Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - Regular - 6/25/1992CITY OF LUBBOCK REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 1992 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas met in regular session on the 25th day of June, 1992 in the City Council Chambers, first floor, City Hall, 1625 13th Street, Lubbock, Texas at 10:00 a.m. Present: Mayor David Langston, Mayor Pro Tem Maggie Trejo, Councilman T. J. Patterson, Councilman M. J. Aderton, Councilman Randy Neugebauer, Councilman Max Ince, Councilman Alex Cooke, City Manager Larry J. Cunningham, City Attorney John C. Ross, Jr., and City Secretary Ranette Boyd. Mayor Langston called the meeting to order at 10:30 A.M. 1.) The Invocation was given by Jim Bertram, Assistant City Manager for Development Services. 2.) The Pledge of Allegiance was given in unison by those in the Council Chambers. 92-51A-515-340 ( 3.) ORDINANCE #9532 AN I ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 16-177 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK SO AS TO REDUCE THE PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT FOR VEHICLES DRIVEN IN PUBLIC ALLEYS IN THE CITY FROM FIFTEEN (15) MILES PER HOUR TO FIVE (5) MILES PER HOUR; PRESCRIBING A PENALTY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE. Harold Chatman, Chairman of the Citizens Traffic Commission, presented the recommendation of the Citizens Traffic Commission that Council pass an ordinance reducing the speed limit in alleys to 5 mph. According to Staff memo, in May, 1992, a toddler riding his bicycle in the driveway in the alley behind his home was struck by a car, and suffered a broken leg. As a result of this accident, the Traffic Engineering Department was asked to research prevention of future accidents such as this. After contacting other Texas cities' regarding regulations for paved alleys with rear access garages, the Traffic Engineering Department prepared a proposal considered by the Citizens Traffic Commission. The recommendation was (1) to place speed limit and pedestrian area signs at each end of paved alleys with rear access garages; and (2) to pass an ordinance reducing the speed limit in alleys from 15 mph to 5 mph. June 25, 1992 Page 516 The Citizens Traffic Commission voted unanimously to recommend Council adoption of the ordinance. Although not part of the approved motion, there was considerable discussion that these individuals whose property abuts the alley should be required to pay the costs of the signs. The approximate cast to manufacture and install the signs is $50-75 per location and Staff estimated that presently there are 500 blocks of paved alleys in the City. Another consideration at the Citizens Traffic Commission was a future requirement that fencing along rear access driveways be angled to the alley at a point 5' or 10' inside the property line to provide better visibility to persons in the driveway and to vehicles in the alley. A meeting between the City Staff and members of the Developers Council was held on June 17 and the Developers Council agreed that the reduction of the speed limit is appropriate. They also agreed that the signage is appropriate but not at developer's expense. They expressed the opinion that the signs should be installed by the City on a block -by -black basis as requested by the property owners who should pay for the signs prior to installation. The fencing revisions recommendation will be discussed in the future. Staff recommended approval of the ordinance. Since the total cost to install signs at each paved alley could run between $50,000 and $75,000, Staff recommended that installation be by request and that residents along both sides of the alleys pay for all Costs. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Cooke to pass on first reading Ordinance #9532 as recommended by Staff and Citizens Traffic Commission. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; D Nays. 4.) Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to approve the Minutes of the June 11, 1992 Regular City Council meeting as written. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; D Nays. 92-51A-516-341 ( 5.) Bruce Edwards submitted a written request for a Loudspeaker Permit for a block party on his property at 5207 94th Street, The block where the speaker will be located cul-de-sacs at Slide Road, and the block party will have a barricade at Abbeville, Saturday, June 27, from 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 midnight. According to Staff memo, the applicant petitioned neighbors within a 600' radius of the speaker, and fifteen residents gave their approval. Five residences were either vacant or could not be contacted. June 25, 1992 Page 517 In view of the unanimous approval of those petitioned by the applicant, and as this application is in connection with a block party for this neighborhood, Staff recommended approval. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to approve request of Bruce Edwards for a Loudspeaker Permit at 5207 94th Street on June 27, 1992 from 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 Midnight. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-517-342 6.) ORDINANCE #9526--Authorizing a traffic signal at the intersection of 4th Street and Memphis Avenue. ORDINANCE #9526 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT 4TH STREET AND MEMPHIS AVENUE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to pass on second and final reading Ordinance #9526 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-517-343 { 7.) ORDINANCE #9527--Authorizing a traffic signal at the intersection of_24th_Street and Ouaker Avenue. ORDINANCE #9527 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT 24TH STREET AND QUAKER AVENUE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to pass on second and final reading Ordinance #9527 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-517-344 { 8.) ORDINANCE #9528--Authorizing a traffic signal at the intersection of 50th Street and Elm Avenue. ORDINANCE #9528 AN I ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT 50TH STREET AND ELM AVENUE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to pass on second and final reading Ordinance #9528 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. June 25, 1992 Page 518 92-51A-518-345 { 9.) ORDINANCE #9529--Authorizing a traffic signal at the intersection of 55th Street and Frankford Avenue. ORDINANCE #9529 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT 55TH STREET AND FRANKFORD AVENUE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to pass on second and final reading Ordinance #9529 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-518-346V (10.) ORDINANCE #9530--Authorizing a traffic signal at the intersection of 74th Street and Quaker Avenue. ORDINANCE #9530 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT 74TH STREET AND QUAKER AVENUE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to pass on second and final reading Ordinance #9530 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-518-347 {11.} ORDINANCE #9531--Authorizing a traffic signal at -the intersection of 82nd Street and Frankford Avenue. ORDINANCE #9531 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT 82ND STREET AND FRANKFORD AVENUE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to pass on second and final reading, Ordinance #9531 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-518-348 (12.) Consider -request -of Texland Petroleum, Inc. for bond reduction on_Lif-Lubheirs No. 11. Lif-Lubheirs well No. 11 is located inside Loop 289 1/4 miles west of Guava and north of Erskine. Section 24-128(a) of the City of Lubbock Code of Ordinances provides that when an oil well is completed, the permittee may request a reduction from $25,000 to $10,000 in the bond or letter of credit. Drilling operations have been completed, and a letter requesting bond reduction was submitted to the Planning Office on dune 5, 1992. Staff recommended approval of this reduction. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to approve the request of Texland Petroleum, Inc. for bond reduction on Lif-Lubheirs No. 11 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. June 25, 1992 Page 519 92-51A-519-349 (13.) Consider Joint Resolution #3913 to establish an RESOLUTION #3913 WHEREAS, the City of Lubbock and Lubbock County have established similar programs of comprehensive emergency management which include the mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery phases of emergency management; and WHEREAS, the City and County find that vulnerability to many potential hazards is shared by the residents of both the City of Lubbock and the unincorporated portions of Lubbock County; and WHEREAS, the City and County further find that the common goal of emergency management can best be achieved through an organization which shares the combined resources of the City and the County; and WHEREAS, the contemplated interjurisdictional program is provided for by Subchapter E of Chapter 418 of the Government Code (Emergency Management) and may be entered into by both the City of Lubbock and Lubbock County pursuant to state law; and WHEREAS, such interjurisdictional program shall provide for such programs; and operations as are provided for by the Emergency Management Act or ether federal, state and local laws: NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK AND THE LUBBOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT: THAT there is hereby established an interjurisdictional emergency management organization by and between Lubbock County and the City of Lubbock pursuant to Chapter 418 of the Government Code, which shall consist of the elected officials and employees of the City and the County as designated in a joint emergency management plan to be hereafter drafted and approved, together with such organized volunteer groups as may be specified in such plan; and THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock and the Lubbock County Judge shall mutually appoint an Emergency Management Coordinator to coordinate all aspects of the joint program of comprehensive emergency management, including the preparation and maintenance of a joint emergency management plan for the City of Lubbock and Lubbock County in accordance with this joint resolution. RESOLVED this 25th day of June, 1992. LUBBOCK COUNTY: s Don McBeath DON McBEATH, COUNTY JUDGE ATTEST: s Ann Davidson Ann Davidson, County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: s Sunny H.Ratliff Sunny H. Ratliff, Assistant District Attorney CITY OF LUBBOCK: /s/ David R. Langston DAVID R. LANGSTON, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Ranette Boyd Ranette Boyd, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: /st-Donald G. Vandiver Donald G. Vandiver, First Assistant City Attorney June 25, 1992 Page 520 This Resolution will permit the City and County to develop an emergency management organization and to mutually appoint an Emergency Management Coordinator to coordinate plan development aspects of the joint program. When completed, the plan will be presented to the City Council and County Commissioners for approval. Planning for emergency operations related to hazardous materials incidents is required to be developed at the county level of government. A joint City -County planning effort will assist businesses in the City in complying with federal regulations related to hazardous material handling. Staff recommended approval of this Joint Resolution. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to authorize Resolution #3913 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-520-350 (14.) BID #12030--paint-plaster repair at Lubbock Municipal Auditorium, and authorize same (Building Services). RESOLUTION #3914 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a contract with Pharr Construction Co., Inc., d/b/a Pharr & Co. for paint/plaster repairs at Lubbock Municipal Auditorium, attached herewith, which shall be spread upon the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail. Passed by the City Council this 25th day of June, 1992. Isl David R. Langston DAVID R. LANGSTON, MAYOR ATTEST: s Ranette Boyd Ranette Boyd, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: s Gene Eads Gene Eads, Purchasing Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: s Harold Willard Harold Willard, Assistant City Attorney June 25, 1992 Page 521 CONTRACT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF LUBBOCK § THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 25th day of June, 1992 by and between the City of Lubbock, County of Lubbock, State of Texas, acting by and through David R. Langston, Mayor, thereunto authorized to do so, hereinafter referred to as OWNER, and Pharr Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a Pharr Co. of the City of Lubbock, County of Lubbock, and the State of Texas, hereinafter termed CONTRACTOR. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the OWNER and under the conditions expressed in the bond bearing even date herewith (if any) the CONTRACTOR hereby agrees with OWNER to commence and complete the construction of certain improvements described as follows: BID NO. 12030 Paint/Plaster Repair at Lubbock Municipal Auditorium Project (Building Services) in the amount of $52,711.11 and all extra work in connection therewith, under the terms as stated in the contract documents and at his (or their) own proper cost and expense to furniish all materials, supplies, machinery, equipment, tools, superintendence, labor, insurance and other accessories and services necessary to complete the said construction in accordance with the contract: documents as defined in the General Condition of Agreement. The CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to commence work within ten days after the date written notice to do so shall have been given to him and to substantially complete same within the time specified in the contract documents. The OWNER agrees to pay the CONTRACTOR in current funds for the performance of the contract in accordance with the proposal submitted therefore, subject to additions and deductions, as provided in the contract: documents and to make payment on account thereof as provided therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have executed this agreement in Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas in the year and day first above written. ATTEST: s Ra ette Boyd Secretary APPROVED i AS TO CONTENT: s _v Smith ATTEST: s Jackie Miller Secretary CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS (OWNER) /s/ David R. Langston Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Don Vandiver Pharr -Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a Pharr �& Company CONTRACTOR By: /s/ John K. Pharr TITLE: Vice President June 25, 1992 Page 522 COMPLETE ADDRESS: Pharr Construction Co., Inc. P.O. Box 2791 Lubbock, Texas 79408 Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to authorize Resolution #3914 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-522-351 (15.) BID #11964--Traffic paint (Central Warehouse). Allstates Coatings, Inc., Gladewater--1,375 gl. white, water base, traffic paint. 92-51A-522-352 (16.) Sherwin-Williams Paint Co.--1,650 gl. yellow, water base, traffic paint. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to authorize low bids meeting specifications. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. RESOLUTION #3915 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: TWAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a contract with Rhode Construction to furnish and install 25 digital flow sensors and 25 digital flow monitors/totalizers at remote locations within the City of Lubbock, attached herewith, which shall be spread upon the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail. Passed by the City Council this 25th day of June, 1992. Is/ David R. Langston DAVID R. LANGSTON, MAYOR ATTEST: s Ranette Boyd Ranette Boyd, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: s ene Eads Gene Eads, Purchasing Manager APPROVED A5 TO FORM: s Harold Willard Harold Willard, Assistant City Attorney June 25, 1992 Page 523 CONTRACT STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF LUBBOCK § THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 25th day of June, 1992 by and between the City of Lubbock, County of Lubbock, State of Texas, acting by and through David R. Langston, Mayor, thereunto authorized to do so, hereinafter referred to as OWNER, and Rhode Construction of the City of Lubbock, County of Lubbock, and the State of Texas, hereinafter termed CONTRACTOR. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned, to be made and performed by the OWNER and under the conditions expressed in the bond bearing even date herewith (if any) the CONTRACTOR hereby agrees with OWNER to commence and complete the construction of certain improvements described as follows: BID NO. 11985--Installation of Digital Flow Meters/Totalizer & Pipe Flow Sensors Project (Water Utilities) in the amount of $39,890.00 and all extra work in connection therewith, under the terms as stated in the contract documents and at his (or their) own proper cost and expense to furniish all materials, supplies, machinery, equipment, tools, superintendence, labor, insurance and other accessories and services necessary to complete the said construction in accordance with the contract: documents as defined in the General Condition of Agreement. The CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to commence work within ten days after the date written notice to do so shall have been given to him and to substantially complete same within the time specified in the contract documents. The OWNER agrees to pay the CONTRACTOR in current funds for the performance of the contract in accordance with the proposal submitted therefore, subject to additions and deductions, as provided in the contract documents and to make payment on account thereof as provided therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have executed this agreement in Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas in the year and day first above written. ATTEST: s Ranette Boyd Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: s Mike Murphy ATTEST: s Name Not Legible Secretary CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS (OWNER) Zsl David R. Langston Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Don Vandiver Rhode Construction CONTRACTOR By: /s/ Carman G. Rhode TITLE: President COMPLETE ADDRESS: Rhode Construction P.O. Box 53370 Lubbock, Texas 79453 Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Ince to authorize Resolution #3915 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. June 25, 1992 Page 524 92-51A-524-353 (17.) Benhall Manor Addition. ORDINANCE #9533 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 1501-C; A ZONING CHANGE FROM C-3 TO IHC ZONING ON THE WEST 30 FEET OF LOT 365, ALL OF LOTS 366-368, AND THE EAST 20 FEET OF LOT 369, BENHALL MANOR ADDITION, LUBBOCK, TEXAS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. 92-51A-524-354 (18.) Mayor Langston opened the public hearing at 10:30 a.m. Lewis Garnett appeared to request approval of this zone change to allow a transmission shop. No one appeared in opposition. David Jones, Director of Planning, gave the adjacent land use relationships as follows: North - Single -Family Residential South - Commercial East - Commercial West - Commercial Mr. Jones then advised that during the past several years, zone change requests along 34th and 50th Streets indicate a transition to heavier uses and that the area is commercial. The IHC policy line adjacent to Interstate 27 ends at Avenue L. Some existing businesses in the vicinity are C-4 permitted uses operating with non -conforming status in C-3 and several parcels of land in the vicinity are zoned C-4 and IHC. The request should not negatively affect the thoroughfare system. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request and Staff supported the recommendation. Mayor Langston closed the hearing at 10:37 a.m. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Trejo to pass on first reading Ordinance #9533 as recommended by P&Z and City Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. ORDINANCE #9534 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2687; A ZONING CHANGE FROM T TO IHI ZONING ON LOT 25, 82ND ACRES ADDITION., LUBBOCK, TEXAS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE A14D PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. June 25, 1992 Page 525 92-51A-525-355 (19.) Mayor Langston opened the hearing at 10:39 a.m. Pete Hale appeared on behalf of Pedro's Tamales to present this request for zone change. No one appeared in opposition. David Jones, Director of Planning, advised that when this land was annexed, the ordinance was written to bring the property in as "T", or transitional zoning and the plant was allowed as a non -conforming use. Since then the Interstate Districts have been adopted and the area adjacent to 82nd Street and I- 27 has had several IH zone cases (including Avenue H Glass as IHI) to the south. Mr. Jones gave the adjacent land use relationships as follows: North - Commercial and R-1 South - Industrial East - Industrial West - I-27 and Tahoka Highway According to Staff memo, the proposal is consistent with both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Policy and will not have a detrimental effect on traffic. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request and Staff supported the recommendation. Mayor Langston closed the hearing at 10:40 a.m. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Neugebauer to pass on first reading Ordinance #9534 as recommended by P&Z and City Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. Section 17, Block B. ORDINANCE #9535 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2688; A ZONING CHANGE FROM C-3 TO C-4 SPECIFIC USE FOR A 100 FOOT TALL TOWER WITH NO GUY WIRES AND AN EQUIPMENT SHELTER ON A TRACT OUT OF SECTION 17, BLOCK B, LUBBOCK, TEXAS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor Langston opened the hearing at 10:41 a.m. David Goyette appeared on behalf of Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems to present this request for zone change. No one appeared in opposition. David Jones, Director of Planning, advised that the Zoning Ordinance requires C-4 Specific Use zoning for radio/TV towers and the proposed tower will be 100, tail. June 25, 1992 Page 526 Mr. Jones gave the adjacent land use relationships as follows: North - Commercial South - Commercial East - Commercial West - Commercial As the location proposed is away from the fronts of the adjacent property, Staff advised that the request is consistent with both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Zoning Policy and will have no effect on the adjacent thoroughfare system. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request and Staff supported the recommendation. Mayor Langston closed the hearing at I0:43 a.m. Motion was made by Councilman Aderton, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Trejo to pass on first reading Ordinance #9535 as recommended by P&Z and City Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-5IA-526-356 (20.) Consider Amendment to Zonin Ordinan a #7084 to allow_5,000 square' beauty „and barber supply stores in the C-2 District. ORDINANCE #9536 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 29 OF THE LUBBOCK CITY CODE BY ADDING BARBER AND BEAUTY SUPPLIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN C-2 LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICTS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor Langston ❑pened the public hearing at 10:44 a.m. No one appeared either for or against this amendment. David Jones, Director of Planning, advised that currently wholesale bulk -handling facilities are located in the C-4 District. There has been a request t❑ allow a beauty supply facility in the C-2 District. Staff could not authorize this request under current provisions. Staff recommended amending the Code to update provisions of the zoning ordinance to be consistent with the present industry. The amendment limits business size to 5,000 square feet. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval ❑f the amendment and Staff supported the recommendation. Mayor Langston closed the hearing at 10:45 a.m. Motion was made by Mayor Pr❑ Tem Trejo, seconded by Councilman Cooke to pass on first reading Ordinance #9536 as recommended by P&Z and City Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. June 25, 1992 Page 527 92-51A-527-357 (21.) Consider Amendment of Zoning Ordinance #7084to regulate all sexually oriented businesses. ORDINANCE #9537 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, WITH REGARD TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTION 29-24 TO DELETE SUBSECTION 29-24(26), SECTION 29-24(27) TO ADD SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES, SECTION 29-3 TO INCLUDE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor Langston opened the hearing at 10:47 A.M., and requested that City Secretary Ranette Boyd describe the process to be followed during the hearing. Ms. Boyd then read guidelines for giving testimony before Council and stated the following order in which testimony would be received: P&Z Chairman, City Staff, those favoring passage ❑f the ❑rdinance, and those opposing passage of the ordinance. Mayor Langston announced that after all testimony has been heard, each side would be allowed to choose someone to present closing summary comments not to exceed 5 minutes. Jack Sebastian, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, stated that in its June 4, 1992 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to present to City Council proposed changes to the ordinance regarding sexually oriented businesses. Mr. Sebastian then pointed out changes made by the City of Lubbock Legal Department after the vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission as follows: Ij The definition of "sexually oriented business" was changed. 2) Wording was changed specifying 10% as the percentage of sexually oriented business materials a business must have before qualifying for the definition in (1) above. John Ross, City Attorney, stated that the changes were made to strengthen the ordinance by addressing points of possible challenge and the addition of the 10% was to provide a measurable standard to enhance enforcement efforts. Mayor Langston inquired about the legal effect of changing the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Mr. Ross replied that P&Z recommendations are advisory and Council may reject, amend, refuse to adopt, or adopt. David Jones then presented an overview of the proposed changes. According to Mr. Jones during the last three years, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered amending the zoning code regarding sexually oriented businesses. Numerous citizens have testified at the P&Z Commission hearings that x-rated businesses are a detriment to the community and that the Lubbock Code should be amended to prevent future encroachment of these activities on residential, churches, schools or retail commercial areas. June 25, 1992 Page 528 The proposed ordinance is modeled from ordinances in Dallas, Abilene, Austin and Amarillo which have been in effect for 5-10 years. Elsewhere in the United States, cities that have laws similar to the proposed Lubbock Code include Chicago, Illinois; Boston, Massachusetts; Oakland, California; Los Angeles, California; Fairfax County, Virginia; and Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Jones cited comments by the Police Department during work sessions that activities associated with adult theaters are increasing and that a number of enforcement problems have occurred. According to Mr. Jones an important consideration is that the proposed ordinance expands the number of sexually oriented businesses controlled by zoning and imposes a greater separation requirement. The existing Code requires that only live adult entertainment and massage parlors obtain a Specific Use Permit. The following is a list of uses currently permitted in various zoning districts: 1. Sexually Oriented Bookstore/Film/Video Store - C-2A (all commercial) 2. Sexually Oriented Viewing Booths/Arcades - C-4, M-1, M-2 3. Sexually Oriented Motion Picture Show - C-3, C-4, M-1, M-2 4. Sexually Oriented Retail Store - C-2A [all commercial] 5. Sexually Oriented Motel - C-4, M-1, M-2 5. Sexually Oriented Escort Agency - C-2A (all commercial) The separation requirement is intended to exclude these businesses from all residential areas of Lubbock, regardless of location and the proposed areas in recommended ordinance are located primarily in north and southeast Lubbock. Mr. Jones then noted the following regarding the proposal: A. Locations Requirements: For the new businesses, the following requirements for zoning district are proposed: 1. Permitted Use - C-4, 1HC, IHI, M-1 and M-2 if not on a U.S. designated highway (Idalou, I-27, Clovis, Brownfield, Tahoka, Slaton or Loop 289) and subject to the 1,000' spacing requirements. June 25, 1992 Page 529 e 2. Specific Use Permit - If the proposed lot has frontage on a U.S. designated highway. The separation requirement for permitted use is adopted as a guideline but is not mandatory. [The protection that exists in Specific Use is that a zone case is filed which is subject to public hearings.] Mr. Jones said that the Planning and Zoning Commission was divided on the proposal to allow areas of town to be eligible for permitted uses. The provision of Specific Use Permits only, subject to public hearings and approval by elected representatives, is prone to challenge if it is proved after a time period that the businesses are allowed by the zoning ordinance but the practical effect is that none are ever approved. Thus, Staff and the majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended an ordinance that relegates the permitted use of sexually oriented business uses to heavy commercial and industrial areas which are separated from residential. B. Definitions - (List of words with text in ordinance): 1. Specified Sexual Activities 2. Specified Anatomical Areas 3. Nude 4. Semi -Nude 5. Sexually Oriented Businesses a. Sexually Oriented Cabaret b. Sexually Oriented Modeling Studio C. Sexually Oriented Bookstore/ Film/Video Store d. Sexually Oriented Viewing Booths/Arcades e. Sexually Oriented Motion Picture Theater f. Sexually Oriented Lounge g. Sexually Oriented Retail Store h. Sexually Oriented Motel i. Sexually Oriented Escort Agency j. Sexually Oriented Encounter Center C. Separation: The Commission reviewed the effect of a 500' and a 1,000' separation from: 1. All residential zoned property 2. Any Residentially used property regardless of zoning 3. Hospital 4. Public park June 25, 1992 Page 530 5. Church 6. School, public or private 7. Licensed day care facility in any commercial ❑r industrial district 8. Sexually oriented business establishment The effect of the 600' separation would make approximately 9.5 square miles (9.1%) of the approximate 104 square miles in Lubbock eligible for sexually oriented business uses. The 1,000' separation reduced the eligible area t❑ approximately 6.6 square miles (6.3%). D. Amortization: Mr. Jones advised that the clause establishing amortization of the existing six businesses that would meet the definition of sexually oriented businesses was eliminated. These businesses are: 1. Crystal Cinema - 1408 North Avenue Y 2. Executive Theater - 1711 4th Street 3. The Flick Theater - 2212 19th Street 4. Varsity Theater - 2402 Marshall 5. Players - 3511 Avenue Q 6. Villa Country - 5401 Avenue Q The Planning and Zoning Commission majority expressed that use of amortization t❑ eliminate businesses is, although legal, unfair. The draft proposal had a tw❑ year time frame for conformance, and an appeal process for extension by the City Council. Staff did not support the amortization proposal. The P&Z Commission recommended the draft ordinance as presented during the first P&Z public hearing, without the amortization clause. Mr. Jones stated that Staff supported the changes as amended by the Planning and Zoning Commission with one change to alleviate some of the concerns of residents of north and east Lubbock. This would require all sexually oriented businesses to ❑btain a Specific Use zone change, rather than allow them by right. The Planning Staff also supported the proposed changes to Section 14, the Police Enforcement Section, that will mesh with the new zoning definitions. Mr. Jones concluded by advising that Council may act on the ordinances, as written, on first reading; may amend the proposed ❑rdinances; may close the hearing and hold action on the item until a future meeting; ❑r may continue the hearing and hold the action until a future meeting. He reiterated staff recommendation for an amendment to require a specific use permit in any commercial or industrial zoning district for these uses. June 25, 1992 Page 531 Mr. Ross advised that Council must establish effective dates for provisions of the second proposed ordinance, when applied to currently established sexually oriented businesses and for annual review of license fee by Council. Mayor Langston then asked about the status of the existing law, and Mr. Jones replied that currently only two types of business are regulated: live adult entertainment and massage parlors. Other uses which may fall under the proposed ordinances are controlled only by zoning law. Mayor Langston then requested information regarding current locations of these establishments and where they may locate if the proposed ordinance is passed. Randy Henson, Senior Planner, pointed out current and possible locations of the live entertainment establishments and the arcades/peep shows under the present ordinance and stated the changes which would result from adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilman Patterson pointed out that the recommended locations put East Lubbock at a disadvantage because of the large amount of vacant land in this area. Mayor Langston noted that any sexually oriented business may he placed in the proposed areas, without a hearing process, as long as all other requirements are met. Chief Don Bridgers then gave an overview of the enforcement and permitting requirements regarding sexually oriented businesses, and discussed briefly problems previously encountered during enforcement activities. He stated that currently, only 2 live entertainment businesses are permitted and the proposed changes will involve permitting 4 additional businesses, with the inclusion of theaters, arcades, and peep shows in the ordinance. According to Chief Bridgers, the current process which applies to live entertainment establishments will he extended to other sexually oriented businesses and will address health and safety issues currently present. When questioned he went on to state that sexual activities are occurring primarily in the peep shows, and arcades. Public testimony favoring passage of the ordinance was given by the following: Tim Lambert, former member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, stated support for the ordinance with inclusion of the amortization clause. He pointed out that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to keep sexually oriented businesses out of neighborhoods, and noted the intent of P&Z to also include residences in areas not zoned residential. He mentioned other cities which have this type ordinance, and advised that studies have shown that these businesses hurt property values and increase crime in those area. Mr. Lambert noted his support for the provision in the previously submitted amortization wording which would allow a business to petition Council for a one-year extension if they can show they have had insufficient time to recoup their investment. June 25, 1992 Page 532 Doug Moore, member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, spoke in support of the ordinance. He noted that the ordinance is pro active, is a consistent planning function and is analagous to the Comprehensive Plan to direct growth and development of the City. He went on to say that the ordinance sets a community standard which is proper and desirable. Mayor Langston asked Mr. Lambert where the businesses would move if the ordinance as drawn is passed and Mr. Lambert replied that they would have to move to the industrial section. Councilman Patterson commented that this will just shift the businesses from one area to another. Councilman Cooke asked about cities which have an ordinance with an amortization period, and whether or not they are enforcing that provision and Mr. Lambert cited a court case regarding Dallas affirming enforcement. Mayor Langston indicated concern about the type of conduct the ordinance is trying to control and questioned the offensiveness to those passing such an establishment, in contrast to that of the explicit material shown on television. Mr. Lambert stated his opinion that issue not a one of conduct, but of land use. Mayor Langston then questioned whether or not this type business should be located in only one area of the city, or should be disbursed to avoid creation of "combat zones". He then stated his opinion that the issue regards both land use and conduct, and it seems to be more of a deterrent for clients to enter an establishment from a busy street from which they might be recognized, rather one in an industrial area. Mr. Lambert agreed with the possibility of one being recognized in a busy area as a deterrent, pointing out that some individuals have observed and written to individuals frequenting these establishments. He went on to reiterate the crime factor involved with allowing sexually oriented businesses to remain where presently allowed. Mayor Langston stated that the accepted idea is to disburse these businesses to avoid concentrating them in areas with currently high crime rate. Scott Cherry, Verone Leimer, Tres Bruffey, Burt Bradley, Rev. Michael Melcher, and Elizabeth Rodriguez spoke in favor of the ordinance with the addition of an amortization provision. Eddie Sandell, owner of Sungli Academy, spoke in favor of the ordinance and related his experiences as a neighboring business of the Flick Theater. He mentioned his concern for his clients, many of whom are young children and adolescents, and instances of attempted rape, harassment, and unauthorized use of his property for illegal and unhealthy activities. Melody Sandell affirmed testimony given by her husband and urged passage of the ordinance. June 25, 1992 Page 533 O.V. Scott, attorney for Players, Inc., stated that his clients do not oppose the proposed ordinance as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He reminded Council that when the current ordinance was passed (without an amortization provision), there were eight adult live entertainment businesses in Lubbock, and his client's two businesses were grandfathered. He stated that only these two business remain. His client has relied on the action taken by Council, and has invested a substantial amount in the businesses. Mr. Scott also pointed out that the owner pays substantial amounts of taxes to the City and State, has recently bought property from five landowners for an expansion, and the businesses are attractive and well run, and comply with all permitting and regulations. Mr. Scott went on to say that problems mentioned in previous testimony do not relate to adult live entertainment establishments. According to Mr. Scott, implementation of an amortization schedule will be tantamount to confiscation of their businesses. He pointed out that these businesses are part of the entertainment industry and that this industry should be regulated. Mr. Scott stated his client's request is to continue to operate as currently allowed. Mayor Langston asked about the likelihood that these businesses would move to the permitted areas, if an ordinance is passed which includes the amortization clause, and Mr. Scott stated that has not been addressed and reiterated the unfairness of applying such a clause to those who own established businesses and who are relying on the 1986 ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Trejo stated that the 1986 ordinance was passed primarily to address massage parlors, and that at this time all massage parlors are gone. Mayor Langston asked if Players is allowed under Specific Use zoning, and Mr. Henson advised that it is zoned C-4 and is allowed as a non -conforming use because it was in existence at the passage of the ordinance. Councilman Aderton complimented the process of board/commission review for developing recommendations such as the sexually oriented business ordinance. Eddie Richardson encouraged Council to pass an even stronger ordinance than recommended, and spoke against adding the amortization clause. Cheri Iset spoke in favor of the ❑rdinance with the inclusion of the amortization provision, and pointed out the competitive advantage to currently owned businesses ❑f an ordinance without amortization provisions. According to Ms. Iset, such businesses would enjoy a local monopoly of this industry, and advised this is not in the best interest of the City. June 25, 1992 Page 534 Mayor Langston then announced completion of testimony of those favoring the ❑rdinance, stating that testimony in ❑pposition t❑ the ordinance would be heard next. Dr. Damon Hill stated his opposition to re -zoning ❑f the area which will at least include part ❑f his neighborhood because there is a disproportionate allotment ❑f land in East and Southeast Lubbock. He said that he is not opposed to shifting the businesses from the City, but pointed out existing problems in East Lubbock which would be complicated and increased by moving businesses of this nature there. He urged deleting a large portion of the land proposed by the ordinance to be allowed for sexually oriented businesses. Councilman Neugebauer asked Dr. Hill if he would favor deleting permitted uses from this ordinance, and providing for allowing sexually oriented businesses only by specific use. Dr. Hill indicated his support for this provision in light of the process for the required review and public hearings. Abraham Spires testified against the proposed ordinance and favored provisions to allow such uses only by specific use. Bobby Cannon testified against the proposed ordinance stating that he is a representative ❑f the American Civil Liberties Union and a prospective adult business owner. He advised that he has been requested by the ACLU to monitor the Planning and Zoning Commission investigations of the proposed ordinance, and to report t❑ the ACLU Board monthly. Mr. Cannon said that according to his findings the crime rate has not increased around sexually oriented businesses. He then related information regarding his study ❑f areas surrounding Players and the Flick Theater regarding crime and property values, advising that neither had been substantially affected. He opposed revoking grandfather provisions in the current ordinance to appease those who disagree with the business of adult entertainment. Mr. Cannon then requested an expansion of the areas for permitted use t❑ C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, M-1, and M-2 to keep the businesses from being located primarily in East Lubbock and recommended lowering the separation from 1,000 feet t❑ 700 or 500 feet. Regarding massage establishments, Mr. Cannon advised they are not adult entertainment, but rather are places ❑f business for relaxation and should not be covered by the ordinance. If that is not possible, he proposed the alternative to allow these businesses to locate in commercially zoned areas ❑n ' 34th and 50th Streets. In addition, Mr. Cannon requested removal of the Interstate/Highway clause from the ordinance and a lowering of the proposed age to 17 years ❑f age. Mr. Cannon stated his opinion that specific use designation is unconstitutional due to the fact of denial of 6 zone cases by P&Z during the last year. June 25, 1992 Page 535 Harold Chatman testified against the proposed ordinance, requested that "permitted use" be changed to "specific use", and requested that in light of the proposed 1,000 feet separation requirement, that the 200 feet notification requirements for public hearings be increased to match the separation requirement. Councilman Neugebauer asked Mr. Henson about increasing notification requirements to match the separation requirement. Mr. Henson stated that state law requires a minimum of 200 feet notice and that some cities have a greater distance, and noted that in non -controversial cases, there may be criticism regarding the expense of notification of individuals outside that area. He suggested asking the City Attorney to advise regarding having different requirements for cases involving sexually oriented business as opposed to raising the requirements for all zone cases. Henson went on to say that the 20% opposition rule in state law must be figured on only the 200 feet notification requirement. Mr. Ross stated that everything in the state statutes regarding zoning law procedure, must be done to invest jurisdiction in the City Council to consider the ordinance. State law provides for 200 feet and if that is done, then the Council has jurisdiction, but doing more than the minimum is not prohibited. He raised the issue of the same standards for all specific use cases and urged consistency. Mayor Pro Tem Trejo asked for an explanation for the audience of the terms specific use and permitted use. Mr. Jones replied that a specific use permit as used in the zoning ordinance, is a zone change. An application is required to be considered at a public hearing, after publication, to determine whether or not the proposed use is appropriate in the neighborhood. A permitted use as listed in the proposed ordinance does not require a hearing or consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Kathyl Anderson testified against the ordinance because of the concentration of area in East Lubbock proposed for this permitted use. She stated her disagreement with previous testimony that such established businesses would not move to East Lubbock, and said that the proposed ordinance will create a negative attitude, will cause the crime rate to rise, and that what is needed is economic development which will be an attribute. Clyde Myres testified against the permitted use provisions of the proposed ordinance, stating his belief that the reason that currently there are only six businesses is because of the specific use requirements. Mr. Myres stated that he is also representing Mr. Piercy and Van White, and the three of them own 27 units in the industrial areas. Mr. Myres said their businesses would be adversely affected and the safety of their workers jeopardized if sexually oriented business locate nearby. He recounted problems experienced with the theaters presently located there. June 25, 1992 Page 536 Rev. N.H. Franklin testified against the ordinance because of the negative impact to East Lubbock if sexually oriented businesses are allowed to locate there. He stated his agreement with previous testimony of Dr. Hill. Bob Jordan advised that he has owned businesses and property in Lubbock for 40 years, and that he is president of the corporation which owns Players. According to Mr. Jordon this corporation has complied with all aspects of the 1986 ordinance, and presently has a sizeable investment in their operations. He is in opposition to passage of the ordinance with the amortization clause, but does not oppose its passage if this is not included. Rev. G.E. O'Neal and Sheryl Snell testified in opposition to the ordinance and indicated their agreement with Dr. Hill's testimony, as well as allowing sexually oriented business in the City only by the specific use permit process. Cecil Puryear presented comments in opposition to the proposed ordinance because of its connection with the Codes and Planning Departments, and stated his opinion that citizens should be able to act independently on some matters. He related his opinion that businesses are being forced to relocate outside the City because of being overly regulated by City ordinances. Donna Canup, Larry Doyle and Harold Patterson testified in favor of the ordinance with the addition of the amortization clause, with Mr. Patterson stating his preference for a 3-year time period. Mr. Doyle expressed that he favors including the specific use permit. Max Winn, testified against the ordinance. Ken Phillips urged passage of a strong ordinance to regulate these businesses, (without moving them to another area), in such a manner that they will be run appropriately or be closed. Mr. Phillips questioned the 10% rule specifically as to how many businesses will be added to the 6 previously mentioned, because of the 10% rule. He also questioned whether additional police/codes/planning personnel will be required to enforce this rule, and also asked if the police want to do this enforcement. Another issue raised by Mr. Phillips is regarding who will quantify the inventory, audit the records which will be required to assist enforcement. Regarding spacing, Mr. Phillips stated his opinion that the proposed formula limits the number of available sites in the City for sexually oriented businesses, and expressed concern that this may have negative legal implications, or may facilitate a monopolization of those areas. In closing, Mr. Phillips warned about placing these businesses in industrial areas because of the negative impact they could have on economic development there. June 25, 1992 Page 537 Sandra Warren testified against the proposed ordinance, stating her concern with switching these businesses from one neighborhood to another. Mayor Langston then questioned the Legal Department about their change to the P&2 recommended wording of "significant portion of the inventory" to provide specifically for 10%, Mr. Ross stated that initially he had used 50%, but was advised that the Planning Commission had talked about 10% in their discussion of the "substantial portion" standard. Mr. Ross stated the importance of passage of an ordinance which is enforceable, but stated that if Council wishes to change the percentage, that is acceptable, so long as it includes a measurable standard. Mr. Ross went on to advise that the proposed ordinances may be passed on first reading, they may be amended, or action on them may be held . Regarding Mr. Phillips question of how many additional businesses will be covered as a result of adding the 10% rule, Mr. Henson replied that in the opinion of the staff members who work in this area, that bookstores in Lubbock would not fall into the category of sexually oriented businesses, and further that no more than the six businesses currently operating would be drawn into the category. He went on to state that 10% is commonly used percentage across the state, but that some cities use "substantial portion". Mr. Henson said that the 10% will become a bookkeeping problem, but that staff is willing to work with it. Mr. Phillips requested that this be researched further. In response to a question by Councilman Cooke, Chief Bridgers stated that they are not bound to the 10%, but do not anticipate problems with it. Mayor Langston then asked Mr. Ross if Council can include the 10% on first reading of the ordinance, and then on second reading, may amend, and Mr. Ross affirmed• that Council may do this. Royce Bruce testified in favor of the ordinance with inclusion of the amortization clause, and provisions for allowing these businesses by specific use. At this point Mayor Langston called for closing remarks from each side. Speaking in favor of passage of the ordinance was Tim Lambert, and in opposition to passage of the ordinance was Q.Y. Scott. Mayor Langston closed the public hearing at 2:30 p.m. Councilman Neugebauer asked Mr. Ross and Mr. Henson if Council amends the ordinance to include clauses regarding specific use permit and amortization, would the existing 6 businesses be able to apply for specific use in their present locations or in other areas? Mr. Ross stated that if the ordinance is amended to allow specific use in any commercial zone, and a period of amortization for the business has expired, the business may apply for specific use permit in any commercial zone. June 25, 1992 Page 538 Councilman heugebauer then stated that this scenario would allow citizens to determine through the P&2 public hearing process, whether or not they wish to have this kind of business in their neighborhood. Mr. Henson added that the structured amortization section had provision for a request to the City Council for an extension of the non -conforming status. The basis for proving this would be to show that true amortization had not had time to occur. Mr. Henson then summarized three options available at the end of an amortization period: 1--relocate or conform; 2--request an extension; 3--request a zone case to make the business a legal existing use. At this point, Mayor Langston noted for the record that Council is considering two ordinances: Agenda Item #21, which is a zoning item regarding land use provisions, and Agenda Item #22, which regards enforcement provisions, and stated that a public hearing is not required for Item #22. Mr. Henson added that the enforcement provisions are administered by permit through the City Secretary's office with enforcement by the Police Department. Mayor Langston then said that a sexually oriented business would have to comply with a two step process in order to operate. If Council determined to allow these businesses only in commercial areas and only by specific use, 1) a public hearing must be held by P&2 and by the City Council; and 2) a license to do business must be obtained. Mayor Langston then posed the scenario of a business with a specific use permit in a properly zoned area, which has a license to do business as a sexually oriented business. He asked if the Police take enforcement action and determine non-compliance with Section 14, if the business will lose license. Mr. Henson replied that the business license will be suspended; however, the licensee may appeal the suspension to the Permit and License Appeal Board. Mr. Henson went on to advise that most violations may be rectified and the license reinstated; however, if that is not possible, the license may be revoked. Councilman heugebauer asked if a determination of habitual violations was made by the Police Chief, what action can be taken. Mr. Henson said that the Chief may then revoke the permit, which would mean the business could not operate even though it met all zoning requirements. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Cooke to amend the ordinance (Agenda Item #21) to allow specific use without amortization and that Section 14 (Agenda Item #22) be amended to include the police enforcement action. Mayor Langston then stated that in a certain sense it does not matter how much Council opposes sexually oriented businesses, because the Supreme Court has issued rulings that these type of businesses must have a reasonable chance to operate. He noted that Council may regulate these businesses through zoning and through administrative procedures. June 25, 1992 Page 539 Mayor Langston pointed out proposed wording for standards which would be applicable if Council authorizes these businesses by specific use permit. These guidelines would be available to the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider when a specific use permit for sexually oriented business is sought. Mayor Langston noted that this is a more strict standard than that proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but does not send the message to any section of the City that Council does not care. This proposal prevents concentration of sexually oriented businesses in certain sections and avoids creation of "combat zones." Mayor Langston then stated that he understood Councilman Patterson's motion to be as follows: 1. Delete Sections 1 and 2 which provide for "permitted use" in C-4, IHC, IHI, M-1 and M2; 2. Amend Section 4 which amends the specific use section by adding sexually oriented business as a specific use in any commercial district; and to include the following guidelines for use by P&Z Commission in making determinations regarding specific use requests: R. Consideration of testimony that the proposed use will not be injurious or otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public. B. Consideration of testimony that approval of the proposal will not be injurious to the property or to the improvements in the vicinity adjacent to the proposed use. C. Consideration of the request shall take into account the character and use of the adjoining buildings and those in the vicinity, the number of persons residing adjacent to the proposed use and the impact of the proposed use on traffic in the proposed vicinity. At this point, Mayor Langston raised the issue of notice to property owners, and asked for input regarding whether or not to increase the area from 200 feet to 500 feet for only these types of applications. Section 5, which establishes the process for separation would then be deleted, and this will provide sexually oriented businesses a reasonable chance to operate. Mayor Langston stated his opinion that this approach will allow the y maximum amount of control and enforcement. Councilman Neugebauer asked if Councilman Patterson intended to delete the separation requirement in his motion and Councilman Patterson replied that he did not intend to delete this requirement. Councilman Neugebauer then asked for a clarification of the motion to not delete the separation requirement. June 25, 1992 Page 540 Mr. Ross advised that Staff be allowed t❑ study this regarding the practical application of the proposed separation requirements. Mayor Langston stated his concern that the proposed separation requirements would force these businesses into the areas currently proposed by P&Z; however, Councilman Neugebauer urged that the motion contain the separation requirement. Mr. Henson said that discussions in the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings resulted in the majority conclusion that if the 1,000 feet separation from residentially zoned property is retained, the map would not be substantially different from the one used during Council presentation. He went on to say that in cases of specific use permits, each case is considered individually and appropriate separation is determined. The separations will not be uniform in these situations, but if a 1,000 feet separation is included in the ordinance, P&Z will be bound by that. Councilman Neugebauer stated that he is prepared to live by those standards. Mr. Henson then pointed out that 1,000 feet separation is used, the practical effect will be locating these businesses in the same areas in East, and Southeast Lubbock. Councilman Neugebauer indicated his desire to see the map showing that is the effect. Councilman Patterson stated his opinion that Section 6, which establishes the separation requirement, should not be deleted on first reading, but may be considered for deletion on second reading. Councilman Neugebauer then raised a point of order that the ordinances be considered separately, and Mayor Langston agreed and asked if Council wanted to add Subparagraph d to require notice to people within 500 feet rather than 200 feet. Councilman Patterson stated that an arbitrary distance for notice could be placed in the ordinance on first reading and discussed again at second reading. Councilman Neugebauer then asked Councilman Patterson to amend his motion to make the notice requirement consistent with the separation requirement. Mayor Langston stated that if this change is made and then the determination is made that the effect of enacting Section 5 (separation requirements) will be to concentrate sexually oriented businesses in a few areas of town, that an amendment can be considered to delete or modify Section 6. Mayor Langston then restated the motion made by Councilman Patterson, and seconded by Councilman Cooke regarding Agenda Item #21 as follows: 1. Delete Sections 1 and 2 which provide "Permitted use" in C-4, IHC, IHI, M-1 and M2. 2. Amend Section 4 which amends the specific use section by adding sexually oriented business as a specific use in any commercial district. June 25, 1992 Page 541 The following guidelines are for use by P&Z Commission in making determinations regarding specific use requests: A. Consideration of testimony that the proposed use will not be injurious or ❑therwise detrimental to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the general public. B. Consideration ❑f testimony that approval ❑f the proposal will not be injurious t❑ the property ❑r to the improvements in the vicinity adjacent t❑ the proposed use. C. Consideration of the request shall take int❑ account the character and use of the adjoining buildings and those in the vicinity, the number ❑f persons residing adjacent t❑ the proposed use and the impact of the proposed use on traffic in the proposed vicinity. D. Other than the required 200 feet notice area, the notice mailing area shall be increased to 1,000 feet. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. Mr. Cunningham then stated for clarification that the 1,000 feet notification requirement is permitted, but may not be used in calculating the 200 feet rule. 92-51A-541-358 (22.) Consider Amendment to Chapter 14 ❑f the Code ❑f Ordinances, License and Business Regulations to amend licensing regulations ._pertaining t❑ all sexually ❑riented businesses. ORDINANCE #9538 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IX OF CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, WITH REGARD TO SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY; SETTING FORTH DEFINITIONS; SETTING FORTH EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR PERMITS AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS; PROVIDING FOR INSPECTIONS; EXPIRATION, SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS; PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR RECORDS TO BE KEPT; ESTABLISHING AGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE; AUTHORIZING CIVIL SUITS TO BE FILED; REPEALING SECTION 18-26 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. According t❑ Staff Memo, this Ordinance repeals and replaces Sections 14-240 through 14-159 ❑f the Code ❑f Ordinances. The current ordinance was established January 22, 1986 and when adopted, n❑ regulations for adult entertainment establishments were in effect. Lubbock currently has six businesses that would be defined as sexually oriented businesses under the new proposal. Players Club located at 3511 Avenue R and the Villa Club located in the Villa Motel at 5401 Avenue Q, feature live semi-nude entertainment and are currently licensed with the City ❑f Lubbock. June 25, 1992 Page 542 The four businesses not licensed are the Flick Theater--2212 19th Street; the Executive Theater-- 1711 4th Street; Crystal Cinema--1408 North Avenue Y; and the Varsity Theater--2402 Marshall Street. These businesses offer the opportunity to view sexually explicit materials on premises by video, movies and printed material. The proposed ordinance is not intended to deny first amendment rights to view or acquire this material; however, it is necessary to protect the public from unnecessary health and safety problems occurring on these premises. The ordinance would require that the interior of all booths be visible from a central location. These businesses have become a pickup location for persons seeking sexual activities, most of which are illegal and encourage persons to drive from location to location in search of new or different sex partners. (Most of the encounters are male/male.) The close proximity of the locations (particularly the two off North University) to one another creates additional traffic in neighborhoods with persons in search of someone for the purpose of sexual gratification. This creates multiple problems including prostitution, public lewdness, and indecent exposure. The ordinance addresses these issues and attempts to curtail illicit activity on these premises without placing excessive demands on the businesses. The proposed ordinance will encompass all sexually oriented businesses. Under this ordinance the businesses are accountable for activities on their premises and the City has the ability to deal with problems which are not currently covered by ordinance. Staff memo contained information for the proposed changes: 1. Section 14-241. Incorporates the same definitions used in the Zoning Code amendment, and includes an increase from two business types to all sexually oriented businesses. 2. Section 14-243. Defines more clearly the permit process. 3. Section 14-252. Provides an appeal process after denial, suspension or revocation of a permit by the City or Police Chief. 4. Section 14-255. Specifies the r conditions that cause a motel to be defined as a sexually oriented business. 5. Section 14-256. This section outlines the guidelines for design and operation of peep show booths. June 25, 1992 Page 543 6. Section 14-257. This section tracks state law regarding making x-rated materials available to persons under 17 years of age. 7. Sections 14-258/259/260. Establish Section 14 guidelines for violations relative to escort agencies, modeling studios, and motion picture theaters. The balance of the proposed amendment is essentially the same as the existing code. Staff supported approval of the proposed changes to Section 14. Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Cooke to approve Ordinance #9537, and authorizing the City Attorney to correct typographical areas and fill in appropriate dates. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-543-359 23 Consider Resolution #3916 authorizing the _Mayor to sign an amendment to Contract No. 511-XXF-6032 with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for capital assistance. RESOLUTION 43916 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock an amendmenit to a Transportation Contract (being numbered Contract 511-XXF- 6032) to be entered into by and between the City of Lubbock and the Texas Department of Transportation, attached herewith, which shall be spread upon the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail. Passed by the City Council this 25th day of June, 1992. /s/ David R. Langston David R. Langston, Mayor ATTEST: Ranette Boyd Ranette Boyd, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: s Larry V. Hoffman Larry V. Hoffman Director of Transportation `APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ J. Worth Fullingim J. Worth Fullingim Assistant City Attorney A copy of the Amendment to the Contract is filed with Resolution No. 3916. June 25, 1992 Page 544 The capital assistance in the amount of $396,000 is for a portion of the local share of the Downtown Transfer Plaza ($370,000) and the total local share to purchase two vans ($26,000). These vans should be received before October, 1992 and will be used for the Southwest Lubbock Route 4 to be implemented in October, 1992. The funds are restricted to these areas because they are from the Oil Overcharge Fund for Local Match for Transit Providers. This amendment is to extend the Contract to August 31, 1993 as all TxDOT contracts for public transportation projects are written for one year only. Such contracts may be extended as necessary to complete a project if significant progress is being made. Contract No. 511-XXF-6032 will expire August 31, 1992, but the tentative completion date for Citibus' Downtown Transfer Plaza (DTP) is not until October 1, 1993, which is after the contract termination date. Even though the design phase of the DTP has begun, the land purchase, utility relocation, and construction of the project must be concluded. Therefore, Staff recommended that the City Council authorize the amendment to Contract No. 511-XXF-6032 to allow a one-year extension. Motion was made by Councilman Neugebauer, seconded by Councilman Aderton to authorize Resolution #3916 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. 92-51A-544-360 (24.) According to Staff memo, during the 1986 budget year, a capital project was approved for the roof replacement of the Lubbock Memorial Civic Center. Funds have been set aside each year so money would be available to start the roof replacement/repair project during the 93-94 FY; however, the recent rains caused numerous leaks and the interior plaster ceiling to deteriorate. To date, $379,000 has been set aside in the General Permanent Capital Maintenance Fund for this project and an additional $400,000 has been requested in 1992-93 Capital Projects budget, making the total project cost $779,000. Depending on the amount of funds that can be allocated in 92-93, the roof can be replaced in phases, replacing the most critical areas first. _r' June 25, 1992 Page 545 It was necessary to accelerate the project and Staff memo indicated that an architecture firm was being sought to evaluate the condition of the roof and prepare plans and specifications for the roof replacement. It was determined that, even though the roof replacement may completed in phases, it would be more cost effective to have one architect prepare the plans and specifications for the entire roof project rather than in phases. The specifications will be developed by September, 1992, and either the entire roof or a significant portion of the roof (i.e. all but the theater) will be replaced after October 1, 1992 (1992-93 fiscal year). A Request for Proposals was distributed to ten architect firms and a committee reviewed the proposals submitted. Based on an evaluation of the experience of the firms and the individuals assigned, the committee recommended that Adling Associates Architects was the best firm to develop drawings and written specifications for replacement of the Civic Center roof. This recommendation was presented to Council on January 23, 1992 and Council instructed Staff to negotiate a Contract with Adling Associates Architects. Key provisions of the Contract are as follows: 1. Adling Associates Architects will provide detailed drawings and written specifications for the purpose of the City to bid out the replacement of the Civic Center roof. 2. Adling Associates Architects will be present during the pre -bid phase to answer any questions from vendors and during construction will conduct on -site inspections of the work being performed. 3. The set fee for Adling Associates Architects services will be $42,500. 4. The agreement may be terminated with a 7-day written notice for failure to perform in accordance with terms of the agreement. Following a previous worksession presentation of the architectural selection procedures, Council authorized staff to negotiate an agreement with Adling Associates Architects. Staff recommended that an agreement with Adling Associates Architects to develop the drawings and written specifications for replacement of the Civic Center roof be approved (to be completed within 90 days). Councilman Neugebauer questioned the necessity of hiring an architect and requested that Staff provide more information on this before Council acts. Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Trejo, seconded by Councilman Cooke to table this item. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. June 25, 1992 Page 546 92-51A-546-361 (25.) Garza County. RESOLUTION #3917 WHEREAS, the City of Lubbock, Texas is desirous of providing for the construction of a boat ramp facility an Lake Alan Henry in Garza County, Texas, and; WHEREAS, the State of Texas, acting through the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, under the authority of Chapter 11.033 Parks and Wildlife Code, would provide for such construction, and; WHIEREAS, the construction of such a facility would be of benefit to the citizens of the City of Lubbock as well as transient boaters from the State and other states: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the City Council agrees to enter into a Construction Agreement with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to provide for the construction on a reimbursement basis, with the sponsor providing 25% of appropriations or in -kind services, and the State providing 75% matching funds for work accomplished. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That DAVID R. LANGSTON, Mayor, is herewith authorized to sign any or all documents pertaining to the construction; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City is willing to lease for a minimum of 25 years the project area proposed for assistance, and upon approval will furnish the necessary lease agreement or land documents to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City will perform the necessary housekeeping and minor maintenance at said facility, minor maintenance being defined as necessary repair not necessitating special tools, skilled labor, or large purchase of material. The City agrees to pick up trash, mow and otherwise maintain the said facility in a clean, neat, and sanitary condition and to keep the area under surveillance to eliminate the possible condition of a nuisance or hazard to the public or adjacent property owners. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will provide any required major maintenance of the facility. It is also understood that such a facility will be open at all reasonable times to the public, and that at no time will fees be charged for use of any supported facilities. Is/.Qavid R. Langston DAVID R. LANGSTON, MAYOR ATTEST: /sZ Ranette Boyd Ranette Boyd, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: s Dan Hawkins Dan Hawkins, Director of Water Utilities APPROVED AS TO FORM: Isl Donald G. Vandiver' Donald G. Vandiver, First Assistant City Attorney June 25, 1992 Page 547 The City of Lubbock has acquired 580 acres of public access land adjacent to the north shoreline of Lake Alan Henry to be developed for recreational opportunities such as camping grounds, picnic areas, fishing areas, hiking trails and boat launching facilities. Staff recommended that a grant application be submitted to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for partial funding of the boat -launching facilities. If approved, the grant would provide funds for new construction on a reimbursement basis. The City would provide 25% of appropriations or in -kind services, and the State would provide 75% matching funds up to a $200,000 maximum for work accomplished. Upon approval of the City's formal grant application to the State, a 25-year lease would be activated which would require the State to commit to major maintenance costs of these facilities. The City would assume the responsibility of performing minor maintenance and housekeeping of the facilities including trash collection, grass mowing, and any other such activities. The lease agreement also provides that upon completion, these boat launching facilities will be open to the public at all reasonable times and that no fees will be charged for use of any supported facilities. The location of the boat ramp on the east end of the public access area as recommended by Freese & Nichols, Inc., Consulting Engineers, would be useable about 80% of the time based on historical water flow records. The project area which will be partially funded by and leased to the State includes a portion of the four lane boat ramp, docking facilities, and the parking lot. The docking facilities would include a stationary section and a larger floating section which will respond to fluctuations in the lake's water level. The parking area is estimated to be 300' by 200' to accommodate parking for 50 vehicles with trailers. The application packet requesting reimbursement funds from TP&WD must be submitted by July 31, 1992 and Staff hoped approval would be received by the date of dam closure in May, 1993. The remaining construction of the boat launching facilities will then be completed by the fall of 1993. The boat -launching facilities, along with the access road, represents the highest priority recreational improvements to the Lake Alan Henry public access area. In order to obtain up to $200,000 in grant funds and to ensure State participation in major maintenance of these facilities, Staff recommended approval of this item. Motion was made by Councilman Rderton, seconded by Councilman Ince to authorize Resolution #3917 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; 0 Nays. June 25, 1992 Page 548 92-51A-548-362 (26.) 92-51A-548-363 (27.) 92-51A-548-364 (28.) 92-51A-548-365 (29.) Knights Limousine Service. This item was deleted. Hold an Executive Session to discuss pending litigation regarding land usage. Stormwater Advisory Committee Consider aRpointments to the Stormwatgr Advisor Comer mi ttee. This item was held for action at a future Council Meeting. There being no further business to ome befo a Co tion was made by Councilman Neugebauer, seconded by Council attersa to rn the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Motion ca ried• as; 0 s. .1-- A STON, VYOR ATTEST: Isl Ranette Boyd Ranette Boyd, City Secretary Read and approved this the 9th day i ATTEST: Isl RanE!tte Boyd Ranette Boyd, City Secretary