Notes from October 8 City Council Meeting
The meeting was opened at 7 p.m. All Council members were present, as well as Rick Schroder, the City Administrator. Grace Tamez, the City Secretary was absent. According to the Mayor, she was elsewhere receiving a scholarship award from the state for being an outstanding city secretary. The City Attorney present was Sheree Kinsey.
The Mayor issued a proclamation declaring October 4 through 10, 2009, as 2009 National 4-H Week in Helotes. Members of the Helotes 4-H, which has been in existence since 1965, were present.
There was no one present wishing to speak during ‘Citizens to be Heard.’
The Mayor gave an update on the construction of the new Police Station. The foundation was poured on September 30. Construction is proceeding as planned. He also reported on the drainage improvements on Diamond K. Both reports were accompanied by power-point presentations.
At 7:15 p.m., before discussing the next agenda item, which was the request for a variance on platting the almost 7 acres at Antonio and FM 1560 (considered ‘Unfinished Business’ because it was postponed from the last Council meeting), Council went into Executive Session to consult with the City Attorney. They returned at 7:29 p.m.
The issue is that the owner of the triangle-shaped property at Antonio and FM 1560 (at the entrance to Iron Horse Canyon) is now owned by the Church of Latter Day Saints. They have applied for a building permit for a Heritage Meeting House and do not want to have the land platted, mostly because of the expense required to do so. Council’s concerns were that, if they had to subdivide the property at some point in the future because of the dedication of a right-of-way easement to the state (one side of the land is along a state highway) or a drainage facility, the City would be required to buy the right-of-way to give to the state or incur some kind of financial liability because these rights of way or easements were not recorded on a plat. (I’m probably not explaining this well, but that is how I understand it.)
Apparently state law does not require a plat if the land is over 5 acres and no subdivision is anticipated. Council has drawn up a ‘Memo of Understanding” (MOU) stating that the variance has been requested and any public ROW dedications and other easements will be recorded by means of metes and bounds descriptions. Council further states in the MOU that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land, that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to other property in the area, and that the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area.
The Mayor stated that if a drainage facility is built on the property, the Church is responsible for its maintenance. If they don’t, the City can step in and make sure it is working properly, and any work required would be done at the Church’s expense. (As far as I can see, the Memo of Understanding doesn’t say that. Another thing I find puzzling is that the effective date of the MOU is October 8, 2010. Did I nod off and a year went by unnoticed?) Approval of the variance was unanimous.
Council also approved the minutes of the last meeting and an ordinance adopting an investment policy for FY 2010.
The only item on the agenda for individual consideration (except for the ‘unfinished business’ above) was a discussion on the sidewalk ordinance. The purpose was to find out if Council wants to amend or do away with the current ordinance and to provide direction to City staff.
The City Administrator provided an overview of the existing ordinance, which he said was made up of an ordinance approved in 2002 and the addition of requirements approved in 2006, the earlier one allowing Council to be able to require the building of sidewalks and the latter one actually requiring sidewalks.
Rich Whitehead wanted some kind of protection for current owners and doesn’t think they should be required to build their sidewalk until neighboring owners installed theirs.
David Legendre thought that the sidewalks should be on state ROW instead of on private property.
Ed Villanueva likes the 2006 version; it just needs more consistency.
Cynthia Massey said that it bothers her that there are no material requirements. Right now sidewalks could be gravel, cement, crushed granite, etc. She thinks the ordinance is hard to understand and needs to be simplified. She wants sidewalks on the Bitters property (at the corner of Hausman and Highway 16 across Hausman from the Compass Bank). She considers it a safety issue.
Gary Johnson thinks the requirement of sidewalks in residential areas should depend on what people want in their neighborhoods. He doesn’t like the 2002 version.
Schoolcraft suggested they could specify lot size when requiring sidewalks, e.g., larger lots won’t require sidewalks. He suggested that Council members send any additional thoughts and comments to Rick Schroder.
Schroder told Council that a public hearing can be held on this issue, but they are not required to have one. He will take all Council’s comments into consideration, and he and the City staff will rewrite the ordinance and present it at a future meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m.