MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF WEST LAKE HILLS , TEXAS
Wednesday, April 23 , 2014
7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Dave Claunch, Mayor Pro Tern Stan Graham, Council Members Linda
Anthony, Mike Dewey, Taylor Holcomb and David Moore.
1.
Call to Order by Mayor Dave Claunch by 7:02 P.M.
2.
Citizens Communications: The City Council welcomes public comments at thi s point on
any issue. If the issue is listed on the agenda, the speaker may choose to comment during
the Citizens Communication agenda item or when the specific agenda item is taken up by
the Council later in the meeting. The Council cannot respond to matters not listed on the
agenda until a future meeting. Speakers must sign up with the City Secretary before
speaking. Speakers shall limit their comments to five (5) minutes each.
a. No one spoke.
3.
CONSENT AGENDA: The following items are anticipated to require little or no
individualized discussion due to their nature being clerical, ministerial, mundane or
routine. In an effort to enhance the efficiency of City Council Meetings, it is intended
that these items will be acted upon by the City Council with a single motion because no
public hearing or determination is necessary. However, a City Council Member or
Citizen may request separate deliberation for a specific item, in which event those items
will be removed from the consent agenda prior to the City Council voting on the consent
agenda as a collective, singular item. Citizens requesting items be removed from the
consent agenda must submit a written Speaker Card to the City Secretary before the
meeting begins. Prior to voting on the consent agenda, the City Council may add
additional items that are listed elsewhere on the same agenda.
a. Approval of the April 9, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes. City Secretary Lacie
Hale.
b. Approval of the April 9, 2014 Special Meeting Minutes. City Secretary Lacie
Hale.
Councilmember Moore noted that he was in attendance at the Special Council
Meeting and needed to be corrected in the Special Meeting minutes.
Councilmember Holcomb asked to move agenda item #9 to consent agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER HOLCOMB MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE ITEMS ON
CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER DEWEY SECONDED THE MOTION
AND IT PASSED BY 5-0 VOTE.
4.
Land Use: After-the-fact Sign Permit Application for Wild Birds Unlimited located at
3267 Bee Cave Road. (Section 32.03 .008 of the West Lake Hills Code.) Applicant ' s
representative Keith Bruneman of Texas Custom Signs.
a. Staff/Applicant Briefing. Briefing by City Administrator Robert Wood, stated
that where it was left last time was Council wanted to see different options
for the sign. There wasn't a consensus to approve the after the fact variance
for the sign. The applicant has turned in what Council received right before
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
PAGE I
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 2014
the meeting. They are turned in information this evening. Business Owner
gave presentation with photos of the current sign. Stated the length is under
20 feet, so about 96% over the code at this point. The square footage if you
calculate it this is 80% over the code. Mayor Claunch clarified with City
Administrator Robert Wood if that is how the square footage is calculated.
The Business Owner continued stating one thing he did want to bring up was
consideration for a variance for the sign as it is. Part of the discussion last
time was in terms of how the sign looks and is in the area, it doesn't seem to
be the biggest issue. The idea of granting a variance for a hardship for
visibility and for things like that probably dictated more for a change in the
code versus a variance to the code as it stands. He wanted to at least broach
the idea of how that process happens and maybe it is time to look at the code.
Simply when you look at all the business centers that have exceptions to the
code, the developer was granted exception to what the signs had to look like
in that area through the development. He thinks it is putting a lot of
businesses outside of that, into minority in terms of what you compare the
signs. The packet of pictures he submitted last time where our sign was
smaller and basically in line with what all of those looked like. The examples
were signs within those centers, Villages of Westlake and so forth. If you fact
in the Bee Cave Road corridor, from a consumer coming to our business it is
the Westlake Area. He doesn' t have the luxury of being the Village to where
it would be easier for his consumers to identify his location. He went on to
discuss the sign and how he wants to keep the lettering and move the word
Unlimited to under Wild Birds. This would be his number one request for a
variance if he wasn't able to get the original variance. He presented a few
other sign options to council. One was to abbreviate the word unlimited.
Since the business is a franchise he is limited. The final sign he presented was
how it would fit into the code. Stated is dramatically shrinks the signage and
challenging to see off of Bee Cave Road.
b. Public Hearing: No one spoke.
c. Deliberation and action
Mayor Claunch stated he is not in favor of the presented signs and doesn't
recognize the hardship to grant the after the fact variance. Councilmember
Dewey asked if they were entitled to a monument sign along the roadway.
City Administrator Robert Wood responded that they are called for when
there is a shopping center or multi type situation. Mayor Claunch clarified if
it was multi-tenant. The Business Owner stated that the property is owned by
Barton Springs Nursery and has a small marque. He thinks it would be
harder to read. Councilmember Dewey asked if they can have a second sign,
a building fa~ade sign. City Administrator Robert Wood responded that if
they were qualified to have a monument sign than it is either or, they
wouldn't get both.
Councilmember Holcomb stated he is in favor, in general, of trying to make
signage more visible on Bee Cave Road. He does think that if they came to
Council for a variance, he could identify the hardship of visibility. Also, have
to look at minimization. In that case, they would eliminate a variance
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
PAGE 2
AND REGU LAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 20 14
requiring to stack the words and move unlimited to the bottom. It would
have been a minimizing the variance request. He would have been in favor of
granting a variance with the stack. Councilmember Anthony agreed.
Councilmember Moore stated one the scenarios we asked the applicant to
come up with was exactly what Councilmember Holcomb is referring to. He
thinks that you can use the original Wild Birds with lower case unlimited.
We would be minimizing and more in spirit of the code. He continued that
Wild Birds is really the catch phrase, not Wild Birds Unlimited.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE VARIAN CE
BASED UPON THE DISCUSSION AT THE DIAIS THAT WE STACK WILD
BIRDS BE ON ONE LINES WHERE HE CAN USE THE ORIGINAL
LETTERS BUT THEN RECREATE UNLIMITED IN THE SMALLER FONT
SIZE AS DESCRIBED THAT STAFF WILL DIRECT THE APPLICANT.
THE HARDSHIPS BEING SAFETY AND VISIBILITY. MAYOR PRO TEM
GRAHAM SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED BY 5-0 VOTE.
5.
Land Use: Discussion/decision on proposed amendment for modifications to Article
24.03 Exterior Outdoor Lighting of the West Lake Hills Code for Outdoor Lighting.
Council Subcommittee.
a. Staff/Council Subcommittee Briefing. Councilmember Holcomb went through
the amended ordinance draft p. He stated they made changes in response to
comments from the public. The biggest change is in the previous version they
required permits for new construction and if you installed what was called a
new exterior lighting system. Trying to figure out what an exterior lighting
fixture was leaves a lot to interpretation. In this go round the subcommittee
decided to put a dollar figure on that to try to make it a little bit clearer so
people would know better what to expect when it came to getting permits.
Mayor Claunch clarified that the subcommittee wanted to create the
threshold that if a project is so small then you don't need to bother with a
permit. The threshold that the subcommittee chose was a dollar amount
Councilmember Holcomb stated that there are differences on the
subcommittee of the dollar amount so it is something that needs to be
discussed.
Mayor Claunch stated that we received an email from Gentry Johnson with
information about shields. A handwritten letter was delivered to city hall
from Angela Hovis in support of it.
Councilmember Holcomb went through the draft ra1smg concerns that
needed to be deliberated. The first one was in Section 24.03.002, the dollar
figure for permits for new exterior lighting systems, needed to decide
whether they should include a dollar figure and what the amount should be.
Council discussed the pros and cons of dollar mount versus number of
lumens. City Administrator Robert Wood's thought it would be easier to
address when they apply for the permit than after a bunch of lights are
installed. Council decided to leave this an open issue until they receive
comments from the public.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 2014
PAGE3
The second concern from Mayor Pro Tern Graham was on page 5 regarding
the definition of light trespassing, "if light directly from the bulb is visible on
any other property, the light is trespassing on to said property." Mayor Pro
Tern Graham thought this was eliminated, single bulb. Mayor Claunch
stated it has always been our standard if you can see the filament then that is
light trespass. Stated language could be added to the definition to clarify that
it is exterior fixtures, but Council decided to leave the definition as is because
it is covered later.
Another concern was on page 7, if the amendment was passed tonight then
subsection F, the date will need to be updated.
Mayor Claunch stated that there is a concern about security and shielding on
page 8, Section 24.03.004, Subsection F(l). There is a requirement that such
lumineers should be shielded and hooded without curfew. Mayor Claunch's
concern was to clarify if flood lights should be shielded and hooded.
Councilmember stated no. City Administrator Robert Wood stated if they
are shielded and hooded than the one hour restriction does apply. Mayor
Claunch confirmed if you have shielded flood lights than you can leave them
on longer and can stay on all night as long as they are shielded.
Councilmember Anthony responded fully shielded. City Administrator
Robert Wood stated it was a recommendation by our lighting consultant.
Mayor Claunch also asked about subsection 3, the motion sensing security
and safety lighting. It doesn't say if it has to be shielded. Councilmember
Holcomb stated right because the subcommittee doesn't think they need to be
shielded because they are just on for 10 minutes.
Subsection I, residential lighting curfew, the last sentence is an addition, if
you have fully shielded and hooded lighting installed and conformance to this
chapter that you use infrequently, you are exempt from the lighting
ordinance from those infrequent events. Mayor Claunch asked if the
subcommittee felt the language was tight enough. Mayor Pro Tern Graham
stated it is the same as the noise issue. Councilmember Anthony asked if they
really needed the sentence. If it is an infrequent use, people aren't going to
complain. Council decided leave the issue open and hear from residents
during public hearing.
Councilmember Moore stated that solar power fixtures have not been
addressed. It is an issue because they can't be programmed to turn off. They
are a new technology. Councilmember Holcomb stated they did set out to
updated and modernize the code and does seem like it wouldn't be a horrible
idea to include solar power lights as an exemption but that just becomes a
problem when these lights are staying on until 2 am because they aren't
controlled. Council decided to leave it an open issue and let the public speak.
Councilmember Moore raised concern for page 10, Subsection D, he didn't
remember putting the color range in the code. City Administrator Robert
Wood stated it has been there since the early drafts but only shows up in the
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
PAGE 4
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23, 2014
nonresidential section. Councilmember Moore asked why commercial and
not residential. City Administrator Robert Wood responded that there is
typically more lighting than on residential properties. Councilmember
Moore stated that he felt this was good.
Councilmember Holcomb stated the last couple of issues were the exhibits.
Councilmember Moore stated he had issues with exhibit 1. The code says the
height of the roof or total distance, the way we have exhibit 1, currently we
have 28 feet to the bottom of the luminaire and the luminaire could be 20 feet
tall. Councilmember Holcomb confirmed that Councilmember Moore
wanted the second picture. Mayor Claunch clarified that the pole and fixture
cannot be higher than 28 feet. Councilmember Moore stated standalone
fixtures. Councilmember Holcomb stated that exhibit 2, they are waiting for
an explanation of that. Exhibit 3, waiting for information from the lighting
consultant. City Administrator Robert Wood clarified that the lighting
consultant was going to help the subcommittee with exhibit 2 and 3.
b. Public Hearing:
Kathy Wirt of 110 Parkwood, stated she is against Section 24.03.002, page 6,
this is in regards to the $3,000 cap. She is against a money cap. If this is a
way to incentivize residents to put shielded lighting up, this is onerous
process. She thinks anyone that has been through any kind of permitting
process, found that it is not fast or easy. You are put in a hurdle and slowing
them down from actually achieving what you want them to achieve. As far as
the $3,000 she finds it arbitrary. She can probably go find a single light
fixture for $3,000.
Councilmember Holcomb stated that Council has decided to strike that.
Ms. Wirt continued by stating, when reading later in this section any
landscape lighting also requires a permit. That correct?
Councilmember Holcomb stated yes, if it is a new installation of landscape
lighting.
Ms. Wirt stated that Section E new addition of landscape, lumineers, which
means any additional landscaping lighting requires a permit, that is how she
reads it, is that correct
Councilmember Holcomb stated yes.
Ms. Wirt thinks it is a little unclear. If that is one of the three criteria that
requires permits, they should all be pulled up into section A. It should all be
clear that you need a permit if you are doing new construction or any
additional landscape lighting, if that is the intent.
Council agreed with Ms. Wirt, that it makes sense to have everything in one
place.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23, 20 14
PAG E S
Ms. Wirt's other clarification was if it would be new and replacement? If she
is going to replace her path lighting to be fully shielded, is she now under the
burden of a permit as well?
Council stated no, it is referring to new construction.
Ms. Wirt stated it said new installation, which to her is different than
construction.
Councilmember Holcomb clarified if she was still talking about landscape
lighting.
Ms. Wirt responded yes, when it is talking about new installation, she doesn't
know if that is an additional or just a replacement, she also said take the
lumens down on the landscape light might have to double the number on her
path, still replace the path, still thinks it is unclear and needs to be defined.
Councilmember Moore stated he agrees and he is for new construction only.
Ms. Wirt continued by stating if most of the residents are not in compliance
today, put these burdens in, then suddenly, all of a sudden, residents have to
come in compliance and go through permitting. No one is going to wait 5
years, 300 days.
The next section she discussed was Section 24.003.04, her questions was
regarding A number 2. When it refers to a entry/exits, at this point is Council
using the same definition as further down in F number 1, when it states an
ingress/egress is a door or window? Or is the amendment only referring to
doors.
Councilmember Holcomb responded that when referring to ingress and
egress, he is referring to what is in F (1). Any entry exit which would include
windows and doors.
Mayor Claunch asked if it would be best to pull that out and create a
definition so we can reference it in both -locations.
Ms. Wirt's concern is that based on the calculation there is very little
difference between a very small home and a very large home. She doesn't
find that large home, multiple stories; usually have about the same amount of
doors. She did some rough calculations for a home that is roughly 1,000
square feet, on the low end and property as high as 10,000. The difference
allowed is a light fixture, 800 lumens. If you make that 800 lumens per entry
exit pertinent to doors, it is being prejudicial to larger homes in the area.
Mayor Claunch clarified that math that Ms. Wirt did.
She finished by saying, needs to be careful because we have wildly different
size homes in West Lake Hills. She wants to make sure if a formula is put
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
PAGE 6
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23, 2014
into place it is one thing to have 15,000 lumens on a property that is 1400
square feet on a quarter of an acre, vastly different than a 10,000 square feet
house on four acres.
Mayor Claunch asked Ms. Wirt to walk him through her thought on why
larger homes should have a larger footprint. She stated that you have a lot
more to light. If you are trying to light your doors and your windows for
safety, a 10,000 square foot house on four acres could likely have an outdoor
patio the size of the smallest home in West L ake Hills. It is vastly differ ent
when trying to light for both security and use. These aren ' t just security
numbers; they are total lumens that is allowed on your property. The
number can ' t be the same for both of these sizes, very different needs and
from her running the numbers and looking at this, she feels that it is biased
toward smaller properties. Need to keep in mind that there is a vast range of
both structure and lot sizes in West Lake Hills and needs to make sure it
works for our entire population.
Mayor Claunch stated he understands what she is saying about the patio,
outdoor living areas; bigger homes are more likely to have those outdoor
features that require outdoor lighting. The lighting of windows doesn't wash
with him. There is an allowance for doors.
Ms. Wirt stated that is her question because later in the code, it says that
entries and exits are garage door, windows, and doors. Is that the same
definition that is used in the calculation?
Mayor Claunch responded that it says the entry and exit point is a window.
Councilmember Holcomb responded yes we have stated that in the last couple of
drafts. Ms. Wirt asked if Council was also assuming that was part of the
calculation. Councilmember Holcomb stated yes, that was his intent was . City
Administrator Robert Wood stated he recommends taking windows out
because it will double or triple the lumens allowed on the property if you
allow the 800 per window.
Ms. Wirt added then you aren't g1vmg any allowance between as large
property and very small property. Councilmember Holcomb explained that
the reason why it is important to have windows lit, regardless of what City
Administrator Robert Wood is saying about doubling or tripling the lighting,
is you want to do it for safety purposes. Mayor Claunch stated it may not
make sense to combine the two into a single defined term because here you
are saying, happen to put a fixture near one of these features, it is allowed.
He doesn't know if you would want to use the same definition up above, he
thinks the intent for that is just doors. In the calculation of the maximum
lumen limits, it was really to allow credit for entry points and not for
windows. He would be ok with the word windows stayin g in F(l) but either
better clarifying entry exit in A too. To include garage doors and stuff like
that but doesn't think windows should be included in the calculating.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 2014
PAGE7
Ms. Wirt stated if that is the case, her objections is that there is not enough
variation between a small property and a large property. Mayor Claunch
stated there may be a better solution than including windows in the
calculation. Ms. Wirt stated she would have to think that we are only going to
allow small houses on small lots to feel safe. She would want to make sure
there is equal looking at all size properties in the community. Mayor Claunch
asked if the basis for this methodology came from the lighting consultant.
City Administrator Robert Wood stated it came from the model lighting
ordinance. Mayor Claunch clarified that these were the factors that they
used. City Administrator Robert Wood responded yes. Mayor Claunch
elaborated that the numbers are weighted wrong and we should give more
lumens to the perimeter measurement that would be a way to give more
weight to the large homes.
Councilmember Holcomb confirmed that we also said Dripping Springs went
to an acre. They calculate lumens by acre size. City Attorney Alan Bojorquez
confirmed that Dripping Springs did theirs based on an acre.
Councilmember Holcomb said it is almost may be impervious cover. You get
so much if you have this size of a lot, he asked City Attorney Alan Bojorquez
if that is what they do in Dripping Springs. City Attorney Alan Bojorquez
responded yes.
Mayor Claunch added that to the list of open questions. If this is the best
methodology to establish a maximum lumen limit or do we want to look at
the Dripping Springs method.
Tim Nutt of 301 Westhaven, brought light fixtures to illustrate his point of
how important diffusion is. He also stressed how important distance and set
back is. He doesn't think shielded helps with light trespass. With terrain and
the streets someone is going to be below the horizontal plane. Mayor Claunch
responded that he disagrees. He stated that shielded is creating a visual
obstruction between the visible source and your eye. The definition of
illuminating glare and light trespass. Doesn't believe diffusing is enough to
soften or block the light. Thinks a shield or hood is the best way.
Mr. Nutt elaborated his point by stating lets define light trespass as lumens
per square foot which is definition of how much light is coming at you at the
place you are at.
Mayor Pro Tern Graham stated the definition of light trespass in this case
and in most cases is going to be the eye of the beholder. It is not going to be
tied to lumens or wattage or anything. That is what makes this complex.
Mr. Nutt responded by saying he understands what Mayor Pro Tern Graham
is saying, if there is any possible way to objectively define light trespass, this
is the only way to do it. He agrees it will be in the eye of the beholder. He
went on to say that the amount of lumens is higher so you perceive that as a
higher light source, lumens per square foot. Councilmember Dewey asked
what was the measurement for the amount of light that reaches him.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
PAGE 8
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 2014
Mr. Nutt responded that if your field of vision is so big, that is a certain
number of square feet, a certain perimeter, a certain amount of light travels
to you through that vision the amount of light that fits in that area is the
lumens per square foot that you see. Decimals of sound is the exact same
metaphor.
Mr. Nutt continued to state that if you shine a light on the wall it becomes
your diffuser. He continued to demonstrate diffusing with the light fixtures
he brought. His final point is that a certain amount of lumens per square
foot will be perceived the same way whether you see a direct light source or
not for the equivalent amounts of lumens per square foot. There is a
psychology involved where you think it is brighter. Any light source that is
far away, the lumens per square foot of the drop off is the distance squared.
There is a short distance where it brighter and can is funnel light to you but
anything in a setback it is all about distance squared. Whether you see the
filament or light source or not is immaterial. Mayor Claunch put this point
into practical terms. The complaints are about lights that are shining in the
window. He asked Mr. Nutt what should be done different in the code so it
can practically apply.
Mr. Nutt made a proposal, he compared the current code and the amended
code, in his opinion the current code an enormous number of West Lake
Hills residents have to replace the lighting on their property.
Council disagreed. Mr. Nutt stated everyone in his neighborhood has a fully
hooded light fixture, it is banned and against the law now. City
Administrator Robert Wood responded that it already is. Mr. Nutt asked if
the current code currently requires fully shielded and hooded fixtures.
Council responded yes. Mr. Nutt then stated his complaint is only very
slightly different, everybody still has these light fixtures and they will either
be turned in by their neighbor or changed out.
Mayor Pro Tern Graham made the point that it is resident complaints. This
has been in effect for twenty plus years and we have few if any complaints.
We have had a few recently but he doesn't anticipate anything different. He
is probably about of compliant with the current code.
Mayor Claunch stated it he understands the point that Mr. Nutt is making
that there are light fixtures out there that are not compliant with certain
provisions of the code and the extent we can he is all for fixing those things.
He thinks that Mr. Nutt is advocating to change the code to allow diffusion to
be sufficient. Mr. Nutt stated he would consider that to be an improvement.
Mayor Claunch stated if the reference is in regards to porch lights then we
need to go to that section and those can be diffused.
Councilmember Holcomb stated they are going to stick with shielding. There
has been a slight change in the code regarding diffusers.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 2014
PAGE9
Mr. Nutt stated that generally speaking he doesn't care about commercial
lighting but a lot of stuff that was mentioned in the residential code made a
lot of sense. Total lumens for your property, he reads the commercial and it
has the same problems the residential had. As he reads the code a
commercial property is not allowed to light up an outdoor patio area. The
definition of lumens per foot is a very small lumens per foot for commercial
property can have. Seems there is no allowance for any business that
happens outside after dark. Also wanted to state a key point regarding light
coloring, the reason a lot of fluorescent and LED bulbs look ugly to people it
is not because the color temperature is too high. The Mayor mentioned blue
lights, it is more efficient to make blue light. It is not pleasing to you eye
because there are no natural light sources that are blue. The think is he
wouldn't rule out higher color temperatures because the perception of them
being ugly is not a function of the color temperature but poor light quality.
They are getting a lot better all the time. His final point was, the code doesn't
foresee this but a lot of commercial lighting cannot properly be defined as
2700 kelvin or 3000 kelvin any way. It contains other colors or wave lengths
that take it off the curve that definition doesn't even apply. As far as color
temperature goes it is a lot more complicated than just a number.
Julie Kameda of Los Lomas raised two points. One is fixtures at entrances
and exits. A majority of residents do have fixtures that Tim demonstrated a
lot of the fixtures with clear lights. She doesn't think the ones with metal with
the lights up into it have been made until recently, almost no one has them.
She thinks she heard Council say they were open to the entrances and exits
allowing fixtures more of like what Tim Nutt showed the diffused glass
instead of clear glass. She thinks that would be a huge improvement because
it would allow a lot of the residents to A) keep their lights or it is simple to
throw a piece of plexi glass in there and call it done. Honestly, she thinks it
would eliminate a huge amount of everyone's concerns.
Councilmember Moore stated that is in the proposed code.
Councilmember Holcomb stated that the end of the definition of diffusion it
states it needs to be below the horizontal plane.
Ms. Kameda continued by stating for example if you look at the exhibits
attached every single one is recessed with a hood of the light. It shows on that
Tim Nutt has, as the one that can't be used. She thinks that they are the
expensive ones to replace. Going to the biggest lighting store in town, there
are not many choices. They are very expensive, she thinks if we can adjust
that for entrances and exits that would eliminate a lot of concern. She echoed
Ms. Wirt's point about having a larger home and lumens. The calculations
are not sufficient for someone like her.
Meiko of Redbud Trail, read a letter from resident Gentry Johnson
supporting the lighting ordinance.
c. Deliberation and action.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 2014
PAGElO
Council discussed concerns and determined that they were not ready to vote
on this tonight and will change the language in the next draft. They will
discuss the final language when Council is ready to adopt.
No Council action was taken.
6.
Public Works: Discussion/decision regarding proposal for in depth study from City
Engineer on Westlake Drive improvements. City Administrator Robert Wood.
a. Staff/Council Subcommittee Briefing. Mayor Claunch gave background that
Council asked Baker-Aicklen to provide a report that includes an analysis of
four different options for improving the road way. That report would
highlight the pros and cons, effectiveness, noise, services life, skid resistance,
costs associated with permeable friction course, high surface treatment and
pavement milling. After conversations with them about potential weaknesses
in the quality of that asphalt to which all of the treatments might be applied
there are concerns that asphalt might be failing in areas. Mayor Claunch
asked Baker Aicklen to include a fourth option of reworking the road way
and adding it to their analysis so they can have that in the record as one of
the options to consider. In addition to those four template pages, they would
come back to us, include a letter with an overview and recommended course
of action would be. They priced this proposal at $21, 770 so he wants BakerAicklen to talk about it and answer any questions.
City Engineer Tim Haynie, with Baker-Aicklen, stated they prepared the
proposal and itemized what was requested. They have the costs for it all. He
is available for questions.
Councilmember Dewey proposed to Council about bringing in a registered
engineer, who is an expert in asphalt pavement, from Texas Transportation
Institute. He gave a brief summary of her background and advice on how to
approach this project.
b. Public Hearing: No one spoke.
c. Deliberation and action.
Motion was made for Agenda Items 6 thru Agenda 8
COUNCILMEMBER DEWEY MOTIONED TO REQUEST PROPOSAL
FROM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE. COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED BY 5-0 VOTE.
7.
Public Works: Discussion/decision to solicit additional proposals from local engineering
firms for roadway improvements on Westlake Drive at Hull Circle Drive.
Councilmember Mike Dewey
a.
Staff/Council Subcommittee Briefing.
b.
Public Hearing: No one spoke.
c.
Deliberation and action.
Motion was made for Agenda Items 6 thru Agenda 8
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 2014
PAGE 11
COUNCILMEMBER DEWEY MOTIONED TO REQUEST PROPOSAL
FROM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE. COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED BY 5-0 VOTE.
8.
Public Works: Discussion/decision to accept requests for proposals for work on Westlake
Drive. Councilmember Mike Dewey.
a. Staff/Council Subcommittee Briefing.
b. Public Hearing: No one spoke.
c. Deliberation and action.
COUNCIL HELD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM #8 FROM 9:02 P.M.
TO 9:34 P.M. NO COUNCIL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
Motion was made for Agenda Items 6 thru Agenda 8
COUNCILMEMBER DEWEY MOTIONED TO REQUEST PROPOSAL
FROM TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE. COUNCILMEMBER
MOORE SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED BY 5-0 VOTE.
9.
Land Use: Plat amendment pertaining to Lots 23 and 24 of the Cortona Subdivision. The
purpose would be to remove a plat requirement that requires that the two lots share a
driveway and to modify the property line between the two lots. Properties are locally
known as 517 and 519 Buckeye Trail. Applicants Gary Sharpe and Ken Jones. (Section
22.03.281 of the West Lake Hills Code.)
a. Staff Briefing.
b. Executive Session per Section 551.071 of the Texas Local Government Code for
consultation with Attorney.
c. Presentation by applicant.
d. Public Hearing: All persons wishing to speak for or against shall be heard.
e. Deliberation and action.
Item was moved to Consent Agenda.
10.
Land Use: Proposed amended plat of Stonehedge Estates, Block K, Lots IA and lB to
modify a property line between the two lots. (Section 36.01.006 of the West Lake Hills
Code.) Applicant's representative Eddie Rumsey.
a. Staff Briefing. City Administrator Robert Wood gave briefing that the
applicant asked for a variance to adjust the property line. The review that
city staff and legal have conducted identified a number of deficiencies and
the actual plat that was turned in. There is still some work that needs to be
done, he recommends Council not take action.
b. Presentation by applicant. Applicant Eddie Rumsey stated they did the replat
of the subdivision Stonehedge Estates and the common dividing line between
lots lA and lB had a land swap, it was supposed to be even square footage.
When it was all said and done, it wasn't correct. The line between Lot lA
and lB was supposed to be 8 feet further north to make the two land swaps
even. The owner of Lot lA figured it out.
c. Public Hearing: No one spoke.
d. Recommendation to City Council.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23, 2014
PAGE12
Mayor Claunch stated application was incomplete.
Item was postponed to the next Council meeting.
11.
Public Safety: Discussion/Decision regarding replacement of radio equipment for
dispatch center. City Administrator Robert Wood.
a. Staff/Council Subcommittee Briefing. City Administrator Robert Wood
recommended postponement because information is still missing from
Motorola.
b. Public Hearing: All persons wishing to speak for or against shall be heard .
c. Deliberation and action.
Item was postponed to the next Council meeting.
12.
Land Use: Discussion of City Code and policy regarding the construction of large
retaining walls within the setbacks on residential properties. Mayor Dave Claunch
a. Staff Briefing.
b. Executive Session per Section 551.071 of the Texas Local Government Code for
Consultation with Attorney.
c. Deliberation and action.
d.
COUNCIL HELD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM #12 FROM 9:58
P.M. TO 11:04 P.M. NO COUNCIL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
13 .
Fire Safety: Update on efforts to improve fire safety, including Fire Wise, FireWatch,
Travis County WCID 10, and cooperative efforts with Travis County ESD 9. Mayor
Dave Claunch.
a. Staff Briefing.
b. Executive Session per Section 551.071 of the Texas Local Government Code for
Consultation with Attorney.
c. Deliberation and action.
d.
COUNCIL HELD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM #13 FROM 9:58
P.M. TO 11:04 P.M. NO COUNCIL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
14.
Public Works: Discussion/possible decision on update regarding Bee Cave Road ROW
acquisition. Mayor Dave Claunch.
a. Executive Session per Texas Government Code, Section 551 .071 for Consultation
with Attorney and 551.072 Deliberation Regarding Real Property.
b. Public Hearing: All persons wishing to speak for or against shall be heard.
c. Deliberation and action.
COUNCIL HELD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM #14 FROM 9:58
P.M. TO 11:04 P.M. NO COUNCIL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
15.
Litigation: Update on Peace v. Hovis, Cause Number: D-l-GN-13-003985, regarding real
estate transactions involving 102 Westhaven Drive and 10 I McConnell Drive. City
Attorney Alan Bojorquez.
a. Staff Briefing.
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
PAGE 13
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23 , 2014
b. Executive Session per Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code for
Consultation with Attorney regarding status of above-listed liti gation and related
legal issues.
c. Deliberation and action.
COUNCIL HELD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM #15 FROM 9:58
P.M. TO 11:04 P.M. NO COUNCIL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
16.
Land Use and Litigation: Update on Cause No. D-1-GN-001858, City of West Lake
Hills vs. Yaupon Partners, LLC and Ray McMackin; Case No. 12-12734-tmd, In re:
Raymond McMackin; and Adversary No. 13-01049-tmd, City of West Lake Hills v.
Raymond McMackin. Legal Counsel.
a. Executive Session per Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code for
Consultation with Attorney regarding status of above-listed litigation and related
legal issues.
b. Deliberation and action.
COUNCIL HELD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM #16 FROM 9:58
P.M. TO 11:04 P.M. NO COUNCIL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
17.
Adjourned by Mayor Dave Claunch at 11:04 P.M.
CERTIFICATE
DAVE CLAUNCH, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23, 2014
PAGE14