids. She said that all the bids were in duplicate except two and noted that Threshold Energy, Inc. and RDS Resources, Inc. bid on Tract 25 and RDS Resources, Inc. was the only firm to bid on Tract 10. She stated her recommendation that the Council accept the bids presented by Charles T. Hamilton. She further stated that if the Council so desires the staff can contact Threshold Energy, Inc. on Tract 25 and RDS Resources, Inc. on Tract 10 to determine if they are interested in contracting for those tracts separately. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 14 Mayor Halter stated that the total bid submitted by Charles T. Hamilton on the nine tracts is $69,752.37. He opened the public hearing. A representative from Threshold Energy, Inc. stated that they were withdrawing their bid on Tract 25. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Agenda Item No. 9 - Consideration of an award of bid for mineral leases. Councilman Prause moved to accept the Bids submitted by Charles T. Hamilton. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. City Attorney Locke asked if the Council wished to have the Legal Staff approach RDS Resources, Inc. to ascertain if they are in- terested in contracting for Tracts 25 and 10. The Council concurred. Councilman McIlhaney asked if by accepting these bids the firm will be allowed to begin drilling on the property. City Manager Bardell stated that they will have surface rights, but city ordinance does not permit any drilling without first ob- taininG a special permit which must be approved by Council. Agenda Item No. 10 - A public hearing to consider the question of amending Chapter 3, Section 1, Sub-Section B(27) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station relating to Buildin~ Regulations, Emergency Egress Openings (Building Code Section' 1104.4), and providing for windows of a minimum net clear openin~ of 24" by 20" in sleeping rooms. Building Official Perry presented the item. He noted that the Building Code has called for this window over the past several years and this amendment is not intending to reduce the area of the window but to allow for windows that are 24" in height and 20" in width. He noted this problem was brought to his attention by Mr. Sherman Click. Mayor Halter opened the public hearing. ceived a copy of Mr. Click's letter. He noted that he had re- 00 760 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 15 NO one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Agenda Item No. 11 - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Chap- ter 3, Section 1, Sub-Section B(27) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas. Councilman Boughton moved approval of Ordinance No. 1567 amending Chapter 3, Section 1, Sub-Section B(27) of the Code of Ordinance of the City of College Station, Texas. Councilman Anderson seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. Agenda Item No. 12 - Consideration of an Ordinance rezoning ap- proximately 1.8912 acres on the south side of University Drive, approximately 1400 feet east of East Tarrow Street (formerly Fed- Mart Drive) from Administrative-Professional District A-P to Gen- eral Commercial District C-1. Application is in the name of Cedar Creek Ltd. (84-127) Assistant Director of Planning Callaway presented the item. He noted that on 1/10/85 the Council considered a revised rezoning request submitted by the applicant asking for 1.64 acres of C-1 zoning to be located east of the private access easement which divides the property. He stated that the Council referred the revision to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to acting on the request. He further stated that the Planning and Zoning Com- mission considered the revised request on 1/17/85 and recommended approval of the request by a vote of 4-0. He noted that the Council had also asked that the rezoning request be considered with respect to probable area development, particularly with re- spect to the future Lincoln St. intersection and also requested a review of the Land Use Plan for the entire area along University Drive. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission ap- pointed a subcommittee to review the zoning in this area. Mayor Halter asked if there were any comments from the public. Councilman Runnels moved approval of Ordinance No. 1568 rezoning this property. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion. Councilman Prause requested that some consideration be given to the development of a Commercial PUD. Director of Planning Mayo stated that the revised Zoning Ordinance will include a Commer- cial PUD. OO&"f6' REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 16 The motion to approve the rezoning request passed by a vote of 5-1 as follows: FOR: Mayor Halter, Councilmen Anderson, Boughton, Prause, Runnels AGAINST: Councilman McIlhaney Agenda Item No. 13 - CONSENT AGENDA: BIDS: Bee Creek Park Lighting and Electrical Renovation Project PLATS: Final Plat - The Schick Addition - (85-200) Ail items were approved by common consent. Agenda Item No. 14 - Consideration of Award of Bids for a Water System Telemetry Improvements Contract and the Contract for the Maintenance and Servicing of the Water System Instrumentation and Telemetering. Director of Capital Improvements Ash presented the item. He re- ferred to his memorandum provided in the packet regarding the above project. He noted that the bids were accepted and opened on 12/18/84 with only one bidder for the project, Moncon, Inc. of Dallas, Texas. He stated that the contractor's bid for the Water Systems Telemetry Improvements was in the amount of $17,800.00 to be appropriated from Bond Funds allocated for the Sandy Point Pump Station project, and their bid on the maintenance and ser- vicing of the Water System Instrumentation and Telemetering was in the amount of $12,920.00 to be appropriated from the Water De- partment Maintenance Fund. He further stated that the staff rec- ommends that the award of these contracts go to Moncon, Inc. Councilman Boughton moved to award a contract for Water System Telemetry Improvements and a contract for the maintenance and servicing of the Water System Instrumentation and Telemetering to Moncon, Inc. of Dallas, Texas. Councilman Anderson seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. Agenda Item No. 15 - Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the State of Texas for the maintenance, control, supervision and regulation of certain State Highways and/or portions of State Highways in the City of College Station, Texas. Director of Capital Improvements Ash presented the item. He stated that this is a procedure to upgrade the city's existing maintenance contract with the State. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 17 Councilman Runnels moved approval of Resolution No. 01-24-85-15 authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the State of Texas for the maintenance, control, supervision and regulation of certain State Highways and/or portions of State Highways in the City of College Station, Texas. Councilman Boughton seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. Agenda Item No. 16 - Consideration of an Ordinance adopting the City of College Station Personnel Handbook. Personnel Manager Dickson presented the item. She stated that the proposed handbook will clarify terminology and implement sev- eral new policies. She listed the proposed changes in the hand- book which represent new policies for the city: (1) implementa- tion of pre-employment policies, i.e. drivers license check and workers' compensation check; (2) addition of a section relating to solicitation; (3) clarification of the policies currently used for Overtime and Compensatory Time; (4) addition of the "Day af- ter Christmas" as a holiday when Christmas Day falls on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday; (5) addition of the Dental In- surance Plan; (6) reduction of the time allowed for maternity leave from four months to eight weeks and inclusion of a state- ment allowing male employees to take up to five days personal leave for newborn care; (7) clarification of the policies re- lating to the use of alcohol or other mind-altering substances by city employees; (8) implementation of a new travel policy; (9) clarification of the policies relating to use of city-owned vehi- cles and the addition of a monitoring mechanism that will be im- plemented through the Personnel Office; and, (10) addition of a new drivers license policy. Councilman Runnels asked a question about the new IRS policies regarding the use of city vehicles. Personnel Manager Dickson stated that Assistant City Manager VanDever had received the information from the city's auditors and is currently reviewing it. City Manager Bardell stated that the intent of the legislature is great, but its effect upon local government will be detrimen- tal. Councilman Boughton moved approval of Ordinance No. 1569 adopting the City of College Station Personnel Handbook. Councilman Runnels seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. 00 "f63 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 18 A~enda Item No. 17 - Consideration of a Resolution authorizin~ the acquisition by voluntary purchase or condemnation of the property owned by Sypcon Construction Corp. and described as a tract of land in the Morgan Rector League, Abstract No. 46, College Station, Texas. City Attorney Locke presented the item. She stated that this is part of the Dartmouth and Holleman Street right-of-way. Councilman Boughton moved approval of Resolution No. 01-24-85-17 authorizing the acquisition by voluntary purchase or condemnation of the property owned by Sypcon Construction Corp. and described as a tract of land in the Morgan Rector League, Abstract No. 46, College Station, Texas. Councilman Runnels seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. Agenda Item No. 18 - Consideration of an Ordinance vacatin~ and abandonin~ a portion of a Public Utility easement in the S.W. Robertson Survey through that 956.10 acre tract owned by W.D. Fitch. City Attorney Locke presented the item. She stated that this easement was secured by the city from W.D. Fitch for providing electric utilities. She noted that when construction of the line began the city realized that the line was extending along a stream bed and would have to be relocated. She further stated that a new easement has been prepared and approval of this ordi- nance will abandon the previous easement. Councilman Prause moved approval of Ordinance No. 1570 vacating and abandoning a portion of a Public Utility easement in the $.W. Robertson Survey through that 956.10 acre tract owned by W.D. Fitch. Councilman McIlhaney seconded the motion which was approved unan- imously, 6-0. Agenda Item No. 19 - Consideration of an Ordinance amendin~ Chap- ter 4, Section 1, Sub-Section 7(3) of the Business Code of the City of College Station, Texas, relating to exemptions for the sale of Christmas trees within the City of College Station, Texas. City Attorney Locke presented the item. She stated that the section relating to the sale of Christmas trees is included in the city's Itinerant Vendors and Solicitors Ordinance and has proven to be unworkable. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 19 Councilman Boughton moved approval of Ordinance No. 1571 amending Chapter 4, Section 1, Sub-Section 7(3) of the Business Code of the City of College Station, Texas, relating to exemptions for the sale of Christmas trees within the City of College Station, Texas. Councilman Anderson seconded the motion which was approved unani- mously, 6-0. AHenda Item No. 20 - Hear Visitors. Ms. Lea Davis, a real estate agent representing Don Martell, asked if the city could give an approximate date for completion of the Dartmouth Street extension. City Attorney Locke stated that the city still has not obtained right-of-way from Mr. Don Dale and Mr. James Jett. Mayor Halter stated that he would like to expedite the project. He noted that once all the right-of-way has been acquired the city will move quickly on construction of the project. He stated that a realistic time estimate for completion of the project is approximately eighteen months. Mr. Kelly Broach, President of Broach Oil Company, wanted to ex- plain a comment made earlier by his son relative to a particular sign that would not be in compliance with the proposed Sign Ordi- nance. He noted that his company has a definite commitment to having a positive public image. He stated that the sign in ques- tion is not under his control, but rather is owned by his late cousin's sons. Agenda Item No. 21 - Closed session to discuss pending litigation [6252-17(2)(e)] and personnel [6252-17(2)(g)]. ae Personnel [6252-17(2)(g)]. 1. Discussion of Administrative Appointments. 2. Discussion of Citizen Committee Appointments. 3. Discussion of Administrative Personnel. The Council moved to closed session and later reopened to the public. 00 'i'65 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 PAGE 20 Agenda Item No. 22 - Action on closed session. Councilman Boughton moved to reappoint Colonel Robert Logan and Dr. J. Malon Southerland to the Board of Directors of the Southeast Texas Higher Education Authority. Councilman McIlhaney seconded the motion which was approved unan- imously, 6-0. Agenda Item No. 23 - Ad3ourn. Mayor Halter adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P.M. ATTEST: D~an Jones,~ty Secretary Gary Hal~ Mayor 00 .- 66 GUEST REGISTER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1985 ' 7:00 P.M. 26. 27. 28.