Proposed Changes to City’s Parade Ordinance Unconstitutional?
On Thursday, June 9, 2011, the Helotes City Council met at City Hall. Present were Mayor Schoolcraft, Ed Villanueva, Bert Buys, Paul Friedrichs, Cynthia Massey, City Administrator Rick Schroder, and City Secretary Grace Tamez. There was no City Attorney attending.
After welcoming new Council members Buys and Friedrichs, the Mayor presented certificates of recognition to members of Girl Scout Junior Troop No. 461 for donating, planting, and maintaining five native trees within Old Town Helotes.
Girl Scouts Receive Certificates from Mayor
There were no citizens present wanting to speak during the Citizens to be Heard portion of the agenda.
Items on the Consent Agenda were approved unanimously with no discussion by Council members:
- a contract between the City and Heard & Smith, L.L.P. for the collection of delinquent taxes for a 2-year term ending June 30, 2013, authorizing the Mayor to execute the contract.
- a Storm Water Management Plan for an ROTC building addition at O’Connor High School.
- a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the San Antonio River Authority (SARA) for technical review of and assistance with storm water and floodwater management, authorizing the Mayor to execute the MOU on behalf of the City.
- FY 2012 budget calendar for the City and the Economic Development Corporation.
- the following appointments and re-appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission: Ron Hozza, Alex Blue, Megan Mutschler, Sandra Ethridge, Michael McGlothing, and Niels Jensen.
Item Number 10 was discussion and action on a freestanding sign for Wine 101 and the Helotes Echo within Old Town Helotes. Apparently a permanent sign is being erected in the next couple of weeks, and they are seeking approval of a variance to the sign ordinance so they could leave up the temporary sign in the meantime. The temporary sign will be removed within 3 days of the completion of the permanent sign; all were in favor.
Item Number 11 was discussion and action on conceptual site and design plans for a low-density townhome development in Iron Horse Canyon. These plans comply with the zoning requirements. P&Z had reviewed them at their meeting last Tuesday and recommended that Council approve them. Since that meeting they have added more parking spaces.
The Fire Chief will review the plans and may have some comments and concerns. Right now there is only one way in/out of the townhouse development. The developers representative, Richard Masling, was at the meeting and assured Council that the development will conform to all regulations.
Schoolcraft stated that there will only be 29 townhomes which is well within the allowed number of 60 (10 units allowed per acre times 6 acres).
The building materials used will be stucco and stone, and they will have metal roofs. Masling said that the pricing of the townhomes will be upward to $250,000. They will be 2-story units and will range from 1100 to 1800 square feet. He also noted that they will be set 30 to 40 feet off Iron Horse Way with a buffer between the road and the townhomes. The original plans had them about 10 feet off the road.
At the P&Z meeting on June 7, 2011, Masling stated that these plans for the townhomes had not been presented to the Iron Horse Canyon (IHC) Homeowners’ Association (HOA) because he was not required to do so. This townhome development will most probably have its own HOA, but they will also be members of the Iron Horse Canyon HOA, paying dues to both and sharing in the use of the recreational areas. (Although apparently not required, I think it probably would have been a good idea to keep the IHC HOA apprised of the progress of the townhome project plans, especially since they will be a part of that community. But, hey, that’s just my opinion.)
Council member Massey said she was impressed by the development and felt that having this type of housing in Helotes was important to the community. She feels that there are Helotes residents that want to downsize as they get older and stay in Helotes and that prior to these proposed townhomes there was nowhere in Helotes they could do that. (Actually, there already is a garden home development in Helotes off of Hausman that used that same premise when getting its plans approved – giving older Helotians a place to downsize to.) Schoolcraft said, though, that if he was ever looking to downsize, it wouldn’t be to a 2-story residence (which is probably true of most older people in general and seemed to contradict Massey’s earlier statement).
The plans were unanimously approved.
Item Number 12 was discussion and action on a requested variance from platting requirements of an existing structure, currently the Helotes Creek Nature Center (HCNC), in Old Town Helotes. The owner of the HCNC is wanting to remodel the interior of the building and enclose the back porch. This would apparently require the lot to be platted. If I heard Schroder correctly, none of the lots in Old Town Helotes have been platted because of when these buildings were built – a long time ago. Council decided to grant the variance request and not require the platting on this particular remodel, since no new buildings were being constructed. Any future construction on this 9.5 acre lot would not be included in this variance approval; all were in favor.
Item Number 13 was discussion of and action on amendments to the Parades ordinance requiring additional emergency medical service be provided at extreme sporting events and requiring medical liability insurance be provided for public gatherings on private or public property.
Mayor Schoolcraft said that the City Attorney (who was not present at this meeting) had requested that this item be pulled from the agenda pending his review of the Constitutionality of one of the proposed amendments. The Mayor agreed that there would be no vote taken, but he wanted Council to discuss the proposed amendments to the ordinance.
One change would require the organization/person putting on an extreme sporting event (like bullriding, motocross, etc.) to hire their own EMS/ambulance that would be at the event in case of an emergency. There was recently a fundraiser held in Helotes to benefit an injured bullrider. During the event, two bullriders were injured requiring two ambulances. Helotes only has two ambulances, although there is a back-up company contracted to respond to Helotes if needed. On this afternoon, however, all five of those ambulances, usually kept close to Helotes, were on emergency calls. Council’s concern was that if there had been an emergency with a Helotes citizen, there would have been no ambulance available to respond. That situation has prompted this amendment.
Another amendment would require a certificate of insurance be obtained by anyone hosting a gathering on public or private property. This is the issue that the City Attorney is looking at because, as U.S. citizens we are given the right to assemble by the U.S. Constitution, and the City’s requiring the purchase of insurance and the obtaining of a permit would inhibit or prevent that freedom.
The Fire Chief would also like to require medical response and evacuation plans in case of an emergency at these events, which are not currently required. He would also like to add the requirement of security plans. The Mayor stated that these would not have to be elaborate plans, just 1 to 2 pages explaining how they are going to respond in case of an emergency. Rick Schroder added that there are lots of samples of these plans to be found on the internet.
Council member Massey said she thinks requiring an ambulance at extreme sporting events seems logical, but requiring a permit and liability insurance at public gatherings seems unconstitutional. They would be making it harder for people to exercise their Constitutional right to assemble.
Council member Buys thought that an event planner should be given more time to obtain a permit; 30 days might not be enough. He suggested that anywhere between 15 days and 120 days to apply for the permit should be allowed. That would also give them time to appeal if their permit application was turned down.
Since this item was for discussion only, no motion was made and no vote was taken.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.