The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1981-07-13 Agendas CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA .. , at 7:30 p.m.t in the City Hall, 7301 N.E. Loop 820. ~(1i the Meeting July 13~ 1981 ITEM 'PRE COUNCIL { ,/ 6:30 P.M. (S c ~- <55-/ ~1') 1. Discussion b Tax A1ss'e·sSOr'\ .' calculated' ACTION TAKEN NUMBER tax rate COUNCIL 7:30 P.M. 2. Discussion on as halt laydown box tractor mower .' , ¡,",- Page 2 July 13, 1981 CITY OF NORTH RrCHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA r'(J ,1 th e Meet i ng July 13", .1981 ~ at 7:30 p.m.t in the City Hall, 7301 N.E. Loop 820. NUMB ER: , ; ITEM , ACTION TAKEN '~,1"--"< ZONING - Public Hearin - n of PZ 81~15 Re uest of dB.. R. Flories to rezone 625 F. Wood Surve 73 J.M. Crockett I dust rial PZ 81-15 . . _J.-- '" , .I /' ," . _,J ,..,i. .~. l ,- ¿_ {\. ¿.{ '" i. ...:.. -t.(/';~ .,.-.-., ......_,......__.'"'....~ \ ,/ /. - _~·,""f"-. "-"",,. . c Page· 3 . July 13, 1981 CITY OF NORTH RfCHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA r(J;' the Meeting July 13, 1981 . . , at 7:30 p.m. ~ in the City Hall, 7301 N.E. Loop 8' ITEM ACTION TAKEN Consideration of Partial Pa ment to J. L. Bertram Construction Company in the amount of $14,051.70 - North Hill Sewer Line Consideration of Pa ent to Alan Hamm in the amount of $43,004.71. for Right- off-Wa for Rufe Snow Drive .-.- ·10, "",..,...;;0;.;';;', "d~"__"_"__ . ..:\;,.......,\., C,o s;erqt1'õn of Settilrg a Publìc'~\ Hearih fdr August 10, 1981, on ) [}rive '. A~~ssment Roll ,Citizen Presentation , 19. Adjo~rnment 1. Discussion on Personnel Action Closed) CITY OF NORTH RICHlAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA !-Úì9 the Meet; ng July 27, 1981 , at 7:30 p.mq in the City Hall, 7301 N.E. Loop 820. 1. 2. ITEM PRE COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. "ACTION TAKEN NUMBER· -----' CQUNCI-L - 7: 30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call ~/ I ",.~~~-~..~ , . r. t: f f . - \' I ;;.....Þ' ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 ~ NORTHEAST LOOP 820, JUNE 22, 1981 7:30 P.M. 1 . Mayor Faram called the meeting' to order at 7:30 p.m., June 22, 1981. CALL TO ORDER ( 2. Present: Dick Faram Mayor ROLL CALL Jim Kenna J. C. Hubbard Councilmen Wiley Thomas Jim Ramsey gavewFräeman 1m 00 Staff: Dennis Horvath Assistant City Manager Jeanette Moore City Secretary Rex McEntire City Attorney Richard Albin City Engineer Press: Mike Patterson Ft. Worth Star Telegram Robin ~Jatson Mid Cities Daily News Absent: Sharyl Groves Councilwoman Charles Williams City Manager , 3. The invocation was given by Councilman Freeman. INVOCATION 4. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Rams ey , APPROVAL OF MINUTE~ to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of OF THE REGULAR June 8, 1981. MEETING JUNE 8,1981 APPROVED Motion carried 5-0; Councilman Wood abstaining due to absence from the meeting. 5. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Ramsey, to approve the minutes of the emergency meeting of June 10, 1981. Motion carried 5-0; Councilman Keena abstaining due to absence from the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTE OF THE EMERGENCY MEETING JUNE 10,19 "APPROVED 6. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. PLANNING & ZONING PUBLIC HEARING - PZ 81-11, REQUEST OF T.F. ABBOTT, JR AND E. F. ABBOTT .-TO REZONE A PORTION OF BLOCK N, TQWN OF SMITHFIELD FROM AGRICULTURE TO IF-9-1500 I I , Mr. Delbert Stembridge, engineer, 3729 Flory, appeared before the Council. Mr. Stembridge stdted he was representing Mr. Abbott in this request that this tract of land be rezoned from agricultural to IF-9. This tract is located on Main Street in Smithfield. Mr. Stembridge stated Mr. Abbott desired to build a residence there which he planned to reside in. In order to obtain a building permit it was necessary to have the zoning changed. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak in opposition, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 7. Councilman Thomas moved, seconded by Councilman Ramsey, to approve PZ 81-11, Ordinance No. 901. Motion carried 6-0. \ ~ I I 8. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the engineer~ comments and all comments had been agreed to. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Ramsey, to approve PS 81-11. Motion carried 6-0. 9. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. David Barfield, 6825 Precinct Line Road, appeared before the Council. Mr. Barfield stated he was representing Key Branch Industries. Mr. Barfield stated he bought the property sometime ago and sold it to Key Branch and Key Branch approached him about building an office building. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he was the owner of the property at this time. Mr. Barfield stated he was not the owner, he was representing Key Branch. Mr. Barfield stated he first approached the situation under a Planned Unit Development. There were some problems on getting Planned Development on one tract of land and it was suggested that he come back with Local Retail-Specific Use- Office Building. Page 2 June '2, 1981 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PI 81-11 ORDINANCE NO. 901 APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING PS 81-21, REQUEST OF T.F. ABBOTT,JR. AND E.F. ABBOTT FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 23C, BLOCY , TOWN OF SMITHFltLD' APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING - PZ 81-13, REQUEST OF KEY BRANCH INDUSTRIES TO REZONE TRACT 3U, ABSTRACT 1055, T.K, MARTIN SURVEY FROM AGRICULTURE TO LOCAL RETAIL- SPECIFIC USE- OFFICE BUILDING e Mr. Barfield stated he wanted to build a particular building. Mr. Barfield stated it was his opinion that Precinct Line Road was a major thoroughfare. In Hurst and across the street from this property was commercial. Mr. Barfield stated his property was approximately 450 feet deep and he proposed to use only the front or 175 to 200 feet of the property. The back portion of ·the p'roperty would remain as is, all trees and vegetation as part of a buffer zone. Mr. Barfield stated he thought the building he planned to build would be an asset for North Richland Hills. e f i Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he was aware of a water service line that went through the midd1e of the property in qu-estion. Mr. Barfield stated he was aware of the water line; it would have to be moved to the easement. Mr. Barfield stated the line was not in the easement and he would move it at his own expense. Mr. Barfield stated it was suggested by the City Engineer that a six or eight inch line needed to be put in. Mr. Barfield stated he had agreed to put in the line and also agreed to give right-of-way for Precinct Line Road. Mr. Barfield stated there were plans in the making for the widening of Precinct and about 15 feet of right-of-way would be needed. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield who he had been in contact with on the widening of Precinct Line Road. Mr. Barfield stated he had been in contact with the City of Hurst. Mayor Faram asked how wide they proposed to make Precinct Line. Mr. Barfield stated about 80 feet wide. Councilman Ramsey stated he would like to thank Mr. Barfield for his indulence and patience he showed the city while going through this process. Councilman Ramsey stated that the city was in the middle of coming up with a Master Plan and there was some discussion on whether or not Mr. Barfield had followed the appropriate zoning classifications. Councilman Ramsey asked Mr. Barfield if he was a principle with Key Branch or owned part of the company. Mr. Barfield stated no, he did not own the property. He had an option with Key Branch. ~ Councilman Ramsey asked Mr. Barfield if he owned the property I until October 1980. \ ~ Mr. Barfield replied yes. Mr. John McNary owned all the property and the bank foreclosed and in order to control the right-of-way to his property he had to buy it. Mr. Barfield stated he sold ~ June 22!Þ 1981 Page 3 the property to Key Branch with the understanding that if th~ put the office plan together they would sell it back to him.. Councilman Ramsey asked Mr. Barfield how he entered his property at the present time. Mr. Barfield stated there was a sixteen foot right-of-way along the northern part of the property which he had. There was also a 60 foot strip about 500 feet down the road that touched Precinct Line Road. Co¡jncilman Ramsey stated he had been advised that Mr. Barfield might not have access, that it might possibly be taken away from him. Mr. Barfield stated that was not true. The right-of-way was filed of record with the County, dedicated and signed by the bank. Councilman Ramsey stated there was a sign on the property that said it was a private road and there were two residents behind the property. Councilman Ramsey asked if the private road was the only access to both parties. Mr. Barfield stated the road belonged to him and that would remain. The road would be the access to the office building and he would turn it into a street with paving and curb and gutter. Councilman Ramsey stated another question had been asked of him and that was if Mr. Barfield was so concerned with the neighborhood why did he sell the ·property. Mr. Barfield stated one thing was economics., He did not really want the property except to build an office on, but the fact he had invested so much money and John r4cNary was losing it he bought it to control and keep the road in. Councilman Ramsey stated he could not speak for the entire Council, but he was not convinced this was the best use. Councilman Ramsey stated that when it was rezoned to a different classification it was automatically establishing the direction of the future growth. Councilman Ramsey stated he was not saying that the area in the future should not be commercial, today he was saying it should not be. Mr. Barfield stated he bought the property to control it because he planned to make his home here. June 22, 1981 Page 4 e e r ! l . i ( \ ~ June 22, 1981 Page 5 Councilman Wood stated the preliminary plat showed a sixteen foot right-of-way on the north of Lot 3U. Councilman Wood asked if the right-af-way actually crossed the lot to the west, Lot 3Ul. Mr. Barfield replied yes. Councilman Kenna asked Mr. Barfield if he was going to try 'and protect the top of hill in its natural state and would the sixteen foot of right-of-way go all the way to the top of the hill. Mr. Barfield stated that his plans at the present time was to continue the right-of-way all the way through the property up to and abutting the other property. Mr. Barfield stated the property owners at the top of the hill, Lot 3Ul, with their approval, he would continue the road on past them. Mr. Barfield stated the street would be paved and would probably be wider than sixteen feet. The street would be a private street all the way through his property to the other property line. Councilman Kenna asked if there were others living on the hill that would have to use the street for egress-ingress. Mr. Barfield stated the way the property was set up the property to the west of 3Ul, in order for the bank to clear this out they required that he dedicate the right-of-way. Mr. Barfield stated there was about a 2.6 acre tract behind this property which the easement was also granted to. The same people own the 2.6 acres and Lot 3Ul. Mayor Faram asked which tracts had houses built on them that had to share the private road and when were the houses built. Mr. Barfield stated the house on the hill was about 40 years old. Mayor Faram stated he did not know the city had private roads servicing more than one residence. Mrs. Calvert, Planning & Zoning Coordinator, stated the Board of Adjustment had given them a variance to use the road. Mayor Faram stated the street would have to be put in to city specifications. Mr. Barfield stated they would put the street in according to city specifications. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to please come forward. ! } , t Mrs. C1eta Oggier, 6821 Precinct Line Road, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Oggier stated that when this request first came before the Planning & Zoning Commission on April 30, 1981, she got notification of the meeting and she got all the property owners within 200 feet to oppose it. Mrs. Oggier stated she did not get notification for the May 28th meeting or she would have been able to get more signatures. Mrs. Oggier stated she did not find out about the meeting tonight until the day before at 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Oggier stated that in reference to the private road, Mr ...and Mrs Cord owned the property along wi th about 100 acres. The property got down to about 26 acres where they built a house about 40 years ago on the very top of the hill. Mrs. Oggier stated that was the house that she presently owned. At the time she bought the house there was a roadway to it that Mr. and Mrs. Cord used even though they had other access. When John McNary bought the other property from Mrs. Cord he moved the road a little to the north so it would go along the north property line. Mrs. Oggier stated she bought the property in March of 1980 and continued to use the street. Mrs. Oggier stated John McNary did not lose the property in foreclosure. Mayor Faram asked Mrs. Oggier who actually owned the sixteen foot right-of-way. Mrs. Oggier stated she assumed Key Branch owned it up to her property line. Mayor Faram asked Mrs. Oggier is she would be landlocked without the right-of-way. Mrs. Oggier replied yes. Mrs. Oggier stated that at the present time there were no commercial buildings on Precinct Line Road on North Rich1and Hills' side from Grapevine Highway to the County garage. Mrs. Oggier stated she could not see taking a 150 foot strip and building an office building in nowhere. Mrs. Oggier asked if the building was built soon, would it be on septic tank since there was not sewer available in the area. Mayor Faram stated the building would have to be on a septic tank. I i \ t ~ June 22, 1981 Page 6 e e I , \, '... i \ '\ '- - Councilman Kenna asked who owned the property to the north of the property in question. Mrs. Oggier stated that Mrs. Rosna owned it and she also wanted the area left residential. Mr. Oscar Oggi,er, 6821 Precinct Line Road, appeare'd before the Council. Mr. Oggier stated that in this particular instance he felt Key Branch bought a p;'ece of property that was intended as agriculture and it would be an abortion to have that wooded section on the hilltop made anything but residential. Mr. Oggier stated that if the Council did approve the request it was his hope that they show some clout and if Key Branch said they were going to keep the last 180 feet in trees and have curb and gutter make them stick to their word. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 10. Councilman Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to deny PZ 81-13. Councilman Freeman asked if the city's consultants had looked at the area and had any recommendations. Mr. Horvath stated no. Councilman Freeman asked if the staff had approached the consultants for guidance. Mr. Horvath stated the consultants attended the meeting when Mr. Barfield withdrew his request for Planned Development, but had no recommendations. '" Councilman Wood stated he was concerned about the way this case had been handled. All the engineer's comments were based on Planned Development. Mr. Albin stated they had only reviewed the case for planned development. They had not had an opportunity to review it since the change. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Albin if he felt a septic tank would be able to handle the office bUilding. Mr. Albin stated the engineers depended on the Health Department on the septic system and Key Branch had documentation from them. Councilman Wood asked City Attorney McEnti're if this could be considered spot zoning. Mr. McEntire stated it could be considered spot zoning. ". June 22~ 1981 Page 7 CONSIDERATION r~ ORDINANCE PZ 81-13 ORDINANCE NO. 90. DENIED Councilman Wood stated that in view of the City Attorney's answer~ he would like to make a substitute motion; because of the circumstances surrounding ¿ . this zoning request that it be referred back to the City Staff. Councilman Freeman asked why Councilman Wood ~anted to refer it back to the Staff. Councilman Wood stated that if the staff could not come up with satisfactory answers to some of the questions it would not come back to the Council. Mayor Faramasked Councilman Wood what additional info~ation he wanted. Councilman Wood stated that regardless of what type of building was built~ with the present system~ he personally did not think it would work. ~ t I ~ Mayor Faram stated he would have to speak against the substitute motion because this case had been discussed by the staff and also an extra meeting had been held on it. Mayor Faram stated the Council had the information on the right-of-way and the private road. It now came down to a policy making decision and he could not see what additional information was needed. Now was the time to make the decision. Councilman Ramsey stated he agreed with Mayor Faram~ it was time to make a decision. Councilman Kenna stated he did not feel the sixteen foot street would serve the top of the hill and he thought more thought should be put into this on the part of the developer. Councilman Kenna stated he did not feel the Council could commit to this type of development that actually blocked egress and ingress to the top of the hill. Substitute motion failed by a vote of 4-2; Councilmen Thomas~ Ramsey~ Kenna and Hubbard voting against; Councilmen Wood and Freeman voting for. Original motion to deny carried 6-0. 11. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. r 1 ' ¡ \ Mr. Delbert Stembridge~ engineer~ representing Mrs. Wilson appeared before the Council. Mr. Stembridge stated Mrs. Wilson would like to have the property rezoned so she could build a home on it. ,}. June 22 ~ 1981 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING PZ 81-18, REQUE OF ROSE J. WILS TO REZONE A PO~ OF LOT 6, Dr 'I KING ADDITluI1 f AGRICULTURE TO IF-9 , June 22, 1981 Page 9 Councilman Wood asked Mr. Stembridge if he knew the size of house Mrs. Wilson planned to build. Mr. Stembridge replied no. Councilman Wood stated that according to the Planning & Zoning minutes no one knew what size house Mrs. Wilson wanted to build. Mr. Stembridge stated he did not know the size of house Mrs. Wilson wanted to build, but it would conform to IF-9 zoning. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to please come forward. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 12. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve PZ 81-18, Ordinance No. 903 with the stipulation the ordinance would state ItlF-9-15001l. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 81-18 ORDINANCE NO. 9uJ APPROVED RECESS BACK TO ORDER Motion carried 6-0. ~ Mayor Faram called a fifteen minute recess. Mayor Faram called the meeting back to order. The same Council Members and Staff were present as recorded at the beginning of the meeting. 13. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning & Zontng Commission had recommended approval subject to the engineer's comments and the owners had agreed with all comments. . Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Thomas, to approve PS 81-18 subject to the engineer's comments. Motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING CONSIDERATION OF PS 81~27~ REQUEST OF ROSE J. WILSON FOR REPLAT OF LOT 6A, DAWN KING ADDITION . . APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING PUBLIC HEARING - PZ 81-21, REQUEST OF BATES CONTAINER TO REZONE LOTS 17- 21, BLOCK J, SMITHFIELD ADDITIO FROM LOCAL RETAIL AND lF~9 TO INDUSTRIAL 14. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. Delbert Stembridge, engineer, representing Bates Container, appeared before the Council. Mr. Stembridge stated Bates owned five lots, four lots were zoned IF-9 and one Local Retail. Bates wanted to install solar panels on these lots for solar energy for their plat. Mr. Stembridge stated to do this they felt they needed to change the zoning to industrial. Councilman Kenna asked if the city had an ordinance to restrict the height of objects being constructed to the east and west of Bates. ". June 22, 1981 Page 10 \ l Mayor Faram instructed the Staff to check the records and see if an ordinance had been passed on restricting the height of buildings and/or signs surrounding Bates. Mayor Faram called for anyone present wishing to speak in opposition of this request to please come forward. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the Public Hearing. 15. Mayor Faram advised the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval. Councilman Thomas moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve PZ 81-21, Ordinance No. 904. Motion carried 6-0. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 81-21 APPROVED ORDIÑANCE NO. 904 Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Ramsèy, to approve PS 81-26. PLANNING & ZONING CONSIDERATION OF PS 81-26,' REQUEST OF BATES CONTAINE2 FOR REPlAT OF Lo~r 17R, BLOCK J, SMITHFIELD ADl ].\" APPROVED 16. Mayor Faram stated the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the engineer's comments and staff recommendation that a 8" water line be installed. ¡ Councilman Freeman asked if the stipulation regarding the water line should be in the motion. Mr. Stembridge stated Bates was· going to extend the water line. Mr. Stembridge stated he had the plans and would submit them to the City Engineer. Councilman Ramsey asked if the motion needed to be clarified. Mayor Faram stated he would prefer the motion be clarified. Councilman Ramsey withdrew his second. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Ramsey, to approve PZ 81-26 with the stipulation Item #2 (811 water line) of the engineer's letter be taken care of. Moti,on carried 6-0. Mayor Faram advised the Council the appraised value was $473,567,125.00. CONSIDERATION uf ORDINANCE CERTI- FICATION OF THE 1981-82 TAX ROLL APPROVED ORDI,NANCE NO. 90 17. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve Ordinance No. 905. Motion carried 6-0. ~ 18. ¡ r t June 22 ~ 1981 Page 11 Mayor Faram advised the Council that under Section 1, of the ordinance naming the Election Judge and Alternate Judge the name Mrs. Beverly Riley should be inserted as Judge and Mrs. Aline Parker as Alternate Judge. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE CALLING CHARTER ELECTION FOR AUGUST 8~ 1981 APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 906 Mr. Brinkley, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, appeared before the Council. Mr. Brinkley stated the committee had input from the Civil Service Commission and also an employee committee. Mr. Brinkley discussed the proposed Charter amendments. (copy of same. a part of Ordinance No. 906) Lt. Pat Hughes, North Richland Fire Department, appeared before the Council. Lt. Hughes stated he was on a committee that had representatives from each department. The representatives met with the City Manager and Assistant City Manager and they got a chance to air their views on s~e of the Civil Service issues that were brought out. Each member on the committee worked long hours with their people trying to come up with some alternatives that everyone would be happy with. Lt. Hughes stated he felt like they had met the challenge. Lt. Hughes stated the committee had polled their people and they felt that what they had submitted to the Council was a fair and equitable plan the employees could support. Mayor Faram stated that on behalf of the Council he would like to thank the employees for their support. Mr. Jim Cato, 6729 Corona, appeared before the Council. Mr. Cato asked when a copy of the amendments would be made available. Mr. McEntire advised a copy would be available Tuesday morning. Mr. Cato stated he questioned the 1egali~ of calling an election since the State Law stated a Charter could only be amended every two years. Mr. McEntire stated the City Charter had not been amended in the last two years. Mr. McEntire stated an attempt does not constitute a change. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve Ordinance No. 906 with the stipulation that under Section 18 the following be added: "Such cases shall be advanced on the docket of such court and shall be given a preference setting over all other cases and shall be tried under the Substanial Evidence Rule.1I Councilman Kenna stated he would like to thank the citizens and employees that helped with the amendments. \ Motion to approve carried 6-0. 19. Council man Kenna moved, seconded by Counc.i 1 man· Ramsey, to approve payment to Austin Road Company in the amount of $20,164.05. Motion carried 6-0. 20. Councilman Thomas moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve payment to Sharrock Electric in the amount of $10,199.77. Motion carried 6-0. 21 . None 22. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of June 22, 1981. ATTEST: Jeanette Moore, City Secretary l June 22, 1981 Page 12 CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT TO AUSTIN ROAD COMPAN FOR ESTIMATE #1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,164.05 FOR BOOTH CALLOWAY ROAD APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT TO SHARROCK ELECTRIC~ ESTIM,ATE #7, IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,199.77 FOR EMERALD HILL- DAVIS BOULEVARD SIGNALS APPROVED CITIZEN PRESENTA- TION ADJOURNr~ENT Dick Faram - Mayor JULY 13, 1981 /91/ - /2, (? 7 9W — 1r hei . ca. rs or 405 5 Oligerzet /lt/- /2 oR /azA r B i :0 .... . t ; 1 i n, .~, Ê , t:» ~ Z .... ;: i ~ I ~ .!.. =- ~ =- ." '\I !i ~ ß ~ (1 ~I ~ ~ fit ~ ~ ~- , .. ~ t· .... : ' ,'J. I ~ . . , r ! ~'rN J ,il i ! 1,J . 1 r ~ ~ [1 , . I ..! t~. [.' J I t .., ~ r I t' . 'f ~ , . , ~ ~ " I:!! I '",' If!" ~ ~p. ~ : ~.. r s - ~~!r! I' -'''~I (J~ .þ, I a Š Ir, III ø.. ~ äo å¡, iZ b , (t f -,. ú1 -,-~ f ~ ç ..... o ~ ~ r too( ~. ~ I ,~ .. n fit .. c: " < ~. . !! t r I. .. õ' . .. ~ -b ", I~' ø .,Jit -,'~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ( 11'1 ~ ~ rn , (It <7 1 " -- ;' p I . I II I . , '-- . , 'u L ' I I . - ,-- -:=--1- ----- -- L--~ ,;aË &'~íf"M ;t- . - -. pÞ,'.~tJ~~." !ß - .~~ A , '-~___-'-=-":CI.~~~ _ '''---r-- ._ _ CA~~~WA~~:!-.~~D:!!!.r!!!..~~__ I .. - e. NOtJ'''W~~.. ~______~_ "n -.. _.- - - - - - -- .,,, "". - . _. - -- - - . · '':';''1-- --- --.. r.- I ~ I .. .... I ! I ':í . I I ~ t' I I _ ~ ~ -,.. F. IIN·'. .... ,."..,' ·,,0 J4L~11 --------~~r-----, , . ~ · .' . ........ l ~--iï~-r . T' I· . ~--- s øoVe '- '~'2..s..a' , I ' . , 1 ~ ~ \ I ... l."\ I ~ I .. ... ... ... I i 'l ~ ~-" I " t~ S;;; ~ :IE . -.. .......... ! ~ - , Z . . 8, C~\,,£ ,<:,.u.rb '-. Þ.-oPc:.~~\\~ !~~ª;~[;~ e~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~. en (II S t:I ~en en 2I:2S ct-~()~ . ~ (I ~ ~ ~, °0 5-' 0 ~ o 0 <'OÞ1t; .... t-' eft œ .f;- ~ ~ '" 0 ct VJ '" C7' .. 0' .. Þ;n. 0 . .. ~"" C t.zj tzj C ~ 0 Mat: OQ'::S (t · '" t-' ~..... <I 0 c+ L-~ t:fl;..., ~.~Þi . ~(IISe: .. 2: s: CI ~(II~ ~cnn 8 (I t:c+o ::s:rt; ~~œ o en · I-;C+O QnÞ; .....ott ~tJ~ ~~~ coø.. H) fiOJ~ ~. ~ ~ø..~ ~b~ ~c+ .. 1\)C CRt 8.0' ~b$O'4:. CD CÞ r: ~ r: ~ m ~ , [ ~ () :s () n (1) n (1)> (I (1) o 0 o ...., 0 M) to; H, 0) (þ "" . "" . · o· 0 01-;0 ~ t; (1þ Ht (I CD (1) <'0 (D (1) c+ (I c+ c+.... c+ .... ' .... m- tZ " U' f~ s- 'Ø t-' '" n (I o to; t; n c+ (')þØ Þi O~O...O~ I-' rt~('D t-J 'tJ '<: c+ OC+I-' ~t; C-<~oo~ en c+....,::1.- .. t::I t-' CO'1~OO to ('0 0 1-4) a: c. n Þ1 ..,. ~ ~ ~ b~ (D ø.p!c+^ nCD .... o 0. I$ ('0 a n- en en8~þja !~[g[ ø.~ = ~ i~8~~ t; (Inn tJq 0- ~c.+ .I""tt-t oeS ~ ~ ~ i; >'2 Sg...cC1 iCDC+!ZJn a\.o)O~~ gf~:~ Øt ~~ 8 ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~...t-!HQ. tscti gs:E- [ n ('0 s- i- ~~~ [~gf" ..~~ 0» C\ ~ . ~ ~ Þ' -I ~ ~ tj ~ ~ = i i H > ~ Þ< ~ tn a ~ x § ~g~ ~ ~ ~ Ii: -- ~ en ~ ~, ~ h., ~ lr) ~~ I I I I 'c; I ':2 /' ~~ "', €o o«~~, .~ .,,~~~:"i,~' ~I~' . Ð 0- , .. I ~® ! + ¡ I ~ w I >- ~ ii: ,I 0 ~ I : ~ zq ~ œ ~ - o ~: N ~¡ : I ffi ~ ¡ ëñ_ I .! ~ ~ ~j I¡ 5 ~'~ ¡~ 1/)'" :t"lI J ~~ N! ~'~ I -!:.: I {11 w ~ ~ ~ o m Q) CfJ ~ !\J (' ~'2' re "- ç,,~ ~-~ ,'~ "--.J Cj '~ ~\ "" ~ ::t !!2 '0 ~, / " ~'1$~ ~2.1b\~ ~;~~~,t.~ (O~ (~ ,d. 0 I o~' 0 ---- ' / ,') ~ ~ I g tD ..., g - ~, &1>:> . -; .." \ ID ~ lOOt, 1 'Q rI' S ~":~...~~':~ 0'1 ..,.~. ~ \ N ~ C\ 0 I """,0' ,A',,~." \ ~ ~,\ \" ,,' " g'~ ~ '~o ~ ,.0 "-0,,'" , " C ; .~.. .. ~,~ ~(N]! ~ . ¡;¡ '~, E .. 0 ) ,_ ,m, 0,G 9" h .,-@ ~~ 1. '~1'4 4' '#I .JI _ ti;1 I ~ ! d 'i-~ .12 8L ,fJ.2L ,....,? N \4168 àJ'~ 0 I ~ . ,0011 I 1£11 t¿j 0 g If) N ,..""" ~ ~",.,';f'?J ~.o ~ _ ~ 05 C\I ~.: :::I&J~! ~ ,'0 ~ ~_i N N ... ~ n ~ ~ \ ~~~:. ì t . .~, ;., .~ L~ e j ~ ~ f f. i It: , ~ ~',2 ~u 1 \ Q ~Þle ,'I j '" : t;¡ ~ \. ,I :::I 0 -. 9-1 \;,~ ~ '0, I I IZ1U fL ZL . \~<¿~\!~ '~~_' ,~'I;~'<.- .o'i0_. d l3Nyr. ~_~~__ 'I/) .~ .rl L--~,-._----- --- Z "'T. ~<-....9 t> ,C 0; ,'¥" > 3 ..ii5 .'2.0" i" * 0 Ð ¿, I ~ :'~ ~;(.}..-€.:.)r.;; ) . Þ èt> ~ rJ2 ~ ~ ,O'ç¿ ~4 96'£9 ~ :e " - I ~_l 8L ,iJ,'2L .. ~ ',i, ~ ..'v Õpï8 #I ~t- - - -...s' ~ ~ " I I ,-;96£1 ",,'~? '" OJ ;J ~ T ql o t' '~._ "'£. ',. 1r}Q,' ~ ~ ':> > :: q ~ ~ '~ -~ I ~¡. ~ ~.:J!:::: .J,'" '-J .;: ,,, @ g 2i ~ ~ ~ r .. .... , - j! i,oo, "",,, 0" .~w.::~ ,;~' -1" ........ ~~ .~:~ t, -::-I·:'Jio..JtU'·~ r~ -t: ,"" g_~ ~ !!2 ! If) ~ ::: ' e . to .... -, o~ii ~ , ®"" P- ."'~:.. _ ;" : =1· 006 9 ÇL . 9 ç¿ l';6 ..,¡ .1l'8l _ '0___ __ 3^1~a. 'tfl~'tf-:t'\t~__-º~~:3n~__ _ ___ __-"!~ ~_ ._ -;r¡ ,oçps 3,C;Ç ';200 N :-.~ i -- ( I...J ~ k_ J"~ - (.¡ V1 C) >- =:! Z t-x uLa.! t- r--= (f) ~ >-"" ~ ¡::'t- z o I¿J ~OU ù« .-J .-J ~ ~ ~ ~ r<> ~ ß~ ï= ): ùO: W« Cf>t- ßI.i;O ~ ~ '4 ~ 0-;p . ~ ~ ,:¡.' N i ~- ,006 ~~: ~ ,0'06 ¡--- 0: g; ~ :: i .J -%- --- .- . --- --- 4: o o :;; ~~ ~~ ~~ = t- - It .0'06 gl: e 1- o o i~ ! ~ '~( « 0.. ..:... , '" ~ t<) «.-.r «. i ~ « o ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~:~~~ ~ ~ j ; : ') "b 'b -: -= ~; z z .~ ~ ~ 0 Õ « e.r9 6)(2) WI ~.;: 6 ~~ z ~.~ WC Ü:.Ë :'-1, ..... I I ,- , zt- ,N ~', , j ,·>1 ~! ~I ~I ¡ 'j I I I I I I I I I ,;0" ¡ ~/ ~ '~- 4~v ':. ,., U~-~ - -~- - /- ;\~~' '~.L "" to:-;, ~ ~ ~ '- AJ (\J; \.~ '"'" ~"'-(1'\ ~., ~ ~.:: ~ Çl9::' / N 1,';¡',2i'~) , I I 'Z.~\ :"~'l.€l)f . I I.: rr1 \\ ~ \ \ A1' ..;..o~~ "¿J' .Þ -:,Q It) --- , ' . 10 ~ ~® 0\ C\ r~ CD ¡J, í'J° 2 :: 1",0 Ñ ~ !2 - -- ,f¿ 21. = ~ .9 ç¿ .- au; 6u'pl'ng ~ ~ ! !!? ~ ~ ¡uilwilSO'J '¡ ;)1 -- ,- ,9'Ç¿ ®~ 0'1 Q) U) 10 '::t ;u'l tu'p'nE ,crç¿ . ÇZ ~ ~ 4 ç. '"' (\ ~, (.. 'c' ç¿ ,2 Ç6 - - ~ ~c ...' ~ : " .2 Ç6 - tD 0 0 ,2 (,6 ü .1 '( çc. 0 0 N ~:g ~ fIZ¿ - , - ç, c. I ~ '!? :£ ,12'81 () o ~ "0 ~ ~, ~2 e¿ ~ m ~ -::"'0 '-. :: ~ ,006 ,9 ç¿ 2' 6.' Ii (¡' -- -~ ,-- oçÞe .,,, çç.<;-:- ,,0 \ ,0'06 9 Ç¡ '( 8. ,. ilU:l Ô\¡tp' ·re (,2 ~ ~~ 10 ._ uilWilSO,3 ~ _,~ ~®~ '" ~~ ~ OU'P,;¡p ~ '¿ !:i": ì¿:'¡ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -- - - ;Q 'q:~ o'Q ~I~ ~ t- ocr, ü ,'2 EìJ \2 "L ~ :: 2 0'1 CD ~ <.D 10 ac t c ~-" (,2 , 9'ÇL .... Ç¡ <n,:f, -ñ -0 o 0'1 !\J - \ ,~ , ,tIÞ~ f/Þ tIÞ tIÞ tIÞ i I tIÞ tIÞ . tIÞ tIÞ f/Þ .... . tlÞtlÞf/Þ ' ""':.; : . "",: tIÞtIÞ cø. \ "",: 0 Q) , . f/ÞtIÞ ..~ ~ ~'I . "",: f/Þf/Þ_tlÞf/ÞtIÞ . :. ~ '~ .,; ~ I -- cø. -!~'- ~ f/Þf/Þf/Þ , "-'~" \ I f/Þf/Þf/Þ ~··"--~-1 ": ~ .... ' '. ,i.,,~~ ~ ;¡ iLL ~ \ «. \ \Þ': ~ ~.' 0~.· "\ \ v, a: \ \\ ~ Y :J v 6~h~" I ~ \\ ~_ \ ~ 1,,0 . 4P~ 8i aa:~~ I lD í" ~ ','in.ñ \Þ'~'::t ~ f---.-!.- ç,' ~.~. v... '"' ~ c~ --- Ii: -: ~ \Þ' -¡"~.J. aa:~~ \Þ'~N .s> ø.:."~ ú, ~ __ 1·; -r:: ~IO ~ It) .0 \£ IØ ~~~ .." - ::: IØ '::t c\! 10 ,,<x' ~, ;:-, ~0 :~:~:'\' »~ I'J~ c. l.. ~ - C'< ::' > :. ~ >. / \ ~~.. -- 7' ~ . ~ ~ " '~~', o~"';''' ~ \~ " '" ~" :: / v C '- _ , ~_ ~ " \ r; ,~ --' t _ o¡ r. ..:. CO : ê .... or <.D If') ~I '; ~ t ~ '::t -',:.;, ,. "U--~ -:;., ~... .t "- ~ ?! ::: 9 ~ ~ ~ ; ~ "- aJ i; Q.. <.$II ; :Jt o '~ '::t '0 . <t ~ '::t ~ ,~461 E* ...- (I') ,00 6'i'l -zoOí ~ þo' J.6Ç,,>, .CÞ ~~ IØ ----;;--- o ~~ IØ ,.... ofIcr ::a ~u t- c )~, It) "",: t) ~\L 0 ~. cø "",: CD ·f~ .,; "",:"- 0 (!'o eD æ ~&&: ~ CÞ:: .' .§&&: 0 . ~~ 0'1 ~g' lØiI S~ 'º~Q ¡::; ...; ~~ ~~~! eD~ ~--_.._' - &&: Q) "",:~~ cø ----- CÞ ~Ñ~ cø ~ .;0 ~ ~ ~ 2 -~ /(1') \ ~ ;oE t- ~~ ", 'h £l o '::t ð, B :. o~ 'Ii r:to "') (\ . r<') _ ( c.&. ~ (9 Þ~ ,,) ... , 't- ..) 'ð9.., ~.~ " (~f} c ;q It) ~ ~ q: '0 o -e ~ ~ -~ ...:= i e '~Oç:1 ..: If) ..:13~ e ~ 'or ?,~ ~-:.. ?- .~ N '::t ~ ~ -: :: ~f ~, £it' -- .. -.._. - ..... --,~L 21.-- .iuT: -=~:, &L~t-~ ..: -: ~__.~: I ~ uil...aHI JI 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:e~ .._ .. _ ,4E ~ \,"'1': ~6~ ,,\ ~:' '" ~~¡: '~L1 j~ :·':f~~· ---, - +- ~I! ~< ,- iåì' "":irt'''U. t; ...·.b,....· ..:~.; ":N~' '~-. i"~;' Jt:il aL I '-: ,-- '~..~ ~ -". ' '--'- --~~- -;;;; ~.: -,- ...: ...: ai.. - ~ 3^1~0c{ - ~ ~ ~ N N CI.. p "'= ç~ '.l.2~ 9&U 'tflO!)08 ,_._---_.._._-~ -- ,Ih B~6 ". ç~: ,~i Z¿ .OO~ ii, ~'- ¡. ~E 4;2 2! ~ Ñ I. If I .- .. 0 ~ 10 ~.,: ~~ ~g ..?- ~ ®': .1..0.... ISO; Ø) to r-- ~u'.., '" 8 Pf~- ~;çç;:''''' -~. -". 'I - - - ---...------ ~ - .~'£~~;. cr IØ- ;¡ G) iI'. ~~ CO I , ! '; ..I i I, I l '", t'- .'- t:..':' c.... g1' 8L - --- .2 ct· ~~~.. g LL cø" N ": N: ""'"'0 cø II) u.: rr1 G "",:(\ 0 cø CD ""':~aö ~ 0 ~ _0 &L!\Jø) &L 0 cø ~ ~ __......'~c ~ ---- -- ----- -::) ('.Þ-é'~ ~ &L _ Òm ';? "",: ;- '::: i 0:: '+ <- CD ~~~ 1"'S3 a6.Ja Ç¡ -- -'1 ~ ..-: .1") LL . .C\JO LL - cø 10 '<f .2'= S :~.~'~ IJ,ÇJ (I') I:;: 01, -2 W => (1)0 3^I~a \1N\1^\1H .- ¡.ç,. :I~ - . t'" - ~ 9Ç g¿ - ç -- - ~ ë ~ 2 I") ~~~, cø a.;~ci~-~ &&: ;'"= -:9- cOEI:'__, 3,6 00 N ~ Ñ N !\J ~ ®~ .,.;... "s:.. ~ o / 0- -- 0 >2 ('¿ , , ..... .- o 00:1'- ~N~' ~-~_:'~ : ~ '<f '"' " -'0 ')c_,' "?çc, ~ CF ~ 1::8. ~ y ~'..: '=>~'-.:; :)~ '¡', ·I'·~" ,?~' __ ~ 0'1, ~, I ,_ . "", /~<.:~~ ~\L ..::,~ ":'. Q ~J "-'co" ~ au'"' 006 9ÇL .~--; -- 3^I~a '¡;f~'¡;fr'¡;fl'tfa'¡;fnÐ ~ -Q 1 ---- - 07Ç:>8 , ~ç ,006 ,,'" I ~I j ,,:1 i "<'.: ,9ÇL \:/ .,: = ~ ~ '®~ ~ .uau.a<(1-'; '¡"'H CD ~ U) au· ' (\ ~ ~ ~ .. ;",.' ~ 1 ~ 0'1 r<') . ,~(. q<;~ lV',e'?2o¢'~ ~,'; 00,'< ~Ç-II ~ J~ ~ o ~ ~ r<') ,I ~ - ~ bUO " , , '" ~ ®' o c,,,!:, 'c .;, - , : t: >-l:J Q >- ~ Q.i ~"": Z ~ 0 . :> r: VI ~ ~ ~z I ,,,I ~I ./ ~: ~: ~ I ~. l:'; .u ;¡,', , i < ' . . r / ¡ .. ' ___L-l~ ~ r / ~i -, I I ~/Ü( \ ç-::-j tf 7.d .J '.:: -) ;.1\ -.J ,~ iñ J~ ~ - <D 0'1 ~ :: '" J;,~ t": 2.1. ~\ 0¡9 ,66'6~6 3 II~Ç ,Ç2 00 N I ~ ~ 111 .J 't1 ~ fi , - ; L ? L 086¿ 0 il\ ?¿ .t>6'BL ~ LL ~.. -0 ~rr1N- "",:~~~ ç "",:N; cø '0 , . ~, ç¡: RL 0- ~ 0'0 ~ ~ -~:g &L!\J!- &L cø £L ?¡ L() 6i - -- YJ.'G.' ,116¿ 0 "= _ ~ l'~ :> &&.: . ~ "",:N;ø "" ;~ 'iL ~¡ ~£26¿ '''2 ,ate; o I ": ~; ':, IL IØ"" OQ-"_ ££ HE- ç,ç.ç ¿ c' ~ ~ N ~ .~ ~ LL ; ~ t, ; ~i ~ (§)~ 2 Ñ N N CO ~ --.; I~~~ CO <.D '::t 10 rr1 ~ £;? ® ~&&.:; . rt) IO~~ I . CD NnJN'IJ'J J ..,~ ~~I"'G r,' . 0 i ..~, ~ <D ~ ,£;2 '<f If') / ,ÞL þ' ..... --! ' - -- .0'011 ~ 3.~,g200 N ~ " '.. -~â I,ç( rl~ &L N &&:~ 0 "- U; &L 10 ci '0 ,~; 4Ø &5 ao'! .D (11 , "8 Ç¡-- &&: N'O iL:-':: ~ CD tL q &L1f')~ cø &L "",: (,j ¡- CD N CJ CD ~ Q) rt N ~ 0 ~ cø Q) N 0 cø t) 0 cø It) ,..) 0 CD CD If'i 0 cø 0'1 ..t- O cø 0'1 .n 0 ~ 0 r..: 0 cø "",: &L u.: LL La.: ¡¡ "",: ~ "",: "",: ~ ,..: ~ 0 f'.! q CO I,(J' ~ I") r..: 0 cø -- IL It) :....; r..: &L 0 IØ &&.: ,... r..: 0 cø ; (') r--: 0 cD If) .. .~. : 0 f::: cø ... . CO ..... cD 0 .,. cø It) ø) 0 CD Q) ø) 0 cø N Ò ëØ .n 0 ëØ - &&.: aL - - II.: II.: ~ LL "" tL &&: aa: &&.: aa: fit' I I . ~ ~ a: ~ : o ~':, ~ ~ z t ~ ~ Z ~ .:¡ I- tf)~cr . rr,o ~ if, LL ,.., To see Maps with Agenda: Please contact City Secretary's Office / Municipal Records ~ïtLlD' nurst July 10, 1981 Mr. Cecil Forester Director of Public Works City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: Proposed Lot 3, Block 4, University Plaza Addition City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas Case PS 81-30 Dear Mr. Forester: This correspondence is written at the request of Elli~tt and Hughes, Inc., Consulting Engineers for Folsom Investments, Inc., and is in response to Item No. 4 of the letter written by Mr. Richard W. Albin, P.E., copy attached, as it pertains to the captioned subject. The City of Hurst is aware'of the plan to discharge storm water run- off from the captioned lot into Block 4-R of University Plaza Addition situated within the City of Hurst. The storm drainage plans for the Hurst portion of University Plaza, as prepared by Elliott and Hughes, Inc., have made provisions in the storm drainage system to accept this water which naturally flows in an easterly direction. The plans by Elliott and Hughes, Inc., call for future instllation of a storm drain pipe across the lot tying into the Campus Drive drainage system which 1s stubbed out to handle the flow from North Richland Hills. We trust the foregoing will satisfy any questions you have regarding our acknowledgement of the proposed development of Lot 3 within your City. Please contact me at your convenience should you require additional information regarding the above matters. Very truly yours, /2/((( ames R. McMeans, P.E. Director of Public Works ~ JIU.f: ct cc: David C. Hughes, Jr., P.E., Elliott & Hughes, Inc. Mr. Richard W. Albin, P.E., Knowlton-EnglIsh-Flowers, Inc. Mr. Larry W. Showalter, Vice-President, Folsom Investments, Inc. File 817/281-6160 Metro 498-2700 1505 Precinct Line Road Hurst, Texas 76053 . City of ~rth Richland Hills, Texas iJ~ ~J{- --- I~ W TO: Chuck Williams, City Manager REF: P\fM-0032-8l FROM: Cecil Forester, Director Public Works/Utilities DATE: July 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Tractor-Mower I respectfully request that the City Council authorize the Public Works Department to purchase a new tractor-mower. The amount of moisture we have had this summer has created an emergency situation on our right-af-ways. Weeds and grass are growing extremely fast and it is impossible to cover a city of our size with one (l)~ six year old mower. Other cities of our size have three or four mowers in the Public Works area. . The type of tractor we need can be used as a dual purpose vehicle. The addition of a small blade and leveler box can t~ \nsfarm this tractor from a mower to a clean-up, landscape vehiclè t~at can be used very effectively on construction jobs. Estimated cost of such a vehicle is $lO~OOO. Landscaping attachments can be purchased at a later date. . (817) 281-0041 I 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 I P. O. BOX 13305 I NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 76118 . City of JX6rth Rich1and Hills, Texas '\ )11 ~~ 1\ -<1 ,_3~< ~c_ .-::----),( ::Þ --7/1 ! K~- Ø1 j l'~2~ \: / ,:¡ V TO: Chuck Williams, City Manager REF: PWM-0032-81 FROM: Cecil Forester, Director Public Works/Utilities DATE: July 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Tractor-Mower I respectfully request that the City Council authorize the Public Works Department to purchase a new tractor-mower. The amount of moisture we have had this summer has created an emergency situation on our right-of-ways. Weeds and grass are growing extremely fast and it is impossible to cover a city of our size with one (1), six year old mower. Other cities of our size have three or four mowers in the Public Works area. . The type of tractor we need can be used as a dual purpose vehicle. The addition of a small blade and leveler box can tr,nsform this tractor from a mower to a clean-up, landscape vehicle that can be used very effectively on construction jobs. Estimated cost of such a vehicle is $10,000. Landscaping attachments can be purchased at a later date. . (817) 281-0041 / 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 / P. O. BOX 13305 / NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 76118 . City of ~rth Richland Hills, Texas .·I~ I ! TO: Chuck Williams, City Manager REF: PWM-0032-81 FROM: Cecil Forester, Director Public Works/Utilities DATE: July 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Tractor-Mower I respectfully request that the City Council authorize the Public Works Department to purchase a new tractor-mower. The amount of moisture we have had this summer has created an emergency situation on our right-of-ways. Weeds and grass are growing extremely fast and it is impossible to cover a city of our size with one (1), six year old mower. Other cities of our size have three or four mowers in the Public Works area. . The type of tractor we need can be used as a dual purpose vehicle. The addition of a small blade and leveler box can t~\nsform this tractor from a mower to a clean-up, landscape vehicle that can be used very effectively on construction jobs. Estimated cost of such a vehicle is $10,000. Landscaping attachments can be purchased at a later date. . (817) 281-0041 / 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 / P. O. BOX 13305 / NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 76118 . City of JX8rth RichJand Hills, Texas 1,\ ~¡l¿1f ---~, /~,_.- ~~j¿1~ .:1 f TO: Chuck Williams, City Manager REF: PWM-0032-81 FROM: Cecil Forester, Director Public Works/Utilities DATE: July 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Tractor-Mower I respectfully request that the City Council authorize the Public Works Department to purchase a new tractor-mower. The amount of moisture we have had this summer has created an emergency situation on our right-of-ways. Weeds and grass are growing extremely fast and it is impossible to cover a city of our size with one (1), six year old mower. Other cities of our size have three or four mowers in the Public Works area. . The type of tractor we need can be used as a dual purpose vehicle. The addition of a small blade and leveler box can t~,nsform this tractor from a mower to a clean-up, landscape vehicle that can be used very effectively on construction jobs. Estimated cost of such a vehicle is $10,000. Landscaping attachments can be purchased at a later date, . (817) 281-0041 / 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 / P. O. BOX 13305 / NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 76118 . City of JXórth RichJand Hills, Texas "\ yl,~ ~ t TO: Chuck Williams, City Manager REF: PWM-Q032-8l FROM: Cecil Forester, Director Public Works/Utilities DATE: July 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Tractor-Mower I respectfully request that the City Council authorize the Public Works Department to purchase a new tractor-mower. The amount of moisture we have had this summer has created an emergency situation on our right-of-ways. Weeds and grass are growing extremely fast and it is impossible to cover a city of our size with one (1), six year old mower. Other cities of our size have three or four mowers in the Public Works area. . The type of tractor we need can be used as a dual purpose vehicle. The addition of a small blade and leveler box can t~~sform this tractor from a mower to a clean-up, landscape vehicle t~at can be used very effectively on construction jobs. Estimated cost of such a vehicle is $10,000. Landscaping attachments can be purchased at a later date. . (817) 281-0041 / 7301 N.E. lOOP 820 / p, O. BOX 13305 / NORTH RICHLAND HilLS, TEXAS 76118 . City of JXðrth Rich]and Hills, Texas ~i 1\ 1\ ,-~,!YL_ --=~\t.,~_JA : I 'I f TO: Chuck Williams, City Manager REF: P\fM-0032-81 FROM: Cecil Forester, Director Public Works/Utilities DATE: July 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Tractor-Mower I respectfully request that the City Council authorize the Public Works Department to purchase a new tractor-mower. The amount of moisture we have had this summer has created an emergency situation on our right-of-ways. Weeds and grass are growing extremely fast and it is impossible to cover a city of our size with one (1), six year old mower. Other cities of our size have three or four mowers in the Public Works area. . The type of tractor we need can be used as a dual purpose vehicle. The addition of a small blade and leveler box can t~\nsform this tractor from a mower to a clean-up, landscape vehicle that can be used very effectively on construction jobs. Estimated cost of such a vehicle is $10,000. Landscaping attachments can be purchased at a later date. . (817) 281·0041 / 7301 N.E. LOOP 820 / P. O. BOX 13305 / NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 76118 -/' ~ TO: Chuck i~i 11 iams, Ci ty Manager DATE· July 7, 1981 e FROM: Wanda Calvert, Planning & Zoning Coordinator SUBJECT: Platting Cases to be heard by City Council July 13, 1981 PS 81-30 APPROVED Request of Folsom Investment~ Inc. for replat of Lot 3, Block 4, Uni"versity Plaza Additi'on. PS 81-32 APPROVED Request of Showbiz Pizza Place for final plat of Lot 3, Block 25, Clearview Addition. PS 81-34 APPROVED Request of Tenneco for final plat of Block 5, Snow Heights North Addition. e It ( \, DATE: July 8, 1981 SUBJECT: . PS 81-30 Replat of L~t 3, Block 4, University 'Plaza Addition .e DEPARTI1ENT: Planning and Zoning BACKGROUND: This p~operty is presently owned by Folsom Investment, Inë. It ~as a portìon of Lot 2, Block 4. They plan to develop 104 multi-family. units on this _property~ There was some question regarding Thousand Oaks Drive and it is eiplained in a.letter from Elliott & Hughes Engineers who furnishe~ a plat of their adjoining property in Hurst.- They have agreed to furnish this city with a letter from the City of Hurst stating they accept the drainage from this development. The Planning. and Zoning Commiss;,otl recommended approval of this replat'subject to receiving a letter from a responsible òfficial òf the" City of Hurst ståting that th~y ar'e aware of the drainage 'problem, and a'ccept the -sitoation,and building'set b'ack line be tapered at a distance of 100 feet. .. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Approval or deDial of repl,at. .) BUDGETED ITEM: YES NO X ... A~COUNT NUMBER: N/A ---------______________~___..:______. "-2/~ G~ ------------------~-------------------------- " e ,------ .. ( ( CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 1981 ( . \ e NEW BUSINESS PS 81-30 ( e C MINUTES OF THE REGULAR }ŒETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, JUNE 25, 1981 PRESENT: CHAIRMAN SECRETARY MEMBERS The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Carl Greenfield~ at 7:40 P. Carl G~nfield Marj ne Nash Do Bowen eorge Tucker Mark Hannon COUNCILMAN CITY PLANNER DIRECTOR O~PUBLIC WORKS/UTlÏ:TIES PLANN & ZONING COO· NATOR RK Jim Ramsey Mike Monroe Cecil Forester Wanda Calvert Patricia Hutson Mark Hannon said on Page 6 of the Minutes he understood the motion to be "subject to the engineer's comments and specifically Item 7, that the water line will be up to city code and satisfy the City Engineer and the Director of Public Works," and subject to his participation in the 12 inch line and that the developer also provide a minimum 8" water line to his site for the purpose of providing fire protection at the present time. Mrs. Nash moved~ seconded by Mr. Tucker, to accept the Minutes of May 28~ 1981 as corrected~ The motion carried 5-0~ Request of Folsom Investment~ Inc. for replat of Lot 3, Block 4, University Plaza Addition. David Hughes with the consulting engineering firm of Elliott & Hughes came forward. He said he was speaking in behalf of Folsom Investments. He said this was a replat of a portion of Lot 2, Block 4~ He said Page Z P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 \{ /¡/ I~( Folsom Investments, a self-developing corporation, propose to replat this property and to develop it into 104 multi-family development units. He said the property is currently zoned for that particular use. Mr.. Hughes said he would like to discuss Know1ton-Eng1ish-Flowers' letters dated June 5, 1981 and June 15, 1981 and Elliott and Hughes' letter addressed to the Chairman and Members of the Pl~nning & Zoning . Commission dated June 18, 1981. He said . they have no problem at all with Hr. Albin's comments about the Multi-family zoning being shown on the plat. He said this has already been taken care of. Mr. Hughes said he 'tvould like to discuss the history of University Plaza from its conception in 1974 and particularly as it pertains to Thousand Oaks Drive and the original recommendation that' Thousand Oaks be extended acro·ss this property. Mr. Hughes showed the Commission some exhibits. He showed the plat 'tvhere University Plaza was originally platted in 1974. He explained to the Commission the layout of the streets on the plat. He said the plat was approved by both the City of Hurst and the City of North Richland Hills- He said in 1974-1975 the economy took a nose dive and Folsom Investments elected not to continue with the total development of this project- Mr. Hughes said that in 1975 two tracts of University Pl~za additidn in the Hurst City limits were developed as Multi~family projects and are 'known as University Plaza Apartments~ He said in 1976 another phase of University Plaza was developed on the Nor,th Richland Hills side known as Richland Square Apartments.. Mr. Hughes said in 1978 Folsom Investments came back to the City of North Richland Hills with a proposal to develop the majority of the remaining portions of University Plaza. He said the plat reduced the right-of-way width on Weyland Drive from 80 ft. to 60 ft. and the right~of~way width on Thousand Oaks Page 3 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 .(' ~ :;( e Drive from Weyland Drive westward from 80 ft. to 60 ft. and abandoned the right- of-way on Thousand Oaks Drive from the east line of Weyland to the Hurst City limits. He said this decision was made after a discussion with Hurst and with the understanding that at some later time,' the section of Thousand Oaks Drive within the Hurst City limits west of Campus Drive would be abandoned also. Mr. Hughes said this plat with the abandonment of Thousand Oaks was approved by North Richland Hills in 1978. Mr. Hughes said Folsom Investments sold the lower portion and kept the upper portion. He said the Bank of North Texas, under another ownership, built their drive-in banking facilities on the lower portion. e Mr. Hughes said in April of 1981 Hurst approved the plat that abandoned the portion of Thousand Oaks Drive in accordance with the earlier agreement with Hurst. Mr. Hughes said the only other question Mr. Albin had concerned the storm drainage. He said the storm water natu~ally flows from North Richland Hills into Hurst. He said the previous plat he showed the Commission, the development is currently out for bids. He said construction of Campus Drive, Thousand Oaks Drive and all of the improvements will be constructed in the near future. He said that they had discussed Mr. Albin's requirement with the staff of the City of Hurst and they have agreed to issue a letter in favor of the City of North Richland Hills acknowledging that drainage will be coming their way~ Mr. Tucker asked if Lot 3~ Block 4 was made out of Lot 2 and if there was a change in ownership, was the plat recorded with the city. Mr. Forester said to his knowledge tbe Bank has not platted the property. e Mr. Tucker asked if somewhere in the City records there is no record of this piece of land being platted. Page 4 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 <J /'l' ~ ( Mr. Forester said this whole piece of land was platted at one time. Mr. Tucker asked if there wasn't a hole in the records somewhere. He said ther'e was a piece of land that needs to be replatted. Mr. Forester said he didn't know how the city could require the owners to do that at this period in tim,e. Mr. Tucker asked if the Bank property was the remainder of Lot 2. Mr. Hughes said the property south of Thousand Oaks was sold by Folsom Investments to another party. He said the, Bank property may have been sold by the other party to the Bank. He said Folsom's interest was in Lot 3, all of the RichlandSquare Apts~ and all of the'property on the west side of Weyland. / Mr. Hannon said it appeared to him that there was some land sold that was not subdivided in accordance with the city Subdivision Ordinance~ He said he understood that the property to the south was owned by Folsom Investment and leased to the bank.. , \ Mr. Hughes said Folsom sold this property sometime ago and had nothing to do with the Bank.. He said they were also curious how the bank built without subdividing~ He said Folsom had no ·control or interest, in the property to the south. Mr. Hannon said it ,appeared that Folsom Investments was a party to selling that land in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance and should replat the entire block. Mr. Hughes said that was a legal question he was not qualified to answer, but he was under the impression that that particular section of the ordinance applied to property which bad never been platted or the preliminary plat had never been finaled.. ,..' Page 5 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 -( ;,.( \,... (e Mr. Hannon said the Ordinance says that no subdivision of land will take place without platting. Mr. Hughes said he was not qualified to answer that. Mr. Hannon said he did not feel the Commission could accept this plat without a'p1at on the rest of the property. He said he realized Folsom Investments does not own the property, but they should know who the owner is and should take the initiative to see that it is platted. Mr. Hughes said he questioned how the Bank was issued a building permit without platting the property. Mrs. Calvert said that when the bank came in they assured the city that they were only leasing the property and would not want to plat it~ She said they' were given the building permit on the assumption that they were only leasing the property. /e Mr. Hannon asked if Folsom Investments was listed on the tax records as the owner of that property~ Mrs. Calvert said she hadn~t checked. Mr. Hughes said the tax records would show that Folsom Investments does not Otvn that property. Mrs. Nash said Folsom Investments sold the property to another party who in turn either leased the land or sold it to the bank. Mr. Greenfield asked if ,there was, a replat at that time. Mrs. Nash said she supports Mr. Hughes in that he was not involved in the last transaction., Mrs. Calvert asked if it was sold off by metes and bounds. e Mr. Hughes said he could only assume it was sold as a portion of Lot 2~ Block 4 in metes and bounds" ~ Page 6 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 ..( .( Mr. Hughes said he did not believe that Folsom should ,be required to go to the Bank and these other people and require them to enter into this particular plat because the only property Folsom Investments has left is this Lot 3. Mr. Hughes said the primary reason for platting this property is to assure that Folsom Investments' ownership and the . apartments are in a lot and block form. Mr-.~ Hughes said that since the property is platted in lot and block already, they could take the interior eas~ments and , dedicate them by, separate instrúment with- out coming before the Planning & Zoning Commission. He said· that this was the practice of some investment firms, but Folsom Investments and his firm did not like to do it. Mr. Hughes said that his partner pointed out that sometime in the future there will be an application for a building permit on the property to the south 'and at that time a replat ca'n be submitted and the Bank tract can be cut out. Mr. Hannon asked if the city has any other recourse against a piece of property that has been sold in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance other than administrative refusal of permits. Mrs. Calvert said not that she knew of~ Mr., Hannon said he did not like it~ but the Commission couldn~t make Folsom Investments do anything about it. Mr. Tucker said he thought it should be judged on this plat as submitted and at sometime in the future when the owner of the land wants to build he will be required to replat it at that time. The Chairman said it was his understanding that the Public Works Director would like toha~e a letter concerning run off~ .. . . . Page 7 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 (' ( I Mr. Forester said that ~lr. Hughes has indicated that he will have a letter from Hurst. He said he would like the set back requirements for the transition changes from 80 ft. to 60 ft. to be transitioned with, the narrowing of the dedication. Mr. Hughes said that would be agreeable. He said they would also like to make that transition over about a 100 ft. distance. Mr. Forester said that was fine. PS 81-30 APPROVED Mr. Hannon made a motion to approve PS 81-30 subject to receiving a letter from a responsible official of the City of Hurst stating that they are aware of the drainage problem and accept the situation and the building set back line be tapered at a distance of 100 ft. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Nash. The motion carried 5-0. - Delbert e forward. He said the only remaini thing to be done is the engineerJs ap val of the construction e water and sewer extension. plans are complete, but the received them yet for final final Addn.. , . The Chairman asked Mr. Tucker the Chair at 8:10 P.M. and he room.. PS 81-32 Request of Showbiz Pizza plat of Lot 3, Block Mr. Tucker said the 5 ft. easement was still shown on the plat. Mr. Stembridge said it 'had been taken off the final plat. Mr. Hannon said he understood that there is a contingency to sell Tract B on the north end of this property. Mr. Stembridge said that was correct. He said they would be resubmitting a replat in the next few days. - ..~~' I e e c ( - Elliott & Hughes, Inc. . Engineers/Planners June 249 1981 Mr. Richard W. Albin, P.E. Knowlton-English-Flowers, Inc. 600 First State Bank Building Bedford, Texas 76021 Re: Lot 39 Block 4, University Plaza Addition City of North Richland Hills~ Texas Being a Revision of a Portion of Lot 2~ Block 4 Case PS 81-30 Dear Mr. Albin: Please reference our letter of June 18~ 1981~ subject as above and addressed to the Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of North Richland Hills. . . We enclose herewith for ýour information and review~ excerpts from our final construction plans~ and more particularly those sheets concerning storm drainage for University Plaza Addition within the City of Hurst. '., As you will note on the plans~ provisions have been made to accept storm water runoff from not only the captioned development~ but also other drainage areas within the City of North Richland Hills which naturally drain to the Hurst project. In accordance with your earlier request~ we will furnish to you and the City of North Richland Hills~ a letter from the staff of the City of Hurst relative to their acknowledgement and acceptance of the drainage from our proposed multi-family development on Lot 3~ Block 4 in North Ríchland Hills. '1004 w. Euless Blvd.. Suite '103 . Euless. Texas 76039 · a'17/267-'1303 .. .. a ~ .. e e e <c ~' Mr. Richard W. Albin, P.E. Page 2 We appreciate your cooperation and assistance and respectfully invite you to contact us should you have questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, cc Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Development, City of North Richland Hills, Texas Mr. Cecil Forester, Director of Public Works, City of North Richland Hills, Texas Y!Ms.Wanda Calvert, Planning and Zoning Department, City of North Richland Hills, Texas file Enclosure ~ "\ t I (' Elliott &....ughes, Inc. Engineers /Planners (- e June 18, 1981 Honorable Chairperson and Members Planning and Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 North East Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: Lot 3, Block 4 University Plaza Addition City of North Richland Hills Being a Revision of a Portion of Lot 2, Block 4 said Addition Case PS 81-30 Dear Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Commission: e Our firm represents Folsom Investments, Inc., the owners and devel- opers of the property captioned above. This correspondence is written in response to the letter dated June 5, 1981, addressed to the Commission and issued by Mr. Richard W. Albin, P.E. of the firm of Knowlton-English-Flowers, Inc., subject as above. We are hopeful that the information and explanations provided herein will answer questions that have come up regarding this plat, and further will be beneficial in the Commission arriving at a favorable recommendation for approval. Item No. 1 of Mr. Albin's letter addresses the proposal for the extension of Thousand Oaks Drive along the Southern boundary of this proposed plat, from the east line of Weyland Drive to the common City Limits Line between the City of North Richland Hills and the City of Hurst. The Tax Maps for this particular area do show Thousand Oaks Drive as a dedicated right-of-way within the Hurst City Limits. A final subdivision plat of a portion of the University Plaza Addition in Hurst, approved by the City Council of the City of Hurst on April 14, 1981, and· filed of record with the County Clerk of Tarrant County on May 25, 1981, on pages 51 and 52 of Volume 388-142 of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas vacated and abandoned this right-of-way from the western City Limits of Hurst to the west right-of-way line of Campus Drive. A copy of this approved plat, marked Exhibit "A", is attached to this correspondence for your reference. Because of the time lag between the time such subdivision plats are filed and the Tax Maps changed accordingly, there would be no way for Mr. Albin or the staff to be aware of this recent abandonment. e '1004 \AI. EuleS9 Blvd., Suite 103 . Euless, Texas 76039 . B~7/2S7-"3D3 / ,. ( c· . Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 e Item No.2 of Mr. Albin's letter addresses the need to show the zoning classification of this property on the face of the plat. This item is acknowledged and the plat has been changed accordingly. The third item in Mr. Albin's letter concerns the abrupt change in the building line between Lot 1, Block 4 and proposed Lot 3, Block 4; caused by the reduction in right-of-way width on Weyland Drive at the common line between these lots. Because the apartment building layout for proposed Lot 3 has been finalized, it is our desire to taper or transition the building line from thirty-five (35) feet at the north property 1 ine down to twenty-five (25) feet over a di stance of approximately one hundred (100) feet. This option would not affect the proposed building layout and would comply with Mr. Albin's rec- ommendations. e Item No. 4 of the 1 etter addresses the di scharge of storm water run-off from this proposed lot into Phase V, University Plaza Addition, within the City Limits of the City of Hurst. We would point out to the Commission that Folsom Investments, Inc. also owns all of the property within University Plaza adjacent to the common city limits line; has as previously mentioned recently re-platted the property on the Hurst side, and our firm has completed for Folsom Investments the final construction plans for public improvements in that development. A copy of our storm drainage system and storm drainage analysis of the Hurst portion is being forwarded to Mr. Albin for his information and review. In addition, we have discussed this particular item with members of the Engineering Department of the City of Hurst and will provide to you, at the earliest possible time, the written evidence requested stating that "Hurst has no objection to our drainage plan. II The fifth item in the comment letter can be tied back to Item Nos. 1 and 4 and are further explained later in this correspondence. From our verbal conversations with Mr. Albin after reviewing his comment letter, we feel that it is appropriate to provide the Commission with some history of the University Plaza Addition, particularly as it pertains to those sections in North Richland Hills. University Plaza Addition was originally platted in 1974, and con- tained property both within the Cities of North Richland Hills and Hurst. The basic street layout, provided for Weyland Drive to be in its current location, and further provided for Thousand Oaks Drive to extend from the western limits of University Plaza eastward across Weyland Drive, continuing on through the City of Hurst to Precinct Line e It It It ( c" Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 Road. The property was platted as large tracts with the intent to develop numerous multi-family and office complex type projects. The state of the economy during the 1974-1975 era prohibited Folsom Investments from proceeding with full scale development plans on the entire property. In 1975, two (2) tracts of University Plaza Addition within the Hurst City Limits, situated on either side of Campus Drive, were developed as multi-family projects, and are known as the University Plaza Apart- ments. In late 1976, another phase of University Plaza was developed, this particular phase being a portion of Block 7 and a portion of Block 4 for approximately six hundred (600) feet south on Weyland Drive. Weyland was constructed for the limits of that particular multi-family p~oject, known as Richland Square Apartments. In 1978, Folsom Investments approached the City of North Richland Hills with a development plan for the majority of the remaining portions of University Plaza; which included the extension of Weyland Drive to State Highway 121 and the construction of Thousand Oaks Drive westward from Weyland to the western limits of the addition. The development plan provided for the construction of multi-family dwell- ing units on those properties west of Weyland, with the area between Weyland Drive and the eastern City Limits of North Richland Hills, now known as Lot 2, Block 4, remaining in an undeveloped state. The plat submitted at that time, styled as case PS 76-46 was approved by the City Council on August 28, 1978; was filed for record on September 21, 1978 on page 20 in volume 388-123 of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas. A copy of this recorded plat is marked IIExhibit BII and is attached to this correspondence for your review. The above noted plat is important in that several decisions were made at that time which vitally affect the plat of Lot 3, Block 4 currently under consideration. The 1978 plat reduced the right-of-w~ width on Weyland Drive from eighty (80) feet to sixty (60) feet from the south line of Lot 1, Block 4 to the north right-of-way line of State Highway 121. The plat further reduced the right-of-way width on Thousand Oaks Drive, from Weyland Drive westward, from eighty (80) feet to sixty (60) feet; and completely abandoned and vacated that section of right-of- way on Thousand Oaks from the east line of Weyland to the City Limits line of Hurst. The decision to abandon the eastern leg of Thousand Oaks was done with the full concurence of the officials of the City of Hurst, and with the understanding that at some later date that section of Thousand Oaks within the Hurst City Limits west of Campus Drive would also be abandoned. e e e (~ Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 C' We sincerly appreciate the indulgence of the Commission in this rather lengthy disertation. However~ we feel it is necessary that some of the history behind the total University Plaza Addition be provided to preclude unnecessary discussions relative to the dedication and con- struction of Thousand Oaks Drive west of Weyland. Representatives of our firm~ as well as representatives from Folsom Investments~ will be present at your regularly scheduled meeting of June 25~ 1981~ and will be pleased at that time to answer any questions or provide additional information you desire relative to any of the above matters. Very truly yours, cc Mr. Bobby W. McMillan Mr. Larry Showalter Mr. Richard W. Albin, P.E. Ms. Wanda Calvert file p~\ (. e KNOWL TON-ENGLlSH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING EN(~ IN EERS / Fort Worth-l)allas June 15 1981 Planning and Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: 3-865, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILlS~ UNIVERSITY PLAZA ADDN." LOT 3, BLOCK 4, PS 81-30, FINAL PLAT e We have reviewed the referenced materials for this subdivision and offer the following comments: 1. We would refer you to our CŒnments by letter dated June 5, 1981, for the preliminary plans. 2. Regarding Item No. 1 of our June 5, 1981 letter, we have since confered with the Developer's Engineer and he indicated that a letter would be forthcoming concerning the history of Thousand Oaks Drive. As he suggested, if Hurst has abandoned the plan of extending Thousand Oaks to the city limit line, then we see no reason to require this Developer to extend Thousand Oaks west from Weyland Drive to the city boundary either. 3. We would refer you to comments 2 through 4 of our June 5, 1981 letter. Should you have any questions concerning the review of this subdivision, please do not hesitate to call. .~ RICHARD W. ALBIN, P.E. RWA/ljc cc: Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Development Mr. Cecil Forester, Director of Public Works e 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG. · BEDFORD. TEXAS 76021· 817/283-6211· METRO/267-3367 wit ( c· e KNOWL TON- ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort vVorth-l)allas June 5, 1981 Planning and Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: 3-865, CITY ,OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, UNIVERSITY PLAZA'ADDN., LOT 3, BLOCK 4, PS 81-30, PRELIMINARY PLANS" (GRID 125) e We have reviewed the referenced materials for this subdivision and offer the following comments: 1. The tax maps for this area show Thousand Oaks Drive plattèd and dedicated in Hurst up to the east line of the proposed Lot 3, Block 4 in North Richland Hills. The south line of this proposed platting falls approximately along the centerline of an alignment connecting Thousand Oaks Drive at vlyland Drive to Thousand Oaks Drive in Hurst at the city limit line as shown on the attached City Map section. This proposed platting does not provide right- of-way dedication for extending Thousand Oaks Drive eastward from Weyland Drive to the Hurst city limits but rather utility easements and parking areas are proposed along this alignment instead. If you decide that the south 30 or 40 feet of this platting should be dedicated for Thousand Oaks Drive right-af-way then we would recommend that the O\~n~r's of the property south of this platting also be requested to dedicate the remaining half of this street for the extension of Thousand Oaks Drive at this time. 2. The zoning (MF) for this lot should be shown on the plat. 3. You will note that the right-of-way \'idth along' Weyland Drive decreases from 80 feet to 60 feet west of this proposed platting abruptly. Accordingly, a jog in the proposed 25 foot building lot line is also shown. You may wish to consider eliminating this jog by requiring that the building lot line be increased from 25 to 35 feet to maintain a 65 foot offset from the centerline of Wayland Drive or otherwise require that the building lot line be tapered or transitioned from 65 feet off the street centerline to 55 feet through this lot. This latter option would not affect the proposed building structures layout as shown in the plans. e 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG. · BEDFORD, TEXAS 76021 · 817/283-6211· METRO/267-3367 ..- ' . ( ( Page 2, Planning & Zoning Commission, June 5, 1981 e 4. Written evidence should be obtained from the City of Hurst that they are aware of the pl an to di scharge stonnwa ter runoff eastward onto the area included in Phase V of the University Plaza Addition and that Hurst has no objection to this' plan. 5. If you require the Developers to construct Thousand Oaks Drive from Weyland to the Hurst city limits then any stonn drainage required should be coordinated with Hurst. Should you have any questions concerning the review of this subdivision, please do not hesitate to call. ~~ RICHARD W~ ALBIN, P.E. RWA/ljc cc: Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Development Mr. Cecil Forester, Director of Public Works e e ~~ e e e . ( ( . \~ . ,SUBJECT: PS 81-32 Final Plat of Lot 3, Block 25, Clearview Addition DEPARTMENT: Planning and Zoning BACKGROUND: This p~operty is owned by Showbiz Pizza Place. They have'met all .the Engineer's conments. Their Engineer, Delbert Stembri.dge said he pl-ans to come. in with a replat of this property next month since they plan to sell off a ·portion of this property. He said he had rather go through with. this. final plat and then come in with a replat. The Planning 'and Zoning Commission recommended ~pproval of this final plat. subject to the engineer's comments. . . CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Approval or denial of final plat. tl BUDGETED ITEM: YES 'NO X .. A~COUNT NU~1BER: N/A . - _______________________~___~. . -Ýo---cl..ø- .Q~. ~~-~~~~~---~~~--~~-~-~~-~~~~--~-~-~-~~---- ......_...~----.-. ~ Page 7 ,. P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 \ c . .. e Mr. Forester said that Mr. Hughes has indicated that he will have a letter f Hurst. He said he would like the s 'back requirements for the trans· on changes from 80 ft. to 60 ft 0 be transitioned with the nar ing of the dedication. Mr. Hughes sai ,at would be agreeable. He said the auld also like to make ition over about a 100 ft. Forester said that was fine. PS 81-30 APPROVED Mr. Hannon made a motion to approve PS 8l~30 subject to receiving a 1ett.er from a responsible official of the City of Hurst stating that they are aware of the drainage problem and accept the situation and the building set back line be tapered at a distance of 100 ft. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Nash. The motion carried 5-0. e The Chairman asked Mr. Tucker to assume the Chair at 8:10 P.M. and he left the room. PS 81-32 Request of Showbiz Pizza Place for final plat of Lot 3, Block 25, Clearview Addn. Delbert Stembridge came forward. He said the only remaining thing to be done is the engineer's approval of the construction plans for the water and sewer extension. He said the plans are complete, but the city hasn·t received them yet for final approval. Mr. Tucker said the 5 ft. easement was still shown on the plat. Mr. Stembridge said it had been taken off the final plat. Mr. Hannon said he understood that there is a contingency to sell Tract B on the north end of this property. e Mr. Stembridge said that was correct. He said they would be resubmitting a replat in the ne~t few days. ,,' . .. Page 8 P & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 ( ( It Mr. Hannon asked if it would serve his purpose to modify this plat to show the two lots. Mr. Stembridge said no, he wanted to keep it simple. PS 81-32 APPROVED Mr. Bowen moved to approve PS 81-32 subject to the engineer's comments. Mrs. Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Hannon asked if the motion should not' include upon approval of engineerts plans by the engineer. Mr. Bowen said that was covered in the engineer's comments. The motion carried 4-0. e Mr. Delbert Stembridge came fOI\~a requested that the Commission a rove this final plat with the sam stipulations that were used for the pr 1minary plat. He said he wanted a fu er chance to plead his case to t City Staff and the City Council. PS 81-33 Request of R. S. Brooks for final plat of Lot 1, Block 1~ Brooks Addition. Mr. Tucker ed if he would prefer that sian postpone this case until to the City Staff_ . Stembridge said he was not sure if no action was better than denying it because it can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Hannon asked if Mr. Stembridge was telling the Commission that the owner is not willing to extend this water line~ Mr. Stembridge said he was implying that. Mr. Forester said that if the Commission does decide to approve this plat~ he would like an additional 10 ft. Right-of-Way for the future widening of the street. Mr. Stembridge said they have no objections to that. It - e ( (' KNOWLTON-ENGliSH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING ENG INEERS / Fort \iVorth·l)allas June 16, 1981 Planning & Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 'North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: 3-842, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, CLEARVIEW ADDN., LOT 3, BK. 25, PS 81-32, REVISED FINAL P~AT We have reviewed the referenced materials for this subdivision and offer the following comment: 1. The revised final plat for this development should be fully executed before filing to record. Should you have any questions concerning the review of this subdivision, please do not hesitate to call. ~ ALBIN, P.E. RWA/l jc cc: Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Development Mr. Cecil Forester, Director of Public Works 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG. · BEDFORD, TEXAS 76021· 817/283·6211· METRO/267·3367 ~..'. () ~ /"" / t - ì· e . r' e DATE: July 8, -1981 SUBJECT: . PS 81-34 Final Plat of Block 5, Snow Heights North Addition DEPARTMENT: Planning and Zoning BACKGROUND: This property is .located on the northeast corner of Rufe Snow Drive - . and Lewi s Dri ve and is owned by Tenneco. They, have met. all the Engineer's comments. The PlanningoandZoning Commi~sion recommended approval subject' to the Engineer's comments. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Approval or Denial of final ~lat. <t, BUDGETED ITEM: YES NO X 'a A~COUNT NUMBER: N/A ... ~~.~ -- ---- -......------ -- ------.--....- --- --- - --.... - -... ~-.. -- --- ---.-- -.---...--- .....-.....-............-..-.............................-,............-......-....-....- , . Page 9 p & Z Minutes June 25, 1981 ( ( \ I. Mrt Bowen said Mr~ Stemb~~dge was that the Commission act upon t· request with the stipulations stil ncluded. He said if the Commissio ere to approve this request with e stipulations, until Stembr-' agrees to those stipulations this cas 11 not go before the City Council. II . Stembridge said in that cas,e it would be ,best to deny itw Mr. Bowen said if Mr~ Stembridge is not' going to agree.to put in the waterline then it will never go before City ,Council~ Mr. Bowen moved to deny PS 81~33. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hannon. The motion to deny carried 4~O~ PS 81-34 Request of'Tenneco for final plat of Block 5, Snow Heights North Addition~ e Delbert Stembridge came forward. He said in regards to Richard Albin~s late~t letter, they have no objections to meeting his comments. He said-in regards to extending the sewer line~ it will cross Rufe Snow. Mr. Bowen asked Mr. Stembridge if he was agreeing to everything in Albin~s letter. Mr. Stembridge said yes he was. PS 81-34 APPROVED Mrs. Nash moved tö approve PS 81-34, subject to the engineer~s comments. Mr. Bowen seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0. Carl Greenfield resumed .,.....,..., PS 81-35 rnest Hedgcoth came forward. He said he was a consulting engineer represent~ng Baen-Bee on this dedication. He said in regards to the engineer's comments concerning· a need for additional right-of-way, he has e Re: Block 5" SNOW HEIGHTS NORTH ADDITION. e Delbert R.'Stembridge consulting engineer July 8, 1981 Honorable Mayor and_City Council City of North Richland Hills' 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas Gentlemen: e The corrections to the sewer line plans for the above referenced project have been made. We take no exception to any of the other comments put forth by the City's Engineer. Sincerely, P.E. DRS/et It 3729 Flory. North Richland Hills. 76118. (817) 284-1363 " \, c -- KNOWL TON-ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort Worth-Oallas June 19, 1981 Planning and Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: 3-929, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, SNOW HEIGHTS NORTH ADDN., BLOCK 5, PS81-34, CONSTRUCTION PLANS ' e We have reviewed the referenced materials for this subdivision and offer the following comments: 1. The proposed 8-inch sanitary sewer line which will cross Rufe Snow to provide service to the West side of Rufe Snow should be lowered about 2 feet to clear the future 36-inch storm drain in Rufe Snow. A minimum grade of 0.40% will be permitted on this 8-inch sanitary sewer if necessary. We will work this out with the Engineer. 2. The construction plans show a temporary 6-inch water line along Rufe Snow to serve locks l-R and 4. This line will not be necessary since the new 16-inch line has already been installed and is now in service. 3. We would note that the Developer has provided an 8-inch sanitary sewer extension across Rufe Snow, as described in Item No. 1 above, at our request. This line is not necessary to serve his development but rather will serve a portion of ,the undeveloped area west of Rufe Snow. We requested this extension to avoid future pavement cuts or borings across Rufe Snow when the area west of Rufe Snow develops. In view of these requirements we would recommend that the cost of such extension across Rufe Snow be credited against the pro rata or assessment charges to this Developer as outlined in our letter of May 20, 1981. The cost of the extension across Rufe Snow should then be later assessed by the City to the owners of the property west of Rufe Snow, who will be served by this sewer 1 ine, at such time that this pro'perty develops. Should you have any questions concerning the review of these plans, plea do not hesitate to call. e RWA/ljc cc: Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Development 550 FIRST ~ç.~~<eiJN~@ð~~reEI6V&~b?rr&fAEt%bÏÆ .\~~~~a3-6211. METRO/267-3367 e ( \ CO L KNOWLTON-ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort Worth-l)allas June 15 1981 Planning and Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: 3-929, CITY OF NORTH R!CHLAND HILLS, SNOW HEIGHTS, NORTH ADDN., B~OCK 5, PS 81-34, FINAL PLAT We have reviewed the referenced materials for this subdivision and offer the following comments: We would refer you to our comments by letter dated r~ay 20, 1981, for the preliminary plans. We would request that final construction plans be submitted for our review before approval of the final plat. 1. 2. e 3. 4. e We would remind you of our cOlnments concerning pro rata and assess- ments in Items 8, 9, and 10 of our May 20, 1981 letter. The Owner's Acknowledgement and Dedication along with the Notary Statement should be fully executed before filing to record. Should you have any questions concerning the review of this subdivision, please do not hesitate to call. ~ RICHARD W. ALBIN,'P.E. RWA/l jc cc: Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Development Mr. Cecil Forester, Director of Public Works 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG. · BEDFORD, TEXAS 76021 · 817/283-6211· METRO/267-3367 \ (- , \ t ' "1 ~, " "'. - Delbert R. Stembridge consulting engineer May 26, 1981 . . , . \ :' . ..' ~.. Planning and Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas , ..i . ,+ Re: Lot 1, Block 10,' Snow Heights North Addition, Preliminary Plans , . In response to Knowlton-English-Flowers letter of ~lay 20, 1981, we offer the following comments: 1. .A written statement certifying to the accuracy of topo- graphic map has been added to the drainage study. 2. The owner agrees to extend the proposed sanitary sewer in Lewis Drive to the west lot line of this tract. In regard ~to the reco~endation that this line be increased from a 6-inch to an 8-inch, we would like to point out that Plans have previously been approved for this 6-inch which will be adequate for this tract. We are agreeable, however, to increasing the line to an 8-inch, but feel that since the . increase would be to serve possible"future extension north of Rufe Snow Drive, the City should participate in the cost , difference between 210 L.F. of 6-inch and the same amount of a-inch. . - e ¥ "1 The recommended S-inch stub-out across Rufe Snow Drive to provide service to an l8-acre area west of Rufe Snow, we . feel, is a City responsibility. · .. . 3. The owne~ship of ~ontiguous tracts has been added to the plat. 4. The plat acerage has been added. 5. The location and width of proposed utility easements has been added to the plat. 6. The zoning for this property (LR) has been added to the plat. 3729 Flory. North Richlond Hills. 76118. (817) 284-1363 - __~ ,1--.-.' -'. ....,.- ._~,_...~---..,... ..-.,--.....- ~ -.--,..,"-.. ...------- ...... . - --. _.._.~.'.. .-# ... ...... -,- .----.--- ---.. -_. ":" .. ---- ------.--.. --....- . ~~_...-.. ,. ~- -- -. .. - . ~J ~"~':'::: . r' . '..,;:.. l -: «r ~..L (~. \ .. ....'-., ".",. page 2 Lot 1, Block 10 Snow Heights North .....+.1..... . "'. \_.. £~. ~,f~··;;:- :. -.' 7. We concur that this Block should be numbered "5". The correction has been made on the preliminary and the Final Plat indicating this tract as Lot I, Block 5, Snow Helghts North. 8. All pro ratas tor this tract have been discussed a~d agreed upon to the satisfactl0n of the City staff. 9.,. Refer to Item #8. 10.The Owner has no objection to paying his pro rata as discussed in Knowlton-English-Flowers letter of October 13, 1980. 11. The requested 2~ foot set back lines have been added to the plat along.both Rufe Snow and Lewis Drive. It there are any questions regarding these co~mentsj please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, e~i£, . c/ . ~.9-r-9.· ITelbert R.·~tembrldg:e4 P.E. ,.~ .-.l . ~ cc: Mr.Cecil Forrester, Director of Public Works Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Special Projects ..J . . ". - '" ._. "- -,'......... .' q :,., . '.\,' t,' ,:"-"". ...". - "... ~... . ,- . " ., . .. ; ... . ,',"'-'!'.... '., to" I ,. , I '., . ..~ . " ". ,. ~ .... . . p . ~ ." ..' . .... . '" , ~ '';. . . " . ._" '.0. . . ... . - ... ;, .~ !'.' . ~, ": ". ~. _,. - 6.t ... - '.... ~ -,"". : . . '... "", ~ . :. ".,þ , '. ~ -- '- .,. . . - " e , ' t ( " t. ( . "~ .¡ .' ~.~ '. '~..,. ... KNOWL TON- ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort Worrh-l)(1t1as I ..' ... .. . ' . J. " . . . . . A.¡-.'" .'~" ',þ ~ ø.. .. May 20, 1981 " .. .p-. '.. . -. Planning'& Zòning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E.,.loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 . ' ~ .. ~ ~ ' , .-"',." ...", . , We have reviewed the referenced materials for this subdivision and offer the ~llowing co~ents: . . Re:3-929~ CITY OF NORTH RICH LA NO HILLS~ ~.~u.~"";:';:/" ;.; SNOW HEIGHTS NORTH AOON.~· LOT 1~ BLOCK 10~ ,.' :'~;'::'~~¡.:'-::,..: . ,::::PS 81-28~ PRELIMINARY PLANS~ . ( GRIO 112) r ~') ~ ~ 'It.. .. . . v .. .. '..".' ........ . . r .. .. I . . 1. As required in Section 1-03~ O.10~ of the Subdivision Ordinance~ theOeveloper's Engineer who perfonns the drainage study must affix a written statement to the drainage plans certifying the accuracy of the topographic map and drainage areas upon which the drainage s,~dY,i s,. based. . a' . ,".: ',.... .~ .;.. ' c - e 2. The proposed sanitary sewer in Lewis Orive should be extended to . . the west lot 1 ine for possible future extension north in the Rufe Snow Orive right-of-way to provide service for developments north of this platting. Also we would recommend that the proposed 6-inch sanitary sewer be increased to an 8-inch since the area served is business or commercial in nature. We would also note '·that.an.approximately 18 acre area west of Rufe Snow falls in this ; :,~.:watershed and would probably sewer back to Lewis Drive across "RufeSnow~Wewould recommend that an8-inch stub-out be provided ." . _ across Rufe Snow before the thoroughfare is paved to provide ,:~.., service to this 18 acre area west of Rufe Snow. City participation in· this-~extension would be appropriate.· ,. ~-'.('~ ....~'>'..:,~;../,(~"t~,'.-:l:~..~,:~',~ ,t}·'.¡.:' :' ,.:' "'¡''- ~ ',1 ~ .'. ..,:.~.....::>:. . 3. Contiguous ownership should be shown on the pl at. 4. The plat acreage should be shown. 5. Util ity companies should be consul ted concerning their easement requirements for this platting. ~ 6. The zoning for this property (LR) should be shown on the plat. e 7. We would note that this property was previously submitted for review and approval in Case No. PS 80-51~ 52 as Block 6 of the Snow Heights North Addition. . Our review letter is dated November 11, 1980. We would question the numbering of this Addition Block 10. We think it should be Block 5. Check with Wanda on this. 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG.· B~DFORD. TEXAS 76021· 817/283-6211· METRO/267-3367 1-- .,..-,---- I ) .. p..-'" f - "': .; ~. ' " ' .' - '" . :... '~' -\of ~.. - . ~_I .~.".¡..: _' ,:-",_. ....~ .'.\ ~ .: j"' e ~ . r - e (C" (, Page 2, Planning & Zoning Commission, May 20, 1981 "8. As indicated in our letter of November 11, 1980, the developer should be required to pay his pro rata share of the 16-inch water line in Rufe Snow Drive. We would estimate pro rata at $5.50 per linear foot for an equivalent 8-inch line for a total distance of 150.0 feet. . 9. The Assistant City Manager, Mr. Horvath, should be consulted con- cerning assessment for curb and gutter, paving and drainage to this property along Rufe Snow Drive. - 10. As documented in our letter of October 13, 1980, to the Mayor and City Council, Reference 3-315, "Rufe Snow Drive Street and Drainage Improvements" concerning agreements made in a special work session hel d October 7, 1980, the deci sion was made by the Council to collect pro rata on the stonn sewer to be constructed by the City in Lewis Drive as property along Lewis Drive develops. Based on the City's assessment policy we would estimate stonn drainage improve- ment pro rata in Lewis Drive at $8.66 per linear foot for a total distance of 150 feet. .. .,. -- . . ... ~ ~ . .... . . ~. ... ,." "II. Building set back lines of 25 feet should be shown on the plat along both Rufe Snow and Lewis Drive. .Should you have any questions concerning the revi~ of this subdivision, please do not hesitate to call. . . :"~-·t ~) .' "--" , . RWA/l j C _d"'~" · ~ .' .' ~. cc:, Mr. Allen' Bronstad, Director of Development Mr. Cecll Forester, Director of Public Works .. '. -' .' . . .. .... ._u _, ,. .'... ." . l- ~,. . .." . -.. ....., - .. , . ~._, . .' -' ...... - ,: " ....; d .. ._.. ... ' ' .' .... . '. :-', 0,' ... r .,. ,'" .... - -... , \ ,,' J~ SUBJECT: (' (~ RECONSIDERATION \ ~ 81-15 Zoning request from Agriculture to Indust~4al on Tract-2, ", ,,,"""',¡.¡o.i,~,' . ". ~ . Abstract 1625, F. Wood Survey &.Tract 3, Abstract 273, J.M. Crockett Survey. e DEPJl.RTr~!ENT: Planning & Zoning ,. BACKGROUNO: Curtis Moore & B.R. Flories own property to the south of the property in question~ They found that due to the terrain, they needed more land. Since their property ~ri the south is currently zoned "Industrial", they are requesting this property also be zoned Industrial. They plan to build warehouses with some retail type stores on~he Davis Blvd. frontage and next to the single fa'roily homes. There was one property owner that spoke regarding this. He said he was not necessarily against it, but felt there should be restrictions as to what is put there. This property is located on the east side of Davis Blvd. and is approximately 260 ft. south of Odell Street. 4IÞ The Planning ~ Zoning Commission recommended approvål of this zoning request with a - 3-1 vote. Mrs. Nash voted against. CIïY COUNCIL Jl.CTIml REQUIRED: Approval or Denial of Zoning Request. BUDGETEO' ITEì#i: YES ,NOJ_ ACCOUNT NU~r13ER: N/A . . -----------------------------------------------------------------~---~-,-------- e . (.'1 ) . (: ( \ / 6 It' · ~ a.- CVUJ.l~.i.líUa.l1 K~uua. ULVVe,~, \ ~ðGvlldc;;d L 1 Co UJ.l "",illLl ð:lJ. RalLl.~e.}, to approve PS 81-18.' I. councilwoman Groves asked if an agreement had been reached on the manhole in Lewis Drive. Mr. De~bert strirobridge, Engineer, replied yes. Motion carried 5-0. 7. \ Councilman Ramsey mo,ved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, 'to approve PS 81-19. councilwoman Groves asked if the utility companies ádvised. '; Motion carried 5-0. 8. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Co to accept the dedication of Lewis Dr- e. r \" ~ Councilman Wood asked if the covenant on the construction f had recommended a ,Lewis Drive. Mayor Pro Tern Freeman r yes. Councilwoman Electric had the letter from Texas no. Counc - an Kenna made a substitute motion, seconded by Co cilman Ramsey, to approve the acceptance of Lewis ive subject to the letter from Texas Electric. Substitute motion carried 5-0. 9. Mayor Pro Tern Freeman opened· the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak tò please come. forward. Mr. Bob Allen, 8121 O'Dell appeared before the Council. ) l · , . Mr. Allen stated that in industrial zoning there could be manufacturing. Mr. Allen stated there were three high schools in the area and there was already congestion. Mr. Allen stated he felt that if this was zoned industrial it would cause more congestion. . ,;,:~,,",...,c,. '~ ç May 18,1981· Page Twò-.- PS 81-19, REQUEST OF M. J. NICHOLSON FOR ., REPLAT OF LOT lOR, BLOCK 10, SMITHFIELD, ACRES ADDITION APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION OF LEWIS DRIVE APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING - PZ,81-1S, REQUEST OF CURTIS MOORE AND B. J. FLORIES TO REZONE TRACT 2, ABSTRACT 1625, F. WOOD SURVEY AND " TRACT 3, ABSTRACT 273, J.. M. 'CROClŒTT SURVEY FROM AGRI- .CULTURE TO INDUSTRI . (J ( , .,,) .~) ~. \' ...- Mr. Dick Perkins, Engineer, 210 West si~th, Fort Wor~h, appeared before the Council. Mr. Perkins stated he represented,Mr. Moore and Mr. Flories concerning this proposed zoning. Mr. perkins'stated he would like to try and answer Mr. Allen's concerns. Mr. Perkins stated that the' reason they were asking for industrial zoning on this property was because his clients owned the prope,rty immediately south of the property in question and it was presently zoned industrial. Mr. \ Perkins stated they had submitted a preliminary plat ~o the City staff for review, for this particular area and there were s.ome CQmments on the plat, those which they could live with, but they looked further into the development plan and were unable to come up with a satisfactory development plan. Thétopographyon that side was extremely ~ugged. It wás his clients opinion that he needed to purchase additional property to the south. Mr. Perkins stated his client felt he I:leeded to purchase tþ.e property in order to make 'a reasonable development out of the property he presently owned. "f~'..·..., .Mr.,.....,p.erk i.ns stated his ~lient wan. ted to build small .-wa.:r.ehouses and mini-warehouses. ... " ... .,....,.............=-~<~-.~..<!O-........---~~----- . Mr. Perkins stated that Mr. Allen's concern about the traffic on Davis Boulevard, the rail service would only be to the portion that was currently zoned industrial and' would not block traffic. , " ...........~-'_....". ,-- .'..' ........"....""'" @èïImãñ- ~~~;;. aSk~c:L,~bZJ.?la~~:.~ ~E!,:e~opmentwould '\ not De bë'Œ~r for that property since it wQµldgivethe õWri.ersari-opportunity to do what he wanted and at the ··"~_~~-,~~iIó.ëprotect: the City from some commercial es~ablish- ments that would not be appealing to the site. þþ Councilman Kenna stated he had ne;> problem with what Mr. Perkins clients wanted but something could happ~n and the property be put up for sale and the City would have no control over what would be built. Mr. Perkins stated his contingency was the fact that the topography of the entire piece of property and the one his client currently owned did not, in his opinion, blend itself to much more than he had planned. 1 \ . ,- Councilman Wood stated that Planning and Zoning Commission minutes made. reference to a water run-off problem. May 18, 1981 Page Three '~ . . . ) May 18', 1981 Page FO~ t '\" " ()',~ \,.; ..'''''_' \, ." - ~~: Mr. Perkins stated that any drainage work they did ~~à~he property was not go~ng to effect anyone ,on O'Dell street. ,. . ,. - Councilman,Wood asked Mr. Perkins how flexible his clients ,would be to accepting commercial zoning, and would it hinder the overall plan. Mr. Perkins stated it would not hinder the current plan, but because of market conditions his clients preferred industrial zoning. ~ Councilman Wood asked Mr. Perkins if he woul<l entertain com- mercial zoning. Mr. Perkins stated he had talked with his clients and they preferred the p~operty not be zoned commercial. His sale was subject to industrial zoning b~ing approved. Mayor Pro Tem'Freeman closed the public hearing. .' Councilman Ramsey stated·the City did have a Master Plan going and now had a request to zone some property industrial that opened the door to almost anything; therefore, he would have to vote in favor of the motion. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 81-15 DENIED . 10. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by councilman Hubbard, to deny PZ 81-15. Councilman Wood stated he would ask the Council to give this request some. consideration. Councilman ~vood stated he felt the property ,had merit, that it had a railroad and a highway. 'The property was topographically unsuited for numerous" other things. Councilman Wood stated he was not sure what the Master Plan was going to come out with for this property and to outwardly deny it he thought was a miscarriage of justice. ,. ) OouncilmanWood moved to table this item. Motion died for the lack o~ a seconq. Original motion carried 3-2; Councilmen Kenna,· Ramsey and Hubbard voting for; Councilman WOod and'Councilwoman Groves voting against. APPE 1-12, REQUEST 0 DR. THOMAS DUER TO REZONE A PORTION OF TRACT 13E, ABSTRACT 1606., w. W. WALLACE SURVEY FROM LOCAL RETAIL TO COM- MERCIAL f I ~. the Planning and zoning Commission; therefore, a three-fourths vote for approval. In the absence Mayor and one Councilperson, Mayor Pro Tern Freeman Mr. Morgan had the option of the Council hearin request tonight or postponing until a ful uncil present. ney, appeared before the Council . Duer. Mr. Morgan stated because it was to Dr. Duer he would like to request a time or move this request to the end of II. II e e Page 11 F ~ :: ~!inutes i\pril 30 \ 1981 PS 81-17 '~ITHD'RA~IN PZ 81-15 ( C· Barfield's Request of Curtis Moore & B.R. flories to rezone Tract 2, Abstract 1625, F. Wood Survey and Tract 3, Abstract 273, J. H. Crockett Survey, from the present classi- fication of Agriculture to a prcposed' \ classificatio'n of 'Industriaì. This property is located o~.the east side of Davis Blvd. and is approximately 260 ft. ,south of Odell Street. Dick Perkins representing Curtis Moore and B. R. Flories came fOTI~ard. He said his clients now o\~ a tract of land of approximately 12 acres presently zoned Industrial wh~ch is to the south of this property. He said he was working out a development plan for them for industrial use on the property. He said the topography is so rugged that they then pursued acquisition of property to the north to rework their plan. Mr. Perkins said their basic intent OTI- the 26 acre development would be to develop warehouse type cop..struction ,\.¡itl1 the possibility of some retail type stores on the Davis Blvd. frontage. He said the intent for the heavier industrial would be on the part that is already zoned industrial aod the retail shops would be to the north. Mr. Monroe asked if they had considered Planned Development since they were talking about mixed use~' Mr. Perkins said no. He said most of this falls into the Commercial category. He said they are trying to see how this will come out before they start work on another development plao. He said their plans can't be accomplished without more land. r-lr. Tucker asked why ,the Commissio'n should rezone it4t Mr. Perkins said the intent is to develop a type of industry which is on the line of . ~,. ..,. P:1ge 12 p & Z ~linutes April 30, 1981 ( ( .~ It commercial and with the industrial to the south ,.¡hi,ch would give them more flexibility to do ~omething with the property. J. Mr. Perkins said he realizes the property backs up to residential property and they will need to put in a buffer. He said there would not be ,anything lil<e Ohio Sealy as in the Industrial Park Addition. He said small warehouses is about a1\ the property can be used for. The Chairman said the Commi·ssion bas to look at what can fall into an Industrial. zoning. Mr.' Tucker said the City and Commission must ask if this is the best use of the land. e Mr. Perkins said he felt his client would be willing to accept a Commercial zoning for that tract of land to use as a buffer. He said he didn't feel any other zoning· would be sufficient. He said because of the topography the land will never develop as an industrial piece of property' without adding -something to it. Mr. Monroe asked if Mr. Perkins thought the O"tffier would come in for a replat of the entire lot and then come in with a Planned Development. Mr. Greenfield asked about I the prop.erty to the south. Mr. Perkins said it wouldn't help them. He said it is a 10'1;,->' area and they need property o:n '~he hill. 1vlr. Jvlonroe said the Commission needs to see how the whole piece of property would be eventually developed. Mr. Perkins said he doesn't disagree - with the Commission but his client doesn't atom that land. He said his client \..ouldn' t buy the land unless he has some assurance about the zoning. He said his client does not want to pursue, this further unless he e iii II / . t e " t \ e Page 13 p & Z rlinutes ¿\pril 30) 1981 ~ c ( has some type of assurancè. Mr. Forester asked if this property is zoned industrial ór commercial, ~ould the Dalworth plat that was previously submitted be withdra~~. Mr. Perkins said it would. He said it looked good on paper but not on site. Mr. Greenfield asked if they would cQnsider Commercial zoning', for all o~. the land. .- Mr. Perkins said he felt they should keep the Industrial zoning since it abuts the railroad. Mr. Greenfield called for those wishing to speak for this request to please come forward. John Barrett came fon~ard representing the owner of the property. He said the o~~er was a lady who was 92 years old who was in poor health. He said he was a Realtor and listing agent for the land. "t-lr. Barrett 52· Ld this land has been on the market for 9 to 10 months. He said it was' the o\merts 'homestead from 1945 to 1971. He said this has been the only offer made on the' land. He said the land to the south is already zoned Industrial. He said it was not like, asking for spot zoning; they are asking that the zoning be extended 573 ft. t9 the north. He said the residentia~ lots to the north are 200 ft. deep. He said there is a contingency on the Industrial zoning in the contract for the property to sell. The Ot~er would like to dispose of it in her lifetime. The Chairman called for those wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. Mr. J. H. Baker, 8336 Odell~ came foward. He said he was not necessarily against zoning this property. He said in the past the City Council allowed a chemical company to put in at the location where the lumber company· used to be. He said the chemicals Page 14 p & Z lvlinu tes April 30~, 1981 I e ,~/7· \ J<I^~í·\ } ¡; I ^ ~. I l I 1 ,¡ Ii ,..~ J.~...... ~,.- '"' ," e (~' \ ,.,-;;? :;'.,c'. C^ ~ ~..#o'" . were carcinogen~c and at night his wife could hardly sl~ep for the fumes. He said he was against anY ,type of industry. that would emit any hårmful dust or fumes. Þlr. Baker said ~Ir. Dutton who is here tonight has tried to get his property zoned Commercial two or three' times and has been turned down. He said he would ,like to have something in writing as a guarantee. \ }tr . Baker said there is a ''tvater run-off' problem. He said they are-on a^ridge and if the ridge is taken do,vn there would be flooding. Mr. Greenfield said this would be taken care of in the platting.' Mr. Baker said he doesn't want anything put in that would be harmful. Mr. Forester said chemical plants are, specifically excluding from being able to go in Industrial zoning. He said any- thing which creates smoke, dust" or fumes can be controlled through.the Ordinances and a 6 ft. fence ,is also required. The Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Tucker said th'e Commission must consider the best use of the land. It is on a railroad, a major highway and it doesn't really lend itself to residential develop~ ment because of'the terrain. Mrs. Nash said she wasn't convinced' it , ,should be. industrial bùt it should be, commercial and the present industrial zoning sh~uld be changed to commercial. }lr. Greenfield said he couldn't agree with Mrs. Nash because it abuts the railroad. There was a discussion among the Commission as to the best use of the land. Mrs. Nash said the only reason she is ~gainst the zoning is because of the odors of industrial plants. P & Z ~1inutes April 30, 1981 PS 81-15 APPROVED e ADJOUR1~IENT ( ( Ì"Ir. .Botven raoved, seconded by }lr. Tucl<.er ~ to approve PZ 81-15. The motion car~ied~3-1 with Mrs. Nash voting against". The meeting adjourned at 9:50 P. M. , '. CHAIR}L~N PLANNING AND ZONING CO~illISSION SECRETARY PLAL'JNING Ai~D ZONING COtv1}IISSION ( . e e e e e (¿ \,. , c· . KNOWL TON- ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort Worth-Dallas ¡. . . April 10, 1981 Planning & Zoning Commission City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Subject:. 3-002, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, ZONING PLAT REVIE~J, PZ 81-15, AGRICULTURE TO INDUSTRIAL We have received the subject zoning case for our review and find that we could adequately locate this property on the zoning map should it be passed by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council. ¡Z¿~CI/.~ RICHARD W. ALBIN, P.E. RWA/ljc cc: Mr. Dennis Horvath, Assistant City Manager 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG. · BEDFORD. TEXAS 76021· 817/283-6211· METRO/267-3367 / ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN.ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XXIX CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS,. SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE #179t ZONING ORDINANCE . OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HIllS t TEXAS, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF · THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, NOVEMBER 13. 1967, AS,' AMENDED JANUARY 27 1J 1975 AFTER APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RrC~LAND HILLS BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:' . . t_ . . ,,1\ ,.~\\ '"i" " - \ . . RESOLVED that On Case No. PZ 81-15 . the fol1owi:ng descr'ibed property shall. be rezoned from A~ri cu Hure·· . . .... . .-. . . . '. . '. : : :. :. : : . ~.: .: . . .. . to Industrial Boundary description for. a tract of land out of the J.M. Crocket Survey, Abstract 273, and the F~ Wood Survey, Abstract 1625, within the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas, beìng,a portion of that certa in tract of 1 and conveyed to J. C. Hukill by warranty deed recorded in Vo 1 ume 1377, Page 445, within the deed records of Ta rrant County, Texas·, ~nd being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of said Hukill Tract, said point being in the east line of the said Wood Survey, and in the west line of the said T.K. Martin Survey, Abstract 1055; . . e THENCE South 438.6 feet along the east line of the said Wood Survey and the west line of the said Martin Survey, and the east line of the said Hukill ' Tract, to a point for corner; THENCE West 569.5 feet to the west line of th,e said Wood Survey and the 'east line of the J.M. Crockett Survey, Abstract 273, and continuing West a total' distance of 1,363.6 feet to a point in the east line of Davis Blvd.~(F.M. 1938); THENCE North 19 degreei 25 minutes 53 seconds ~ast along the said east line of Davis Blvd. fora distance of 466.06 feet tof., a point 'for corner; s~id point being in the north line of the said Hukill ~. act; . . . . , THENCE East along the north line of the said Hukill Tract and the south line of Blo~k 2, of t~ ~.E. Odell Ad~i~ion t,or a\.total distance of 1,206 feet to the POlnt of begl ln a d contaln;lng aPÞfox,mately 12.937 acres of land. \ .... . .~..... 'f.~) \ \,l ..'.\\. ~ ': '; ;. '. \ \ \ ,w,,:\ .,\, ,/\:\ ,. \~\..' 1~,4' . \~".~".,' ".'~ ~\~ e ~ ... ~. #.- . ..- ..-...-.... . \ \ "\ '-,- ." , :........ ',"\ "., , " ""70#'" " . ; " \. . - . ~ ':'.~. ·Påge 2 .. ... . "~'-'. ~. . , .- . . ' ,\" .' ..,,1., . ,\~. ' ., e. , ' . .' , c. ~ ~...... .,' ., ... - ~ " ; , ; , . , . . .... . ~ ..' . . A " ,0 I , . .. . ~ " , ." .... .. ... , . , . " . . . This· pÌ"Óperty·1s located> on th~ 'east $idr.ofnt'lv;<; Rlv(f·and ·';s .... approximatelY '260 feets~uth of Odell Street. '. ., . ".. '... '. "" : \;.' , "~....~., -Þ . .' , . 30,th. . , . DAY OF '., .11 ·.i, ~:. . . ·A~PRPYFn· BY THE PLANNING AND. ZONING COMMISSION tHIS APR11 .. 1981. . '. " . ... , , . , .. . ... . "- , , . .. .SE~P~~~ zfj;có~~ . . " . '. . . " '. ' . BE IT ORDAINED I~Y. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE tn·Y OF NORTH RICHLAND HIlLŠ ACTING IN REGULAR SESSION THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IN CASE NO. PI 81-15 .. IS HEREBY· REZONED -. . . . . ; THIS·, 'DAY .OF· , . . - ' e MAYOR DICK,FARAM ' CITY OF NORTH RICHlAND ·HilLS· . .' .. ·CITY SECRETARY JEANETTE MOORE ":, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS . . APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY . .., . ATTEST: .. ' , . CITY ATTORNEY , . CITY OF. NORTH RICHLAND HILLS / e . '1-:-:- ..r.....---.. __"._ - .' A -..--- . " .. A.A - _..~ _ -..... .'.r "__. - . --, .- . .. .. DATE: July 9, 1981 /0 SUBJECT: Request for an Appeal Hearing on PS 81-33 Final Plat of Lot 1~ Block 1~ Brooks Addition II DEPARTMENT: Planning and Zoning .. BACKGROUND: Mr. Brooks has had a business on this property for some time. He .came in for a building permit so we asked him to plat the property. Ail the Engineer's comments were met except one which required constructing1~600 feet of 8" water line for fire coverage. The Planning and Zoning ComMissi?n denied the final plat ~ecause of this one item that· they would not meet. . r" CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Grant an Appeal. Hearing. , ., BUDGETED ITEM: YES NO X '.. A~COUNT NUMBER: NIA _____----------- . ..' /> ~do-/ () /J J.- . --------------------------------------~q--------~-~-~-_. -..-..-...........---....- e - - .. II Delbert R. Stembridge consulting engineer July 7, 1981 Honorable Mayor and_City Council City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas Re: Lot 1, Block 1, BROOKS ADD'N, Final Plat - Appeal. Gentlemen: The Final Plat for the .above referenced tract was recently submitted for approval to_the Planning and Zoning Commission and was denied due to lack of adequate fire coverage. The Owner desires only to build a metal storage shed on this lot. In order to provide the fire coverage requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Owner would be required to bear the expense of constructing 1,600 feet of 8" water line from an existing l6-inch line to his property. The cost of fulfilling this request would appear to be excessive in light of the fact that the Owner wants only to erect a metal storage shed on his tract. We would like to appeal to the City Council for approval of this Plat. e Sincerely, J , P.E. DR.S let e 3729 Flory. North Richland Hills. 76118. (817) 284-1363 - - .. - e e DATE: July 9. 1981 1/ Request for an Appeal Hearing on · SUBJECT: PZ 81-25 Zoning request from Agriculture to Planned Development on . Oak Leaf Park,. 2nd Filing. DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND: Planning and Zoning This property has been platted for several years but never developed.· Mr. Stone wants to have a Park, 2 single family, one stor.y homes, his insurance , . office and a trophy shop on this property. At mY suggestion, he came in for Planned Development zoning. He provided us with everything Waynè Snyder said we needed for a PD zoning request. The Planning and Zoning Commission den.ied the request with a vote of 3-2 with Mr. . . . Bowen and Mr. Greenfield voting against the denial: They felt there wasn't sufficent . . information presented. AlT were concerned about hav·'ng a private park so far away from police ånd fire protection. Mr. Stone said he would not develop the park until . ' such time he could get fire protection to this area. He said he would insure the ~ . homes wlth no expense to the cny for f.weprotect10n. CITY COUNCIL ACJION REQUIRED: Grant an Appeal Hearing. -, ,~ BUDGETED ITEM: YES NO X_. .. . . A~COUNT NUr,tBER: N/A This property is located west of Precinct Line Rd. and is bounded on. the north by. _o_~_:.:~~_~~~~~~-~o_m~-!~~~--.:. . ..JJ ~ G -----------------------------------------------~ , . e June 26, 1981 Charles \~illiams City Manager North Richland Hills, 7exas Dear Mr. Williams: This is a formal request for appeal of zoning change that was denied June 25, 1981. We have provided all items that were requested by City Planner, ~'layne Snyder. \}e would be glad to meet with the City Council for work session on the planned development. Due to the time element, it is very important to receive first agenda possible. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. T'~espectfully , e e ({)Jß~ ¡2¿ 1ft e e e ·D~T=:: t>-£-öl SU3JECT: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance #179 regarding· dual ~ . ownership of dup 1 exe,s.. OEPÞ-.RTì-!EJiT: Planning and Zoning ~ BACKGROUND: We have had so many calls regarding this that we had to draw up some guidelinès to fol1ow.~ -.----- The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of thi~ a~endment. ~. CIT'{ COUNCIL Þ.CTION REQUIRED: ~. BUOGETED I TE\'I: '{ES p.ÇCGUNT ~IU~;'3ER: N/ P\ - r Approval or denial of amendment. , . . . r·tO, x ~ ~- . ~ ~ . . . . _r C ------------------------------. ~~ ------------------------------ . ~ - - - - - ..... - .- --. .... .....-.... - - ..... ..... --.--. - . . Page 23 P & Z Minutes May 28, 1981 <. (" \. '~ ~and ca rri ed '-5 -0 · .~...... 1- ,------------ CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE #179 APPROVED Amendment regarding Individual O",mership of duplexes, etc. The Chairman asked the Commission members if they had read the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinanèe. The Commission members said they had. Mr. Tucker made a motion to-fecommend to the City Council for approval of this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance #179. This motion was seconded by Mr. B~en and ~he motion carried 5-0. í , . Mr. Hannon said he understood this was to comply to a new state law. e said the m~bers of the Commission e reviewed it and there seems to b~ a d deal of confusion as to what it. ns. Mr. Hannon said he would like to e it postponed and have the City Attor put it in layman's language. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE #195 POSTPONED Amendment regarding replats. . . äe a motion to postpone the arnendmen 0 the Subdivjsion Ordinance #195 to it being rewritten ,in layman's and the City 'Attorney's comments. Mr. Bowen seconded the motion and·the motion carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P. M. CHAIRMAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . ..~ ,. ORDINANCE NO. It WHEREAS, certain persons are making application for building permits on lots in 2-F-9 (Two-family) districts whereby ownership of the two family units will be split; and, WHEREAS, the present terms of Article XVII, Ordinance H 179 do not deal with dual ownership of the lot upon which a two family unit is located. NOW', THEREFORE, be it Ordained by the City Council of the City of North Richland Hîlls~ Texas~ that; 1. Article XVII of Ordinance No. 179 is amended as follows: A. Two....family units in district 2....F7'"9 may be built under dual ownership of the lot SO ·that each side of the said unit (duplex) may be owned by· different persons or entitities. Duplexes which are presently in District 2~F....9 may be converted to dual ownership under such conditions as.' be established by the building and zoning department of the City with at least a two hour fire wall between units. e B. The side yard requirements of said Article XVII shall be interpreted to pertain to the said yards of the building containing both dwelling units, rather than the undivided dwelling units themselves. 2~ If any portion of thi$ ordinance is-held to be invalid it shall not affect the remaining valid portions.. ... ... ...... .. ...- PASSED AND APPROVED this' . day óf' . ' . . . ' . . ' . . , . , ,~ 1981. APPROVED: .' .. .. . . .. .. .. - ........... -. '. ... ... .. .. .. - .. Dick Faram, Mayor ATTEST; Jeanette Moore, City Secretary' APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY' . Rex McEntire, City- Attorney - . r ~·t RESOLUTION NO. e WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills will hold a special Charter Amendment Election on August 8, 1981; and WHEREAS, the official absentee paper ballots have been counted and sealed up with instruction cards, poll list, tally sheets, distance markers, returning blanks, stationery and a certified list of voters and the number of each endorsed on the package. NOW, THEREFORE, be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, that: 1. The Council finds that the above has been accomplished and so certifies. 2. The number of ballots for each voting precinct and the range of serial numbers on these ballots are as follows: e Precinct Number Range 41 1 - 20 49 21 -' ·30 63 31 - 40 72 41 - 50 140 51 - 71 159 71 - 80 191 81 - 90 196 91 - 100 209 101 - 110 214 111 - 120 215 121 - 130 Passed and approved this 13th day of July, 1981. Dick Faram - Mayor ATTEST: Jeanette Moore - City Secretary e APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGILITY: Rex McEntire - City Attorney , ,/ / ;~--l , j .:......¡., -~ . ... DATE: 7-7-81 SUBJECT: Partial Pay Estimate # 1 - Leonard Hazel, Inc. e DEPARTMENT: Utility BACKGROUND: Construction of the Precinct Line watpr mrlin ;5 well under Wiiy Contractor is well ahead of schedule and the bore under the railroad has ,been comp 1 eted . Total Contract Bid $153~760.79 Labor and Material (this estimate) $ 48~736.50 Less 10% $ 4,873.65 Difference $ 43,862.85 , Plus 75% material on hand $ 45,334.98 Total $ 89,187.83 e Due This Estimate $ -0- o· ..._..............., ,._ "...~,.".'"....._. ", ,"'-_IòiO'''_''~ $ 89',187.83 ""./,J' ~,.".r.,~_,.;::.r.. ' Less Previous Payments '---- CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of estimate # 1 in the amount of $89.187.83 BUDGETED ITEM: YES X ,NO ACCOUNT NUMBER: Bonds ~ 1¡ \. e - - e e e . ... KNOWL TON- ENGLISH-FLOWERS, 'NC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort Worth-l)allas July 2, 1981 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of North R;chland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: 3-545, CITY OF NORTH R.ICHLAND HILLS, PRECINCT LINE ROAD WATER SYSTEM EXTENSIONS, CONTRACTOR'S PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO.1 Enclosed is one copy of Contractor's Partial Pay Estimate No.1, dated July 1,1981, made payable to Leonard Hazel, Inc., in the amount of $89,197.83, for materials furnished and work performed on the referenced project as of July 1, 1981. The quantities and condition of the project have been verified on-site by your representative, Bill Rutledge, as indicated by signature on the estimate, and we have checked the item extensions and additions. We recommend that this payment in amount of $89,197.83 be made to Leonard Hazel, Inc., at P.O. Box 48098, Watauga. Along with a copy of this letter, the Contractor is being furnished a blank estimate form for preparing next month's estimate. .~ RICHARD W. ALBIN, P.E. RWA/l jc cc: Mr. Cecil Forester, Director of Public Works Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Development Mr. Bill Rutlede, City Inspector Leonard Hazel, Inc. 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG.· BEDFORD. TEXAS 76021· 817/283-6211· METR0/267-3367 - - - - - - - CON T R ACT 0 R I S ------ EST I MAT E .----------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- AMOUNT P 1 OF FILE F354- TI~ATE NO.- 1 JOB NO.- 3-545 .CT DESCRIPTION- PRECINCT LINE ROAD WATER SYSTEM EXTENSIONS _ NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PLACE- NORTH RICHLAND HILLS DATE- 71 1/81 ME CHARGED THRU PERIOD- -3 DAYS CONTRACTOR- LEONARD HAZEL. INC. R MATERIALS FURNISHED AND LABOR PERFORMED IN PERIOD ENDING- 7/ 1/81 RK ORDER DATE- 7/ 6/81 CALENDAR DAYS- 60 COMPLETION DATE- 91 3/8' It ITE~ DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS THIS UNIT ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ,. 24" WATER PIPE ~. 16" DIA. WATER PIPE ~. 12 t I D I A. \-J A T ER PIP E ~. 24t t GATE VALVE W/4' t BYPASS AND BOXES ). 16" GATE VALVE W/4t I BYPASS AND BOXES J' 12" GATE VALVE AND BOX 7. 6f' GATE VALVE AND BOX B. 6" BLOW-OFF. BRANCH & SUMP MANHOLE 9. lit COMBINATION AIR RELEASE VALVE AND VAULT o. FIRE HYDRANTS 1.6" DIA. «(L. 50) DUCTILE ~ IRON FIRE HYD. LEAD PIPE 2~UCTILE IRON FITTINGS FOR LESS THAN 12' t PIPE 3. 'DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS FOR 12' t AND OV,ER PIPE 4. BORE OR TUN. & PRES. GROUT 30" WELDED STEEL CASING .5. CRUSHED STONE PAVEMENT REPL. (FLEXIBLE BASE) ,7. PIPELINE MARKERS .8. STOCK GATES L9. CONCRETE ENCASEMENT FOR 16 t. \-JATER PIPE ~O. CONNECTION TO EXIST. TRA 2 4 .. '.~I ATE R L I ~~ E e L.F. L.F. L.F. EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH EACH L.F. LB. LB. L.F. L.F. EACH EACH L.F. L.S. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 280.00 700.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1,00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.00 0.00 4086.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 280.00 700.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 7.00 0.00 4086.00 ,100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNIT PRICE 31.90 20.80 15.20 6532.50 3583.30 822.00 363.00 1111,75 831.15 900.00 10.OU 1.00 1.50 112.50 a.oo 46.70 225.00 6,00 959.00 8932.00 14560.0 0.0 6532.5 0.0 0.0 363.0 0.0 0.0 900.0 70.0 0.0 6129.0 11250.0 0.0 0.0 C.O 0.0 0.0 .---------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- ITEM DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS THIS UNIT ESTIMATE ESTIMATE TOTAL UNIT PRICE AMOUNT ". . .. - - - - - ------ P 2 OF 2 FILE F3545 CON T RAe TOR t 5 EST I MAT E IMATE NO.- 1 JOB NO.- 3-545 '-'T DESCRIPTION- PRECINCT LINE ROAC WATER SYSTEM EXTENSIONS ~ NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PLACE- NORTH RICHLAND HILLS DATE- 11 1/81 E CHARGED THRU PERIOD- -3 DAYS CONTRACTOR- LEONARD HAZEL. INC. MATERIALS FURNISHED AND LABOR PERFORMED IN PERIOD ENDING- 11 1/61 :K ORDER DATE- 11 6/81 CALENDAR DAYS- 60 COMPLETION DATE- 91 3/81 ~LD VERIFICATION OF ~OB CONDITIONS ) CONFIRMATION OF PAY QUANTITIES - _--~f!Æ..-J2(~f~-~_Þ--------- (OWNER'S PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE) TE- .19 ----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . PROVED- OWL TON-ENGLISH-FLOWERS. INC. ,~Wu ING ENGINEERS TOTAL .... · · · · · · · · · LESS 10 PERCENT RETAINED · · · · DIFFERENCE · · · · · · · · · · · PLUS 75 PERCENT MATlS ON HAND. · TOTAL ...... · · · · · · · lESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS · · · · · DIFFERENCE DUE THIS ESTIMATE · · NOTE-PAY LAST AMOUNT SHOWN 48736.50 4873.65 43862.85 45334.98 89197.83 0.00 . 89197.83 : .. ~T~: --------;;¡r¿------- -:î;-8F¡i ----------1------------ -~f- )TAL EARNINGS (INCL. RETAIN.)-$ 48736.50 tME CHARGED THRU THIS PERIOD- -3 DAYS TOTAL 81D-$ 153760.79 PERCENT- 31.69' TOTAL TIME- 60 DAYS PERCENT- -5.00 e - . ¿., ~ e e e I .,:-'- DATE: 7-7-81 SUBJECT: Partial Pay Estimate # 1 - J.,L. Bertram Canst Co DEPARTMENT: Utility BACKGROUND: The North Hills sewer construction proiect is approximately 50% complete and well ahead of schedule. Total contract bid Labor & Material to-date Less 10% Difference $26.349.03 $15.613.00 $ 1",561_30 $14..051.70 $ -0- $14,051.70 Less Previous payments Due This Estimate ~.,.~-.......,-." CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of payment in the amount of $14,051.70 .~ ,/ /""' .t..~ ~,.....~-,..,_..~,-",.._--_...., ...' BUDGETED ITEM: YES X NO ACCOUNT NUMBER: Utility Surplus - ~. .. e e e KNOWL TON- ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS / Fort Worth-l)atlas July 6, 1981 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of North Richland Hills 7301 N.E. Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76118 Re: 3-550, CITY OF NORTH RICHlAND HIllS, NORTH HIllS SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, CONTRACTOR'S PARTIAL PAY ESTIMATE NO. 1 Enclosed is one copy of Contractor's Partial Pay Estimate No.1, dated July 1, 1981, made payable to J.l. Bertram Construction Co., in the amount of $14,051.70, for materials furnished and work performed on the referenced project as of June 30, 1981. The quantities and condition of the project have been verified on-site by your representative, Bill Rutledge, as indicated by signature on the estimate, and we have checked the item extensions and additions. We recommend that this payment in amount of $14,051.70 be made to J.l. Bertram Construction Co. at 7300 Trinity Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76118. Along with a copy of this letter, the Contractor is being furnished a blank estimate form for preparing next month's estimate. . RICHARD W. ALBIN, P.E. RWA/l jc cc: Mr. Cecil Forester, Director of Public Works Mr. Allen Bronstad, Director of Development Mr. Bill Rutledge, City Inspector J.L. Bertram Construction Co. 550 FIRST STATE BANK BLDG.· BEDFORD. TEXAS 76021· 817/283-6211· METRO/267-3367 - CON T RAe TOR I 5 - - - - - .. - - ... .' f......- " ~ ~¡ EST I MAT E P 1 OF 1 FILE F3550 - - - - - - rIMATE NO.- 1 JOB NO.- 3-550 )JECT DESCRIPTION- NORTH HILLS SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ~~_ NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PLACE- NORTH RICHLAND HILLS DATE- 1/ 1/81 ~HARGED THRU PERIOD- -5 DAYS CONTRACTOR- J.L. BERTRAM CONST. & ENGIN..INC. RMATERIALS FURNISHED AND LABOR PERFORMED IN PERIOD ENDING- 6/30/81 RK ORDER DATE- 1/ 1/81 CALENDAR DAYS- 40 COMPLETION DATE- 8/15/81 PREVIOUS THIS UNIT . ITEM DESCRIPTION ur~ I T ESTIMATE ESTIMATE TOTAL PRICE AMOUNT .----------------------------------- -------.... --...------- ------.--...-- _...~._-.....-~ ...............--,.-,-.. .. UNCL. TRENCH EXC. 0'-6' L.f. 0.00 300.00 300.00 1.55 465.00 ~ . UNCL. TRENCH EXC. 61-8' L.F. 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.50 0.00 ~ . 6 t t PVc (DR35) SEWER PIPE L.F. 0.00 300.00 300.00 25.10 7530.00 ... STD. TY.-A MANHOL,E, 8 · DEEP EACH 0.00 1.00 1.00 1650.00 1650.00 ,. 2000 PSI CLASS 8 CONCRETE' FOR ENCASEMENT C.V. 0.000 4.620 4.620 850.00 3927.00 ó. STD. SAN. SEWER SERVe CONN. EACH 0.00 2.00 2.00 400.00 800.00 7. 4 t t SAN. SE\-JER SERVe LINE L.F. 0.00 18.00 18.00 24.50 441.00 8. SAN. S Evl E R SERVe CONNECTION TRANSFER EACH 0.00 2.00 2.00 400.00 800.00 IELD VERIFICATION OF JOB CONDITIONS ,ND CONFIRMATION OF PAY QUANTITIES IY- See. p/"Jf (~A _----------------==:L~~-------- ~OWNERtS PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE) )A1IJ .19 ---------~---------~--- ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PPROVED- NOWLTON-ENGLISH-FLOWERS, INC. CONSU NG ENGINEERS Y- W /)" ~ .. - - ----------------~ ATE_____-----~~~------_-t19~~- TOTAL ...... · · · · · · · LESS 10 PERCENT RETAINED · · · · DIFFERENCE · · · · · · · · · · · PLUS 75 PERCENT MATLS ON HAND. · TOTAL ...... · · · · · · · LESS PREVIOUS ?AYMENTS · · · · · DIFFERENCE DUE THIS ESTIMATE · · NOTE-PAY LAST AMOUNT SHOWN 15613.00 1561.30 14051.70 0.00 14051.70 0.00 14051.70 .OTAL EARNINGS (INCL. RETAIN.)-$ 15613.00 IME CHARGED THRU THIS PERIOD- -5 DAYS TOTAL BID-$ 26349.03 PERCENT- 59.2~ TOTAL TIME- 40 DAYS PERCENT- -12.5( e DATE: 6-26-81 SUBJECT: Purchase of Right-oi-Way ·e DEPARTMENT: Assistant City Manager BACKGROUND: Request authorization to ~ay Mr. Alan Hamm $41,819.82 for the purchase of right-of~ay fronting Rufe Snow Drive. ~his payment is for two tracts of land totaling $34,849.85 SQ. ft. Agreed upon purchase price is $1.20 per sq. ft. Mr. Hamm will be assessed approximately $43,004.71 for curb, gutter~ paving, drainage whe~ construction is completed. 'e CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: . BUDGETED ITEM: ACCOUNT NUMBER: YES NO Rufe Snow Bond Money -------------------~---------~------------------------------------~------------ e -- --- - -... . "" ... - - ' - - -- . -- - . _...- -