Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1984-01-09 Minutes Present: Absent: ITEM DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE (AGENDA ITEM 1113) Dick Faram Rodger Line Dennis Horvath Gene Riddle Jim Ramsey Harold Newman Dick Fisher J.C. Hubbard Rex McEntire George Tucker Margorie Nash Marie Hinkle DISCUSSION NOTES ON PRE-COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 9, 1984 Mayor City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Works Director Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman City Attorney Planning & Zoning Board Chairman Planning & Zoning Board Councilwoman ASSIGNMENT Mayor Faram announced that the applicant on Item 118 would not be present because a full Council was not available to hear the appeal. He asked for a motion for postpone- ment during the Council Meeting. George Tucker briefed the Council on the changes recom- NAN mended on the new Zoning Ordinance. These changes primarily pertain to the increased flexibility in the new ordinance in residential, adding landscaping, sight plan and elevations requirements in commercial zoning; flexibility in multi- family and townhouses and allowing high-rise office buildings. Following Mr. Tucker's presentation there was a discussion on what, if any, part of the old ordinance would be grandfathered. This subject was resolved in the Pre-Council Meeting. ITEM DISCUSSION DISCUSSION Councilman Kenna explained that the creation of a Health OF RESOLU- TION CREATING Facilities Development Corporation would be similar A HEALTH FACILITIES to the industrial development corporation. Although DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION it would be a separate entity it would be composed (AGENDA ITEM 1117) of the same members as the Industrial Development Corporation. DISCUSSION Rodger Line informed the Council that reservations to OF RESOLU- TION FOR Austin, for each of the Council members, had been made PROPOSED INTERCHANGE for 7:00 a.m., Monday, January 23rd. Mr. Line stated the IMPROVEMENTS AT LOOP 820, hearing before the Highway Commission was scheduled for FM 1938 AND STATE HIGHWAY 9:00 a.m. He stated a return flight had been booked for 26 (AGENDA ITEM 1116) 1:05 p.m. on the 23rd. Mr. Line asked the Council to please contact Dennis in the next few days for confirma- tion. DISCUSSION OF Rodger Line stated that the Gibraltar Savings short form PS 83-228, GIBRALTAR plat was complete. He explained to the Council that the SAVINGS SHORT FORM PLAT Bank of North Texas is also willing to sign a commitment (AGENDA ITEM 1114) for drainage improvements adjacent to the bank if the City will improve Desiree. The bank has requested that this street be made a concrete street. The City will obtain a price for overlay with asphalt and a contractor's estimate for a concrete street. The Bank of North Texas will then decide if they will pay the difference for these improvements. The Gibraltar Savings Short Form Plat problems have been resolved and they are contracting with the State for drainage improvement. Page 2 ASSIGNMENT RNL Follow-up Dennis Follow-up Gene Follow-up Page 3 ITEM DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT DISCUSSION The bid received for the property adjacent to the OF BIDS FOR CITY SURPLUS Bursey Road water tower was discussed. It was PROPERTY (AGENDA ITEM agreed that the $80,107.17 was a fair price. /12 2) Lou Follow-up with John Whitney on sale of house MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 - JANUARY 9, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Mayor Faram called the meeting to order January 9, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 2. Present: Dick Faram Jim Ramsey Jim Kenna Richard Davis J.C. Hubbard Dick Fisher Harold Newman Staff : Rodger Line Jeanette Moore Dennis Horvath Gene Riddle John Whitney Lou Spiegle Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman ROLL CALL City Manager City Secretary Assistant City Manager Director of Public Works/Utility Purchasing Agent Finance Director Planning and Zoning Members: George Tucker Chairman Marjorie Nash Secretary Mark Wood Don Bowen Mark Hannon Press: Fort Worth Star Telegram Mid Cities Daily News Northeast Chronicle Absent: Marie Hinkle Councilwoman 3. The invocation was given by Councilman Hubbard. INVOCATION Mayor Faram advised the Council he would depart from the Agenda at this time. Mayor Faram asked if there was anyone present to represent Agenda Item 118 and 9. There was no one present. 4. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve the minutes of the special meeting December 5, 1983. Motion carried 5-0; Councilman Newman abstaining due to his absence from the meeting. 5. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Fisher, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 12, 1983. Motion carried 4-0; Councilmen Kenna and Davis abstaining due to their absence from the meeting. 6. None 7. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Newman, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried 6-0. 8. Councilman Fisher moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to postpone Item 118 and 119. Motion carried 6-0. 9. Postponed. January 9, 1984 Page 2 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 5, 1983 APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1983 APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF REMOVING ITEMS (S) FROM CONSENT AGENDA CONS IDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM (S) INDICATED BY ASTERISK (10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22) APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL HEARING PZ 83-54, REQUEST OF M & W INVESTMENTS TO REZONE A PORTION OF TRACT 4, T.K. AKERS SURVEY, ABSTRACT 19, FROM AGRICULTURE TO INDUSTRIAL (LOCATED ON THE RAILROAD PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOOP 820) POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 83-54 POSTPONED *10. 11. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval, but the City Staff had recommended denial. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey, to deny PS 83-128. Councilman Davis asked if a drainage study was required for this one lot subdivision. Councilman Davis stated the reason he asked was because one of the comments from the Staff was there were no construction plans submitted and no drainage study shown. Councilman Davis stated these problems were not brought up at the Planning and Zoning meeting. Mr. Albin stated part of the problem was the owner's acknow- ledgement and dedication was not executed. Mr. Albin stated there was no fire protection shown and a couple of other items not complete. Motion carried 6-0. 12. Mayor Faram advised the Council he had two people who wished to speak on this item and with the Council's permission he would depart from the rules and let them speak. Mr. Doug Long, Consulting Engineer, representing Mr. John Barfield, appeared before the Council. Mr. Long stated the request tonight was for final plat approval of Sunny Meadows, 5th filing. Mr. Long stated this had been previously submitted overall in two pieces. Mr. Long stated they had received a comment letter stating that they would have to obtain permission to be able to discharge drainage water on the adjacent owner's property so they came back in and split the 4th filing into two pieces. Mr. Long stated the 4th filing was the one that discharged the major amount of water to the property to the south, Mr. Barnett's property. Mr. Long stated he thought an agreement had been worked out with Mr. Barnett for discharging January 9, 1984 Page 3 PLANNING & ZONING - PS 83-124, REQUEST OF SOUTHLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES FOR FINAL PLAT OF FOSTER VILLAGE, SECTION ELEVEN (LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RUFE SNOW DRIVE AND BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY THE EXISTING FOSTER VILLAGE ADDITION) PLANNING & ZONING PS 83-128, REQUEST OF MARTIN DEVELOPMENT FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, MEADOW RIDGE ESTATES, PHASE 2 (LOCATED ON WEST SIDE OF RUFE SNOW DRIVE, ACROSS THE STREET FROM NORTH RICHLAND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL) DEN lED PLANNING & ZONING PS 83-129, REQUEST OF JOHN W. BARFIELD FOR FINAL PLAT OF SUNNY MEADOWS ADDITION 5TH FILING (LOCATED EAST OF DAVIS BOULEVARD, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY EXISTING SUNNY MEADOWS ADDITION AND ON THE SOUTH BY LACASITA MOBILE HOME PARK APPROVED of the water, but he had been given a letter tonight from Mr. Barnett and did not quite understand it. Mr. Long stated this property was located on the east side of Mr. Barnett's and there was a street stubbed out into his property that would discharge a small amount of water onto the Barnett property. Mr. Long stated the water would go onto the Barnett property. Mr. Long stated the water would go south back into the right-of-way on Newman Drive and east to Calloway Branch. Mr. Long stated they had complied with the Engineers' letter and had met with Mr. Barnett with the understanding they would dredge out the existing stock tank and revert the water so it would go into the stock tank on Mr. Barnett's property. Mr. Long stated they had done everything they had agreed to do. Councilman Davis asked if the Staff was in agreement with Mr. Long's answer to Item 113 in the Engineer's letter regarding the water and sewer pro rata. Mr. Long stated the pro rata was in the 4th filing, there was nothing adjacent to the property in the 5th filing, all pro rata applied to the 4th filing. Mr. Joe Barnett, 6000 Davis Boulevard, appeared before the Council. Mr. Barnett stated there had been a considerable misunder- standing between Mr. Barfield, Mr. Barnett, Sr. and himself in regards to drainage. Mr. Barnett stated that Mr. Barfield must utilize their land for his drainage and it would cause erosion problems, repair and rights. Mr. Barnett stated it concerned the cutting off of the flow of water to his cattle and it concerned the security of the property and the screening of his property. Mr. Barnett stated he was furnished, by Mr. Barfield, after an early October meeting, a plat and it stated Sunny Meadows, 4th filing being a 71.3567 acre tract of land out of the John Barlough Survey, Abstract 130. Mr. Barnett stated the plat showed all of the property Mr. Barfield owned and the Council was aware the adjoining property owners were not notified about the Planning and Zoning hearings on plats. Mr. Barnett stated the plat showed all of the Barfield property to the east and north. Mr. Barnett stated that from a legal standpoint, if in fact there was an agreement, which he doubted there was an agreement between his father and Mr. Barfield, the words in effect were that they were going to do some planning with the City concerning some apartment zoning and they needed an agreement to proceed with the planning but before anything was finalized they would get back in touch with them. Mr. Barnett stated that every- thing had not been brought to the attention of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Council. Mr. Barnett stated he wanted everything upfront and in-sight, they did not want the burden of the expense for the development of Mr. Barfield. Mr. Barnett stated that whether this was the January 9, 1984 Page 4 5th filing or the 4th filing, there were streets stubbed off and in some places there were ditches six feet deep and twenty feet wide. Mr. Barnett stated they did not want erosion problems caused by the stubbing off of Mr. Barfield's streets. Mr. Barnett stated that according to the plans Mr. Barfield was going to stubb off a 60" concrete pipe on the property and they did not want large volumes of water dumped on their property. Mr. Barnett stated that evidently Mr. Barfield was not aware that in the State of Texas when you have a residence homestead, Texas being a community property State, any agreement that affects the property requires the consent of both husband and wife. Mr. Barnett stated that at no time was the matter discussed with his mother and at no time did she give her consent. Mr. Barnett stated that in fact Mr. Barfield had no consent concerning any of this development, the discharge of drainage, flooding erosion, repairing rights or whatever uses might be brought about. Mr. Barnett asked that the Council deny or postpone the 5th filing. Mr. Barnett stated he felt the problems could be worked out with Mr. Barfield. Mr. Barnett stated the agreement was composed by Mr. Barfield and not his father and it was not a workable situation. Mr. Barnett stated they did not want something that was not tied down in a formal fashion. Mr. Barnett stated he requested, at this time, the Council deny the 5th filing until all matters could be resolved and that the 4th filing be re-opened because the City Engineers' comments were not complied with. Mr. Barnett stated the 4th filing was approved by the Council based on acceptance of the Engineers' comments and they were not complied with. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barnett if the drainage was the major problem. Mr. Barnett stated the drainage, erosion, repa~r~ng rights and security. Mr. Barnett stated that the Mobile Home Park had constructed a screening fence around their property and he felt Mr. Barfield should also construct one. Mayor Faram stated that Mr. Barnett had said he felt the problems could be worked out, but did he feel drainage was the biggest problem. Mr. Barnett stated the drainage was the main problem. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barnett what he was suggesting Mr. Barfield do to solve the problem. Mr. Barnett stated that it must be properly engineered to meet specifications that the Soil Conservation would impose if it were under consideration by the Soil Conservation District. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barnett what he would ask Mr. Barfield to do. January 9, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Barnett stated that if Mr. Barfield was going to discharge a 60" conduit into the stock tank he wanted a stock tank sufficient to meet whatever the engineering loads would be for the tank, with a spillway that was adequate, specifications acceptable to the Soil Conservation for that size of a reservoir to assure that the dam would not wash out. Mr. Barnett stated he wanted the effluent going over the discharge to be channelized in a proper fashion. Mayor Faram asked the City Engineer if he had reviewed this to see if, in his opinion, the problems Mr. Barnett addressed would actually occur. Mr. Albin stated he had made a comment when he reviewed this that the developer was required to make sure that he had handled all the drainage coming upon his property from up above thru the property and discharged downstream in such a manner that the downstream channel was capable of a minimum 10 year discharge in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance criteria. Mr. Albin stated he had also requested that a letter be obtained from Mr. Barnett and other downstream property owners that would be receiving concentrated discharge and they were in agreement and would have no problems. Mr. Albin stated that obviously Mr. Barnett did have problems with this, because he wanted the tank improved to Soil Conservation criteria and the downstream effluent channel from the tank be improved also. Mr. Albin stated the requirements Mr. Barnett wanted was acutally beyond the requirements of the developer. Mayor Faram asked if the plat could be approved with the stipulation of approved to engineering standards. Mr. Albin stated yes. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barnett if this was his main problem. Mr. Barnett stated that he thought there would be erosion where the streets were stubbed off. He did not want ditches on the property. Mr. Barnett stated he had made four points: (one) drainage; (two) erosion; (three) repairing rights and (four) good and sufficient water of proper quality and security. Councilman Davis stated that Mr. Barnett had made reference to a ditch in the multi-family section and the ditch was in the 4th filing which had been finalized for final plat. Councilman Davis stated the Council was considering a piece of property that did not affect the ditch. The 5th filing was a totally different piece of property and had met the Sub- division Ordinance requirements. Mr. Long stated the 60" effluent was designed to carry the 100 year flow and all of it was underground. January 9, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Long stated he would like to see the Council approve the plat subject to working out the differences with Mr. Barnett. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Long if he felt an agreement could be reached. Mr. Long replied yes. Mr. Barnett stated he wanted some assurances from the assigns, if a bond was required to protect his interest, then he wanted Mr. Barfield to purchase a bond. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Long and Mr. Barnett if they were confident an agreement could be worked out. Mr. Long and Mr. Barnett stated yes. Mayor Faram asked Mr. McEntire if the plat could be passed based upon an agreement being submitted before the plat was signed. Mr. McEntire stated yes, but the Council needed to put a time certain in the motion. Councilman Davis stated that when the 4th filing was finalized there was written evidence from Mr. Barnett that it had been agreed on how the drainage would be done. Mr. Barnett stated there was no agreement. Mayor Faram stated the Council was considering the 5th filing tonight and the 4th filing was not part of the issue. Mr. Barnett stated he would not agree to anything in the 5th filing until the issues had been reconsidered in the 4th filing. Mr. McEntire stated the 4th filing had already been filed and the City could not void it. Mr. Barnett stated that the comments on the 4th filing plat were null and void if it said there was an agreement. Mr. John Barfield appeared before the Council. Mr. Barfield stated he thought all minds had met when the overall plat was discussed with Mr. Barnett. Mr. Barfield stated he had received two letters from Mr. Barnett. Mr. Barfield read the following letter from Mr. Barnett: "This letter is to serve as our agreement to permit you or your assigns to stubb a street, which is the 5th filing, and a storm sewer system, which is the 4th filing, to my east and January 9, 1984 Page 7 north property lines with the further understanding and permission for you or your assigns to discharge storm water and enter my property and make the necessary ditching or grading for the same to drain. I am the owner of the property just south and west of your property on Davis Boulevard known as Sunny Meadows, 4th filing." Mr. Barfield stated the letter was signed by Mr. Barnett's father. Mr. Barfield stated that Mr. Barnett's mother did not sign the letter. Mr. Barfield read the following letter he wrote to Mr. Joe Barnett: "This letter will serve to confirm our agreement that you will allow me or my assigns to stubb a street and storm sewer system to your east and north property line along with the necessary ditching or grading for drainage. With you allowing me to do this I will clean out the existing stock pond on your property and ditch the storm water to this same pond in the approximate location shown on the attached map. I will leave the property in as smooth as possible condition. We will contact you prior to doing any work on your property in the event you would like to be present while the work is being performed. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions please give me a call. Fences and gates will be maintained where adjacent." Mr. Barfield stated he and Mr. Cook were willing to work with the City Engineer. Mr. Barfield stated that Mr. Cook had bought the multi-family and single family property from him. Mr. Barfield stated he and Mr. Cook had planned to develop the property jointly so he could be sure everything had been done according to what he had promised. Mr. Barfield stated he had no intention of damaging Mr. Barnett's property. Mr. Barfield stated he did get the letters from Mr. Barnett before the 4th filing was approved because it was a requirement of the City. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he was satisfied that an agreement could be worked out between himself and Mr. Barnett. Mr. Barfield stated yes. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he would have any objections with passing the plat based on the City receiving such a letter of satisfaction from both parties. January 9, 1984 Page 8 Mr. Barfield stated he would like to see the plat passed with the letter in hand. He had already made an agreement with the stipulation the City Engineer would be the one to make the final determination on the pond and ditch. Councilman Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Newman, to approve PS 83-129 as recommended, subject to Engineers' comments, with only one stipulation that the City Engineer cooperate with Mr. Barfield, Mr. Barnett and Mr. Cook in trying to route the drainage ditch on the 4th filing, but not a condition on approval and recording of the 5th filing. Motion carried 6-0. 13. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak to please come forward. Mr. Barry Knight, representative of Preferred Properties, appeared before the Council. Mr. Knight stated his firm owned 12 acres located on Rufe Snow Drive. Mr. Knight stated the property was currently zoned multi-family, 19.8 units per acre. Mr. Knight stated his client purchased the property relying on a letter from the City that the property could be developed 19.8 per acre. Mr. Knight stated his client had already spent a considerable amount of money on plans based on the 19.8 density. Mr. Knight stated his client requested that their be a grand- father clause under the old zoning regulations. Mr. Knight stated one other concern was that it was unclear whether an apartment that had a greater than 16 unit density per acre had a non-conforming building or use. Mr. Knight stated the Council might want to clarify non-conforming use. Mr. Knight stated he would urge the Council to give them a sufficient amount of time to get their building plans in and approved. Councilman Hubbard asked Mr. Knight what he considered sufficient time. Mr. Knight stated six months. Mr. Bobby McMillan, Folsom Investments, Incorporated, 16475 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, appeared before the Council. Mr. McMillan stated he and Bob Folsom owned 59 acres of multi-family property at Harwood and Highway 26. Mr. McMillan stated they would urge three amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Ill. Relating to density, recommend 24 to 26 units per acre. 112. Reduction in parking requirements, 2 spaces per unit. 113. Grandfather Clause for a minimum of two to five years. January 9, 1984 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. 1080 - ORDINANCE ADOPTING CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVED January 9, 1984 Page 10 Mr. J.B. Sandlin, 5137 Davis Boulevard, appeared before the Council. Mr. Sandlin stated the proposed ordinance had been discussed so many times he was confused on what was being adopted if approved. Mr. Sandlin stated he had met with the Planning and Zoning Commission and they had discussed a lot of changes and he was not sure if the changes were included for Council approval. Mayor Faram asked Councilman Kenna to state the recommended changes. Councilman Kenna stated the following changes that were different from the last public hearing: R-1 Changed front building line from 30 feet to 25 feet R-1-Changed side building line from 8 feet to 7 feet R-1-2-3-Changed rear building line from 25 feet to 20% of area lot R-2-Side building line changed from 7 feet to 6 feet R-2-Width of lot changed from 75 feet to 70 feet R-3-Width of lot changed from 70 feet to 65 feet R-5-D-Rear Building Line from 20 feet to 20% of the area lot R-6-T-Maximum lot coverage from 55% to 65% R-7-MF-Planned Development from 16 units per acre to 20 per acre LR-Did not allow banks, dry cleaning with a plat will be allowed in C-1 C-1-2-Maximum lot coverage changed from 40% to 50% C-1-I-1-Height of Building set back abutting residential from 1 foot set back for 1 foot height to 1 foot for 1~ feet C-2-0utdoor storage allowed was limited being more specific changed to 20% of lot area I-I-Manufacturing was allowed - no manufacturing allowed Section 22.6.3.-Disabled parking is now according to State Law rather than 1 space for every 10,000 square feet of building Section 27.6.2 variance there is an addition in wording that states the Zoning Board of Adjustments can not change the allowed used in the Zoning classifications Mr. Sandlin stated that in Local Retail reference was made that you could not have a strip center and in C-1 a shopping mall, it was to be clarified that in C-1 you could have a strip center. Councilman Davis stated that a strip center was allowed in C-1. Mr. Sandlin stated parking was not related to and that was a big issue. Councilman Davis stated there were quire a few changes in the parking requirements. Councilman Kenna stated there was no way to relate to the parking. The recommendations related to sections in the Ordinance. Councilman Kenna stated the following on parking: (2) (b) Changed from 1 space for 300 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 150 sq. ft. class room (4) (a) Changed from 1 space for 125 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 150 sq. ft. floor area (4) (b) Changed from 1 space for 50 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 100 sq. ft. floor area (4) (c) Changed from 1 space for 165 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 250 sq. ft. floor area (4) (d) Changed from 1 space for 500 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 1,000 sq. ft. floor area (5) (a) Changed from 1 space for 75 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 150 sq. ft. floor area (6) (a) Changed from 1 space for 165 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 300 sq. ft. floor area (6) (b) Changed from 1 space for 165 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 300 sq. ft. floor area (6) (c) Changed from 1 space for 165 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 200 sq. ft. floor area (6) (d) Changed from 1 space for 165 sq. ft. floor area to 1 space for 300 sq. ft. floor area Mr. Bob Brady, 5750 Rufe Snow Drive, appeared before the Council. Mr. Brady stated that the comments relating to the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission alluded some difficulties in building height. Mr. Brady stated that in C-1 and I-I he was confused on which way the adjustments were being worked. Councilman Kenna stated the Ordinance required less set back. Mr. Brady asked if it was 12 foot of altitude to one foot set back. Councilman Kenna stated yes, it was one to one. Mr. Brady asked if it was now 1~ foot up for each foot back. Councilman Kenna stated yes. Mr. Brady stated that in regards to the parking he did not know what was being talked about. Councilman Kenna stated he had no way of knowing, without going through the whole Ordinance to try and pick out which was referred to. In almost every case the parking had been cut in half. January 9, 1984 Page 11 Mayor Faram asked Mr. George Tucker, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission to speak. Mr. Tucker stated in the series of meetings the Commission had with the developers, their expressed concerns were in the areas of office use and multi use, concerning parking. Mr. Tucker stated he wanted the developers to know that what the Council was considering tonight was exactly what the Commission told them in the last meeting when the affirmative vote was taken. All the things the Commission said they were changing was in the Ordinance. Mr. Wayne Stewart appeared before the Council. Mr. Stewart stated he had plans submitted and changing the widths of lots for residences was discussed and he would like to know if there was a grandfather clause. If the plans were submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the present time, would it be considered to fall under the old Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McEntire stated the grandfather clause had not been submitted and until it was his question could not be answered. Councilman Davis asked Mr. Stewart what the present zoning was on his property. Mr. Stewart stated 1F-8 and 7. Councilman Davis asked Mr. Stewart that if the ordinance was approved would the new classification be acceptable to him. Mr. Stewart stated yes. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve Ordinance No. 1080 with the addition of establishing a two year grandfather clause. Mr. McEntire presented the following grandfather clause: For a period of two years from the effective date of Ordinance Number 1080, property with a current valid zoning may be developed (Building Permit issued) under Ordinance Number 179. Where development (Building Permit issued) is undertaken under Ordinance Number 179 development shall conform with all of the requirements of Ordinance Number 179 and all policies consistently applied in the application of Ordinance Number 179. Where development is undertaken under Ordinance Number 1080 for a given tract, then all future development on said tract will be pursued under Ordinance number 1080. January 9, 1984 Page 12 If development (Building Permit issued) is not undertaken within the two year period; then the property shall automatically revert to the regulations of Ordinance Number 1080. From the effective date of Ordinance 1080 all requests for new zoning shall follow the regulations of Ordinance 1080. Councilman Fisher moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to amend the motion to state "Do not allow 20 units per acre in multi-family including Planned Development, only 16 units throughout. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey stated one question was that if someone built apartments under the 19.8 and the 16 was passed would they be non-conforming apartments. Mr. McEntire stated they would be non-conforming, but nothing could be done about it Amended motion carried 6-0. Original motion, as amended with the two year grandfather clause and 16 units per acre carried 6-0. Councilman Davis stated the Planning and Zoning members were present and that the Council would like to express their appreciation to them for their long hours and hard work. Councilman Davis stated that they had done an outstanding job. Mayor Faram paid recognition to the Planning and Zoning members. *14. 15. Mayor Pro Tern Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Newman to grant the Appeal Hearing on PZ 83-66 for February 13, 1984. Motion carried 6-0. January 9, 1984 Page 13 PLANNING & ZONING - PS 83-118, REQUEST OF GIBRALTAR SAVINGS FOR SHORT FORM PLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, CARTER ADDITION (LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BEDFORD- EULESS ROAD AND BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY DESIREE LANE) APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING AN APPEAL HEARING ON PZ 83-66 GRANTED January 9, 1984 Page 14 *16. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION FOR PROPOSED INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AT LOOP 820, FM 1938 and STATE HIGHWAY 26 APPROVED *17. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CREATING A HEALTH FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVED *18. CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT, ESTIMATE Ill, TO STEELE-FREEMAN INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,911.05 - NORTHFIELD AND NORICH PARK IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED *19. CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT, ESTIMATE 1110, TO UNIVERSAL TANK & IRON WORKS, INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,805.00 - DAVIS BOULEVARD ELEVATED STORAGE TANK APPROVED *20. CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT, ESTIMATE 114, IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,260.21 TO M.A. VINSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - WALKER'S BRANCH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED *21. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR HOSE AND HYDRANTS - FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVED *22. 23. Mr. Joe Barnett appeared before the Council. Mr. Barnett stated that what he wanted to speak about was the City regulations pertaining to alcoholic beverages. Mr. Barnett stated he would like to request that the Council convene a committee to discuss the regulations that the City might take in regulating the sale and traffic of alcoholic beverages within the municipality. Mr. Barnett stated it was well within the City's authority under General Powers, Article 9.62 of the State of Texas to regulate the sale of beer, etc. Mr. Barnett stated his request to the Council was to convene such a committee and have planning sessions, present a proposed ordinance for Council consideration, and also hold public sessions. Councilman Kenna asked Mr. Barnett what the problem was, was he saying there was too much of it, that it was not spread around right or what. Mr. Barnett stated that when someone stopped and bought a six pack they started drinking it before they were off the parking lot. Mr. Barnett stated he was talking about public safety. Mayor Faram stated he was not opposed to improving the community, but on the 6th day of January, 1984, contrary to the laws that Mr. Barnett had read, that there had been an article published in the Star Telegram from the Attorney General stating that only the State, through the Alcoholic Beverage Code, could regulate the manufacturer's sales distribution, retail sales, transportation and the possession of alcoholic beverages. Mayor Faram advised Mr. Barnett his request would be taken under advisement. 24. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of January 9, 1984. ~ Mayor i ATTEST: ~t?4(/7/v '/!l &J C' Y Secretary January 9, 1984 Page 15 CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR CITY SURPLUS PROPERTY APPROVED CITIZEN PRESENTATION MR. JOE BARNETT RE: LIQUOR LAWS ADJOURNMENT