Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1982-12-14 Minutes NOTES ON PRE COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1982 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Dick Faram Mayor Jim Ramsey Mayor Pro Tem Jim Kenna J. C. Hubbard Councilmen Harold Newman Rodger Line City Manager Dennis Horvath Assistant City Manager John Whitney Purchasing Agent Marjorie Nash Secretary of Planning & Zoning Commission 'ABSENT: Dick Fisher Richard Davis Councilmen Marie Hinkle Councilwoman ITEM DISCUSSION The meeting opened with Mr. Line mentioning that Rex McEntire had a conflict of schedule and would arrive later in the evening. He stated that the subject of the Lone Star Gas Ordinance would come up later in the evening and he asked Council to postpone action on the item if Rex was not here. ZONING ORDINANCE Mayor Faram opened discussion on Ordinance No. 955. AMENDMENT (ORDINANCE 995) Councilmen Hubbard, Kenna and Ramsey all expressed support of the Ordinance prohibiting the building of multi-family in local retail/neighborhood retail zoning. Councilman Ramsey produced some figures from the Staff concerning the 450 acres currently zoned multi-family and the 620 acres currently zoned local retail. Councilman Newman had a few questions in his mind as to the implication of this ordinance and it was explained by Mayor Faram ASSIGNMENT N/A Jeanette-- Readvertise & list on Agenda for January 10 ·pze Council Meeting Notes December 14, 1982 Page 2 ITEM STREET LIGHTING IN NEW SUB- DIVISIONS RUFE SNOW DRIVE, PHASE II CONSTRUCTION DISCUSSION and Councilman Ramsey. Marjorie Nash reiterated what the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended which was holding off for one year for those owners currently possessing LR or NR zoning to allow obtaining a building permit within that year to the extent possible. The next item for discussion was street light requirements. Mr. Line advised the Council that we presently have no requirements for street lights in our Subdivision Ordinance, and summarized the various cities' policies pertaining to street lights and Mr. Riddle's recommendation. The decision on this was that there should be a street light at every intersection and a light at mid-block if the block is excessively long. The Staff will recommend mid-block lighting requirements when a proposed ordinance is submitted. There has been no word on the railroad crossing and there is a delay with Bell Telephone on utility relocation. Mr. Line indicated he would call the railroad on December 15 and once again ascertain where the permit is. He also stated that the bids will probably go out in February for construction. ASSIGNMENT Gene Ridd1e- Prepare proposed ordinance Rodger Line- Call Railroad .company Representative ·. , . ., Pr~.Counci1 Meeting Notes December 14, 1982 Page 3 " -.LTEM f WALKER BRANCH . STORM DRAIN PROJECT TRA CONTRACT MODIFICATION DISCUSSION Councilman Ramsey indicated he would like Council to .schedule a council workshop for February to discuss the planning to meet the serious traffic congestion problems. Mr. Line briefed the Council on Agenda Item #25 which is how the owners would like to see Walker Branch Channel realigned.· Mr. Line indicated he would recommend denial of relocating the channel because of the cost which is $450,000. The Council seemed to agree on that decision and will act upon in open Council session. The need to modify our contract with TRA to provide for industrial waste monitoring was discussed.: It was agreed that this will have little effect on North Rich1and Hills and we will act when this matter is initiated by TRA. The Mayor asked Mr. Line if he had heard anything from the State Highway Department on a scaled down model of the Davis Blvd. Hwy. 26 interchange. ASSIGNMENT Rodger Line- Consult with Mr. Ramsey Rodger Line- Notify Mr. Kurtain of Council's decision N/A f'V~" C~ tJ ¡e S';i~ . MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820, DECEMBER 14, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Mayor Faram called the meeting to order December 14, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. 2. Present: Dick Faram Jim Ramsey Jim Kenna Harold Newman J. C. Hubbard Councilmen Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Staff: Rodger N. Line Jeanette Moore Richard Albin John Hhitney City Manager City Secretary City Engineer Purchasing Agent Board Members: Marjorie Nash Planning and Zoning Commission Board of Adjustment Jack Roseberry Press: Les Harper Jeff Yates Star Telegram Mid Cities Absent: Richard Davis Dick Fisher Marie Hinkle Rex McEntire Councilman Councilman Councilwoman City Attorney 3. The invocation was given by Mayor Pro Tem Jim Ramsey. 4. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey, to approve the minutes of November 22, 1982. Motion carried 4-0. 5. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve PS 82-37. Motion carried 4-0. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL INVOCATION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 1982 APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-37, REQUEST OF THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS FOR SHORT FORM PLATTING OF LOT 3, BLOCK 10, RICHLAND HEIGHTS ADDITION (LOCATED ON THE NORTHHEST CORNER OF ROGAN DRIVE AND LOOP 820) APPROVED December 14, 1982 Page 2 6. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments and all had been met. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey, to approve PS 82-54. PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-54, REQUEST OF B. A. NIKIRK FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 1, HENRY ADDITION (LOCATED ON THE HEST SIDE OF SCRUGGS DRIVE AT THE INTERSECTION OF CROSS STREET) APPROVED Motion carried 4-0. 7. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments and subject to modificatVon to clearly delineate the lot line. All comments had been met and corrections made. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Newman, to approve PS 82-56. PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-56, REQUEST OF DOYLE D. SMITH FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 6, MORGAN MEADOHS ADDITION (LOCATED AT THE NORTHHEST CORNER OF MEADOH ROAD AND CHAPMAN ROAD) APPROVED Councilman Hubbard stated that the approval of this plat would not have any bearing on the flooding problem in Morgan Meadows. Motion carried 4-0. 8. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments and subject to the surveyor changing the statement to meet State Board requirements. All comments had been met, but the changes were not made on the plat. Mr. Albin stated yes. PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-58, REQUEST OF LEXUS MURPHY ASSOCIATION FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 3, DIAMOND LOCH APARTMENTS ADDITION, UNIT 2 (LOCATED ON THE SOUTHHEST SIDE OF GLENVIEH DRIVE AND BOUNDED ON THE HEST BY DIAMOND LOCH APARTMENTS) APPROVED Mr. Albin stated he had talked with the Developer's Engineer and the changes would be made on the plat. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Albin if he was satisfied with the changes. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve PS 82-58. Mayor Faram advised that he had a request to speak from Mr. David Hashington. Mr. David Hashington, Engineer, appeared before the Council. December 14, 1982 ~a~e 3 Mr. Hashington stated he wished to speak only if the Council had any questions. Motion carried 4-0. 9. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments. They agreed to the comments but felt the additional easement for Texas Electric Service Company was not needed. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey, to approve PS 82-59. PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-59, REQUEST OF LYLE CHERRY AND MIKE MCKOOL FOR REPLAT OF LOTS 9R AND lOR, CLEARVIEH ADDITION (LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MAPLEHOOD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD APPROVED Mayor Faram asked the City Engineer if he was satisfied with the present easement that served Seven-Eleven. Mr. Albin stated he would have to defer comment to the Developer's Engineer. Mr. Delbert Stembridge, Consulting Engineer, 3729 Flory, appeared before the Council. Mr. Stembridge stated this was a standard request from the Utility Companies; they request a five foot easement on either side of the lot line. Mr. Stembridge stated there was already some equipment behind the Seven~ Eleven and it was already receiving electric service. Mr. Stembridge stated that since Seven-Eleven could receive power from Maplewood or Davis Boulevard he could not see any reasons for adding the easement l50 feet from the street. Mayor Faram asked if Seven-Eleven was being enlarged. Mr. Stembridge stated no, the property behind Seven- Eleven was sold to Mr. Cherry, and in order for him to get a building permit he platted the lot and at the request of the City Staff rep1atted the two lots. Mr. Stembridge stated he thought this was an effort on the City's part to get as much of the City platted as possible. Mayor Faram asked what the proposed use of the lot was. Mr. Stembridge stated Mr. Cherry wanted to build an extension of his automotive repair service. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that before the lots were rep1atted Texas Electric had a five foot easement and now that the lots were being platted they want an additional five foot easement. December 14, 1982 ;E'fl¡ge 4 Mayor Faram asked Mr. Albin if he was satisfíed with not having the additional five foot easement. Mr. Albin stated he could not speak for TESCO; that he did not know their needs for servicing the property. Mr. Delbert Stembridge, Consulting Engineer, reappeared before the Council. Mr. Stembridge stated Texas Electric could service the property from Map1ewood or Davis Boulevard. Mr. Stembridge stated Seven-Eleven had been there for ten years without the easement and he did not feel there was a great need for the additional easement. Mayor Faram asked if there would be a building or structure that would interfere with the easement. Mr. Stembridge stated he thought there was air conditioning equipment there at the present time. Mr. Albin stated that if the building was already being served by Texas Electric then he would agree the easement was not needed. Motion to approve carried 4-0. lO. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Planning and Zoning CQmmission recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments and all had been complied with. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve PS 82-60. PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-60, REQUEST OF NORTH TEXAS DINING INCORBO- RATED FOR SHORT FORM PLATTING OF LOT 4, BLOCK l, CARDER ADDITION (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AIRPORT FREE- HAY AND BLACKFOOT TRAIL) APPROVED Motion carried 4-0. 11. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments and all had been complied with. Motion carried 4-0. PLANNING & ZONING PS 82-61, REQUEST OF EPOCH DEVELOP- MENT CORPORATION FOR FINAL PLAT OF UNIVERSITY PLAZA ADDITION, 4th FILING (LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HARHOOD AND BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY HAY STACK APARTMENTS) APPROVED Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve PS 82-61. December 14, 1982 ra¡ge 5 12. Mayor Faram stated he had several requests to speak and felt it would be appropriate to open this consideration to a Public Hearing. Mayor Faram asked that anyone wishing to speak on the proposed ordinance to please do so. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 995, ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 179, ZONING ORDINANCE APPROVED Mr. Don Ferguson, 203 Bedford Eu1ess Road, Hurst, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "This particular ordinance, Ordinance No. 995, is heading in a direction of doing away with the pyramid zoning. Why is this particular ordinance being pulled out of the package that is being revised in the City Zoning Ordinances? I think in fairness to those that have made tremendous investments in the City, the land owners and land developers that now have contracts on properties, to make it effective on this date forward would be very unfair, a financial strain would be put on those that have already done a lot of engineering work and spent much time raising finances, and it would hurt the future of the City. I think we need to reach some type of agreement to where this could be phased in over a period of time that would be acceptable to those who have made tremendous financial investments." CITY ATTORNEY, REX McENTIRE, NOW PRESENT. Mr. Larry Schuerman, 10830 North Central, Dallas, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I am here to represent Mr. and Mrs. Sam Hudgins who own property at Rufe Snow Drive and Hightower. They have a tract that is 34 acres. I have been working on this property for approximately six months for the Hudgins. It was represented to me by the City that the property was zoned Local Retail and it did include Multi-Family zoning. It has now been announced there is a subject change to this. This is presently under contract with clients of mine and would directly affect their develop- ment plans. We do not feel that it is justified to request this change at this time and have a cut-off at this time. We do feel that a time given for future development - three to five years or some period of time would be fair." Mrs. Sam Hudgins, Rt. 4, Box l88, Fort Worth, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "We bought this 38 acres twenty-eight years ago with the intention of moving our hog farm on it. Approximately two years later North Richland Hills annexed it. He knew the the City would not want a hog farm so we put in a hay field. In 1969 with the help and advise of an ex-City Manager, we had it zoned Local Retail because of the variety of uses. It was voted unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council. We have tried to sell it for several years and every time we had a buyer they would say you don't have a road to get to your property. The City came along and said we are going to build the road, and I said good, now we can sell the property. We had it sold in 1979 and because of the water situation, the City said no building permits for apartments until the TRA line was complete. By the time the line was put in interest rates were so high no one wanted to buy. We were the second ones to sign up to give the right-of-way for Rufe Snow Dr. We have tried to cooperate in every way we could. I am going to ask you to please consider what you are doing to the reputation of the City and the growth of the City, the old and new land owners. It is not fair." Mr. Bob Brady, 7001 Grapevine Hwy., appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I am a resident of the City and do my business in the City. I have a deep interest in the City, my business is real estate. None of my contracts deal with local retail property. I am not here for a self-interest item. I am here because I am concerned with the rights of the citizens of North Rich1and Hills. As a citizen I hope I can speak on the morality of what is proposed. In an article published earlier concerning this amendment it was mentioned that we were trying to close up a loophole. I don't know the definition given to you, but my own definition is it is an escape mechanism. I don't think that when this was passed in 1967, the City Fathers and Planning and Zoning Commission put it in as a loophole. I think they put it in as a needed flexibility that was needed in those days. Time may have caught up with that plan. Perhaps we need a new one, but we need a whole new plan. It is a difficult decision you are faced with and it is being made in a short period of time. The amendment, the way I understand it, speaks specifically to deny multi- family in local retail. I think, however, it speaks to a larger issue. I think it speaks to the denial of the rights of the citizens and land owners of the full use of their property. I think the passage of this ordinance would destroy the image of this City. I think it would undermind the confidence our citizens have in the peers of the City and red flag warnings to developers to stay away from North Richland Hills. I December 14, 1982 Page 6 think it is unfair and an inexcusable act for the City Council to deny the citizens of their rights. The other night as I sat in the audience at the Planning & Zoning meeting, one of the members commented that it was not their job to be fair and that it was their task or job to review the health, welfare and sanitary aspects of the zoning. It appears he was right. I don't believe Planning and Zoning was fáir, but they did recommend approval. It seems to me the City Council, in its wisdom is not required by the Charter to be fair either, but the citizens expect that of you. As I read an article in the Star Telegram, I realized the reason we are here this evening is because one of you feels that apartments are inappropriate to a certain location. He mentioned parking problems by the High School. I suppose he knows Birdvil1e School District owns land on the far adjacent side. Perhaps they could be persuaded to park the students' cars there. The article mentioned drugs; five cases in the City and all in apartments. I suppose that could be a way of proving that apartments were the root of the drug problem. If we are going to eliminate apartments perhaps we could eliminate the drug problem. I think the most unkind and unfair consideration of this ordinance is the City paid over $30,000 for a Comprehensive Plan and that a piece of property was recommended as Multi- family zoning in the Plan. I do have a compassion for my City. When you deny the rights of anyone citizen you are in effect denying the rights of all citizens. I don't believe that is your intent tonight. I believe firmly that you must deny this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Delbert Stembridge, 5213 Cloyce Court, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I am here tonight to express my displeasure on a zoning change aimed at one specific property. I am not saying we don't need to eliminate some pyramid zoning, but I think it should be considered at the same time the other ordinances are being rewritten. I think this amendment should be denied." Mr. Daryl Barrett, 315 Westpark Hay, Eu1ess, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I am a partner in a development that is to be apartments located on Rufe Snow and G1enview. The preliminary plat on the first tract of land has been approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission, and we have a preliminary plat pending on the second tract that is also to be developed as apartments. The final plat on the first tract is pending to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 14, 1982 ~a¡ge 7 December 2l, 1982 and hopefully by the Council on January 10, 1983. I sent the Council a letter that defines our situation. Our plat that has been approved can be used under the current Local Retail zoning as apartments without a law suit. We are asking for a zoning change so we can eliminate parking on the rear of the property because of the 160 feet depth required in Local Retail. He obviously have gone through a lot of plans and financial expenses and would plead that these things be taken into consideration in your deliberation." Councilman Kenna asked Mr. Barrett if he had requested the zoning change. Mr. Barrett stated that on November 15, 1982 they requested a zoning change to Multi-Family. Councilman Kenna asked if the Planning & Zoning Commission had voted on the request. Mr. Barrett replied no, it would be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 21, 1982. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey asked how many acres of apartments there would be. Mr. Barrett stated the first phase was 8.6 acres and phase two was 12.63. Mayor Faram asked where the property was located. Mr. Barrett stated at G1enview and Rufe Snow Drive. Councilman Kenna advised Mr. Barrett that if the proposed ordinance passed it would in no way affect his request for Multi-family zoning. Mr. Barrett stated that if the zoning request was denied and the ordinance passed, then he could not build apartments. Mr. John Cook, 7001 Grapevine Highway, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I am one of the partners of Cross Road Developers that owns one of the tracts of land this ordinance would affect. Contrary to what most people think, most developers agree there is a need for good planning and a need to work closely with the cities they are involved in. I feel that much of the property that is affected by this amendment change is best suited for Multi-family. The best measure the developer has in trying to decide or determine the value of land or what it should be used for is the activity they December 14, 1982 ra~e 8 get from potential users in their attempt to develop or sell the land. Hotels, motels, restaurants, strip shopping centers, grocery stores, or whatever goes in they have their own study or criteria for what they need in order to develop this land. This is usually what determines what we as developers study to make our determination. Much of the land we have that is zoned Local Retail is between Rufe Snow and the High School, and the activity that we have had on it are in the areas that are fronted on Rufe Snow where there is heavy traffic. The fact that the high school borders one side and the Texas Electric easement splits the land really curtails the use we could have for it. He have had access to some professional studies that have been done in the area and on our land and most of the recommended use on Local Retail has been Multi-family." Mr. Charles Holbrook, 3201 Coronado, Irving, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "My reason for being here tonight is because I have an economic interest in an apartment development project upon the land that John Cook was speaking to. COUNCILMAN RICHARD DAVIS NOH PRESENT. Last July we entered into a contract with them for approximately ten acres to build apartments. One of the intended uses by the City's ordinance was multi-family and that was part of my reason for purchasing the property. I did my feasibility studies, engaged architects, engineers, attorneys and am now at the point of the risk of subsidizing a large amount of money. I am a businessman and take risks on various matters everyday. In dealing with risk, I always try to develop a sense of fairness about how I enter into the risk and that is my second reason for speaking to you tonight. I was due to close on this property on December 6th, but in a sense of fairness John Cook came to me and said they had just found out about Ordinance No. 995. Being a fair person, I believe he brought this to my attention when he had no obligation to do so. I think in a sense of fairness and as public officials, you are entrusted with certain responsibilities by the City Charter and by the people that voted you into office, but likewise you have a certain amount of discretionary power in how you utilize those responsibilities. I think that any time you take a single category of zoning and single it out, especially in light of moving forward towards redoing your entire Zoning Ordinance, that possibly you have abused your discretion of powers. I would encourage you not to do any- thing to take away the most fundamental rights that we have and that is the right to use our property for the use it was intended. December 14, 1982 \l?age 9 Mr. Michael Carrancejie, 5750 Rufe Snow, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I am here as a land owner and a third party to the land transaction that involves Mr. Cook and Mr. Holbrook. I think we have a city in North Rich1and Hills that has become of age and is attracting a lot of attention from different developers. It is a prosperous community and most developers look at it from a prosperous view. I think as a fairness issue these developers have come here in good faith. They have looked at the city and received information from the city that they would be allowed to develop the property for its intended purpose which is multi-family under Local Retail zoning. I think what the City Council is about to do is an important issue. I think it is so important that it should be looked at when they write the entire City Ordinance and it shouldn't be singled out and separated from it. As I understand, the Zoning Ordinance is going into its third writing. I think it is a misnomer that we are trying to find a loophole in the ordinance to do multi-family zoning. According to city records, when this particular piece of land was zoned in 1968 the owner at that point and time discussed with the city his intent to develop it as multi-family. It seems tonight that the use may be taken away. In this particular category of the Zoning Ordinance there are some fifty plus uses. There are probably several more in various opinions that do not fit the Local Retail. It is hard for me to justify to myself that we are not singling out our one project, but are looking at all the Local Retail property. It is hard for me to see how you can go into Local Retail zoning, pullout multi-family and leave some of the other uses. I think all the developers and land owners want to work with the City. I don't think we are here with any ill will towards anyone. We would just like to go forward with our projects. I would like for you to consider turning down this amendment." Mr. C. T. Beckham, 16816 Dallas Parkway, Dallas, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "In 1966 I purchased four different tracts of land totaling 200 or so acres. A few years ago I sold 160 acres to Sandlin and Hamm for single family homes. We then had about 50 acres left that was zoned in 1969 for Local Retail and Multi-family. The Birdvi11e School District came to me and after a great deal of discussion, we sold two-thirds of our zoned property leaving us with 13 acres. In the last 2~ years a lot of money has been spent on litigation trying to preserve zoning that December 14, 1982 \l?a~e 10 had been attempted to be back zoned. I really have not seen the proposed amendment, just simply heard about it. I am very concerned about what seems to be another attempt to back zone property. I think that if the Zoning Ordinance is changed it would be well and good, but it should be effective from this date. To retroactively change the zoning without due notice would be a problem. I have owned the property many years and sold off a lot of it for single family and to the school. Our tract will require a substantial amount of engineering and we have hired an engineer. I would ask that you delay or at least not retroactively change the zoning that has been relied upon." Mr. James Moore, 6521 Sabrosa Court, Fort Worth, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "He are a Market Research Firm in Tarrant County. Most of our work is in the growth and development in this area. Several years ago, before you retained your Planner to do your plan, you consulted with our firm about how to finish out the growth prospects of North Rich1and Hills. Our business is working with municipalities as well as the private sector. The point that I would like to make is that in our businesses, if we are employees of large firms or if we are a city, the market place determines our destiny. The market place starts with roof tops. Many of the leading site users key on roof tops. Hithout roof tops you don't have adequate tax base. The housing affordabi1ity has hit everywhere. We are going to have to come to grips in higher density and a much higher ratio of rental units in the next ten years. We conducted a study for Ron Lusk and James Walker on this particular site in question. It was our conclusion that the site was not suitable for the substantial commercial development that one would see in the terms of an office building or heavy retail. It was our conclusion that this site was suitable for multi-family units. It is my opinion this Council should allow more time for input on this project and give the City time to carefully think through the precedent that will be set, if not from a citizen's standpoint, from a hard- core economic standpoint. The second thing I would like to request is that through this process of more time there be a feasibility study developed between the private and public sector that are involved in this particular issue because ultimately the market place will decide what happens to that land." Mr. Allen Wilson, Attorney, 2600 Fort Horth National Bank Building, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: December 14, 1982 rage 11 "I am here at the request of Dick Russell who owns and represents the owners of the property at Rufe Snow and G1enview. The ordinance you are considering would have an impact on all of the Local Retail and Neighborhood Retail property in North Richland Hills. If there is a problem with a particular site, such as the High School, it doesn't seem like an ordinance which will affect all of the Local Retail and Neighborhood Retail in the City is the proper way to address the problem. Perhaps you need to balance the harm of the specific situations against the harm to all of those who would be affected by the adoption of this ordinance. I think perhaps there are legal problems with the adoption of this ordinance when you are in effect taking away and denying a very sufficient use of the property to those persons who own Local Retail or Neighborhood Retail and are considering selling the property. It almost amounts to a form of condemnation in that you are affecting the value of their property, but no compensation to them. Perhaps there has not been enough consideration to the affect of this ordinance on properties other than that property that apparently caused the proposed ordinance to be drafted. The effect of this affects everyone who owns this type of property in North Rich1and Hills." Mr. Theron Botham, President, TLB-GSC, 1625 Weyland, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I have a single family subdivision in North Rich1and Hills, and I also own some land that is zoned Multi-family. I do not have any land which is in the zoning in question. I would urge you to give considerable thought and not to pass this tonight. I would urge you not to make it retroactive but to go from this date forward on any future things." There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the Public Hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to adopt Ordinance No. 995 to be effective immediately. Councilman Davis amended the motion, seconded by Councilman Newman, to state "that anyone that is able to obtain a building permit in one year would still be able to build in Local Retail, but anyone that came in for a zoning change would fall under the new c1assifcation." Mr. McEntire asked Councilman Davis if his intent was to approve the ordinance the same as the Planning and Zoning Commission had approved it. December 14, 1982 ;I:'age 12 Councilman Davis stated yes, which meant that if someone obtained a building permit that had Local Retail zoning and they intended to build multi-family within the next year they could still build. Councilman Davis stated this would allow people that had already started their projects not to be damaged. Councilman Davis stated there were some people that had already started their projects and they still had the option to come back and ask for new zoning. Councilman Davis stated he felt everyone was missing the point, they still have the opportunity to request other zoning. Motion to approve the amendment failed by a vote of 3-2; Councilmen Kenna, Ramsey and Hubbard voting against, Councilmen Davis and Newman voting for. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated he would like to publicly commend Mr. Cook, he was a gentleman and it had been a great pleasure to work with him in the course of the last four or five months. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated the intent of what the Council was doing, or the way he saw it, was not to take anyone's rights away. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated the Council was trying to protect the rights of the people that have to live in North Rich1and Hills. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated he was about resigned that the development was going to go in by the High School; he felt there was no recourse. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that in the last 30 to 45 days there had been three or four parties, not including the Hudgins, that had come forward with Local Retail zoning and wanted to build apartments. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated the way he saw it they were not willing to go forward and get the zoning to which the land developers back in the late 1960's and early 1970's decided the way the City should be divided up. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated the developers wanted to take Local Retail, build multi-family, then go to the Board of Adjustment and get all the variances, when in effect they were getting Multi-family zoning. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that in 1968 and 1969 when the land use study was developed there were certain sections of the City that was decided to be Local Retail. He stated that at that same time 20% to 30% of the property in North Rich1and Hills was being developed for apartments. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated the City did have a current problem and the High School was just a small part of the problem. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated if time were spent in front of the High School, the parking problems and the traffic problems would be recognized. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment had made the statement that he was scared to death to take his daughter to school because of the traffic. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated the City did have problems and the Council was going to try and take the City forward in the proper manner as long as the citizens elected them. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that times did change and the decisions made December 14, 1982 r~8e 13 today may not be the decisions you would make in eight months. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated you could hardly move in this City and it was being discussed to develop thirty acres in front of the High School, forty-four acres west of Rufe Snow, another forty-four acres at the corner of Rufe Snow and G1enview, and whatever the Hudgins wanted to develop in apartments. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey stated that with 2,000 units going in that would be approximately 4,000 cars, or he would come down 50% and say 1,000 cars in this City. Therefore he would urge the Council to adopt the motion he urged. Councilman Hubbard stated the City was certainly not taking any rights away from anyone. Councilman Hubbard stated any person that owned property in the City could seek rezoning to Multi-family at any time -through the_ proper channels. Councilman Hubbard stated that this particular ordinance did not keep anyone from seeking Multi-family. Councilman Hubbard stated he had heard the word "loophole" mentioned several times and he had not heard one member of the City Councilor Staff use the word "loophole." Councilman Hubbard stated he had heard the word "impact" used several times; what impact it was going to have on the City if this ordinance was approved. Councilman Hubbard stated he had made several surveys of his own. He stated the schools were overcrowded, traffic was overcrowded, there would have to be more police and fire protection and medical facilities if the city went into higher density. Councilman Hubbard stated that further- more the taxes received from apartments or high density did not cover the total cost of police, fire, or medical as a rounded base of home or industrial. Councilman Hubbard stated the traffic problem would certainly be a very big problem. Councilman Hubbard stated that one gentleman mentioned the fact that they had run a survey and 96% of the high density åpartments were full at this time, and they ran this survey several times a year which lead him to believe there was a high turnover in apartments or a high growth rate of apartments. Councilman Hubbard stated the word "drug problem" had been mentioned. He stated he was sure some apartments caused drug problems. He stated the school also had the same problem. Councilman Hubbard stated he submitted to this Council that the citizens thought of the extra cost of police, fire, medical, traffic, schools and roads and he did not feel anyone's rights were being taken away. Councilman Hubbard stated that anyone could seek zoning for high density. Councilman Kenna stated he basically did not have anythi~g against apartments but did think that when the current zoning was set up in the City it was set up in an effort to create in the future a structure that would support the wants of the city ten or fifteen years from now. Councilman Kenna stated December 14, 1982 ;I:'age 14 that apartments on all of the Multi-family and Local Retail property would not support the needs of the City in ten or fifteen years. Councilman Kenna stated that in many cases after the developer moves on, the apartments are sold two or three times and become a drag on the City. Councilman Kenna stated he did not feel anything was being taken away from anyone. Councilman Kenna stated the City had a Zoning Ordinance and anyone had the opportunity to request a zoning change. Councilman Kenna stated that Local Retail zoning was placed in the areas that seemed to be the best use of the land. Councilman Kenna stated that to put apartments right on some of the thoroughfares, such as Rufe Snow and Loop 820, would not be proper. He stated there had to be some Local Retail there also. Councilman Kenna stated the way the present Zoning Ordinance was written, all of the Local Retail could be created into Multi-family and there would not be anything the City could do about it. Councilman Kenna stated he felt that the City could work with those who had already invested money, and he did not know of any reason why the appropriate zoning could not be arrived at. Councilman Davis stated that in no way did he feel that the Council was against the development of the City. Councilman Davis stated the Council's concern was that the City was developed in a planned manner that would be beneficial ten or fifteen years from now. Councilman Davis stated that when he made a decision on the Council, he wanted it to be a decision he could live with ten years from now. Councilman Davis stated this ordinance did affect a lot of people. Councilman Davis stated he felt the City had an obligation to the citizens. He stated the citizens were not ready for multi- family, but some of it would eventually happen and hopefully with the Council's judgement the appropriate place would be found for it. Councilman Davis stated a lot of hours and planning had been put into the new Zoning Ordinance and he encouraged input at the Public Hearings to be held. Councilman Davis stated that some say they cannot develop their property if the amendment is approved, but they can come in for a zoning change. Councilman Newman stated he did not believe any of the Council members were against the growth of the City, but felt there was a correct place for apartments and that was what the City was trying to do. Councilman Davis stated there had been a lot of discussion about one piece of property by the High School. He stated this could not be a one item issue, but it had to be what would affect the entire City. Councilman Kenna stated the Council saw Multi-family as a problem in the future if all of the Local Retail land were used as apartments. Councilman Kenna stated that someone asked earlier why this amendment was being singled December 14, 1982 Page 15 December l4, 1982 ;I:'age 16 out of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that in his opinion Multi-family being built in Local Retail was one of the prime problems. Councilman Kenna stated the new Zoning Ordinance was almost ready and if the City had waited until February or March there would be more developers in the condition that some were in at the present time. Mayor Faram stated that he wanted to refer back to the minutes where one speaker stated that a Planning and Zoning Commissioner made a statement that it was not the Commission's obligation to be fair, but they were charged with the health, welfare and safety of the community. Mayor Faram stated he could certainly see what he was saying. Mayor Faram stated that what one thinks is fair, another may not. Mayor Faram stated he felt this Council was charged with protecting the health, welfare, and safety of the City of North Rich1and Hills. Mayor Faram stated that when he came back into office in 1978 Rufe Snow was nothing less than a mess and he proposed to the Council to designate right-of-way because he could see the growth coming to the City. Mayor Faram stated the City acquired as much as they could get designated, as recommended by the engineer, all the way to the north end of the City. Mayor Faram stated that he felt the Council was very wise in making that decision because the traffic on Rufe Snow was terrible. Mayor Faram stated it was put before the electors for permission to sell the bonds because it appeared at the time that Rufe Snow was a thoroughfare and would probably become income producing property. Mayor Faram stated he would remind the citizens that Rufe Snow was built from bond funds that were paid for from taxes by the home- owners, businesses and property owners within the City. Mayor Faram stated that only nine percent of that project was taken on by those people adjacent to Rufe Snow. Mayor Faram stated there was an obligation to move traffic in the City and there were some cities that failed to address the traffic problem and they now had a severe problem. Mayor Faram stated the City of North Richland Hills had some severe problems facing it right now and in an effort to avoid those, the City Council was trying to get a handle on what went in to certain areas. Mayor Faram stated he felt that if a City was over built, you simply added to the problems. Mayor Faram stated the City had a problem at the present time with traffic on Davis Boulevard and they were working with the Highway Department to try and get some kind of grade separation to join onto the Loop. Mayor Faram stated there was a problem at the High School and it was going to get worse. Mayor Faram stated the City was something like forty percent developed now, and if the density of the city was increased then it may not be forty percent developed. He stated the problem at the High School was there was close to 2,200 students. Mayor Faram stated that he may be repetitious to some that had gone before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and he apologized, but he felt the City has an obligation to the school children. Mayor Faram stated he felt the Council was obligated to the City of North Rich1and Hills to see that the City was not overdeveloped. Mayor Faram stated the amendment did not in any manner strike out a persons preference for zoning if they want to rezone to Multi-family and that was the highest and best use for the land. Mayor Faram stated the zoning was wide open now and for the first time has faced the City with a very intense problem. He stated he thought the Council was obligated to address the problem. Mayor Faram stated the City wanted to hurt no one financially. Mayor Faram stated there were people that had bought their homes that want to make it their home forever and the Council had an obligation to protect the community. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey called for the question. Motion to approve Ordinance No. 995 carried by a vote of 5-0. Mayor Faram called a fifteen minute recess. Mayor Faram called the meeting back to order. The same were present as recorded at the beginning of the meeting and including Councilman Davis and City Attorney Rex McEntire. l3. Mr. McEntire stated that this ordinance first came up in Rich1and Hills and he asked them to delay it because he was in the process of trying to get some of the other cities, other than the four he represented, to join on a stand at the Railroad Commission. Mr. McEntire stated he had learned today that 99% of the other cities had passed the Lone Star Gas Ordinance. Mr. McEntire stated he did not feel there was a chance with the Railroad Commission and his recommendation was for the Council to deny Ordinance No. 991, the ordinance he prepared, and approve the Lone Star Gas Company Ordinance. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Davis, to deny Ordinance No. 991. Motion carried 5-0. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve Ordinance No. 992, Lone Star Gas Company Ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. December 14, 1982 ?a~e 17 RECESS BACK TO ORDER CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE DENYING LONE STAR GAS COMPANY RATE INCREASE ORDINANCE NO. 991 DENIED ORDINANCE NO. 992 APPROVED ., December 14, 1982 J:>fl~e 18 l4. Councilman Davis moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve Resolution No. 82-29. Motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION AUTHOR- IZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO APPLY FOR AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CARD RESOLUTION NO. 82-29 APPROVED l5. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Staff had recommended the contract be awarded to Sto1aruk in the amount of $58,554.30. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Davis, to award the contract to Sto1aruk in the amount of $58,554.30. CONSIDERATION OF AHARDING CONTRACT FOR JERRI JO AND ELDORADO STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED Motion carried 5-0. 16. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Staff had recommended the contract be awarded to Sto1aruk in the amount of $279,090.90. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Davis, to award the contract to Sto1aruk in the amount of $279,090.90. CONSIDERATION OF AHARDING CONTRACT FOR HOLIDAY NORTH STREET AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS APPROVED Motion carried 5-0. 17. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey, to approve partial payment to Austin Road Company in the amount of $41,408.46 for Dawn Drive Street and Drainage Improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey asked if the contractor was on schedule. CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT TO AUSTIN ROAD CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,408.46 FOR DAWN DRIVE STREET AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED Mr. Albin stated yes, the project was 68% complete. Motion carried 5-0. 18. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Staff had recommended the contract be awarded to East Side Office, not to exceed $14,000, 42.5% discount. CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING CONTRACT FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES APPROVED Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Newman, to award contract to East Side Office not to exceed $l4,000.00 and with a 42.5% discount. Motion carried 5-0. 19. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Staff had recommended the contracts be awarded to all three bidders, Austin Road, SRO Asphalt and Reynolds Asphalt not to exceed $205,000. Mr. Line stated the Staff recommended the contract be awarded to all three bidders which would allow the city to purchase asphalt based on spot market and best availability. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to award the contracts to all three bidders, Austin Road, SRO Asphalt and Reynolds Asphalt not to exceed $205,000. Motion carried 5-0. 20. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Staff had recommended the bid be awarded to Jack Williams Chevrolet in the amount of $18,344.00. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey, to approve the bid of Jack Williams Chevrolet in the amount of $18,344.00. Motion carried 5-0. 21. Mayor Faram advised the Council that the Staff had recommended the bid of Witch Equipment in the amount of $32,004.00. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Newman, to reject the bid and go out for new bids. Councilman Kenna moved to amend the motion to state "reject the bid and rebid without the city stipulating the time on the guarantee, the bidder to submit his own guarantee." Amended motion carried 5-0. Orgina1 motion as amended carried 5-0. 22. Mayor Faram stated the Staff had recommended the bid of Hudiburg Chevrolet in the amount of $30,027.00. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to accept the bid of Hudiburg Chevrolet in the amount of $30,027.00. Motion carried 5-0. December 14, 1982 ;Page 19 CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING BID FOR TWO (2) UNMARKED POLICE UNITS APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING BID FOR TRENCHER-BACK HOE- TRAILER PUBLIC WORKS REJECTED CONSIDERATION OF AWARDING BID FOR FOUR (4) ~ TON TRUCKS - UTILITY AND PARKS DEPT. APPROVED December 14, 1982 \l?a¡ge 20 23. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Staff had recommended the bid of Jack Williams Chevrolet in the amount of $8,008.00. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Newman, to accept the bid of Jack Hil1iams Chevrolet in the amount of $8,008.00. CONSIDERATION OF AWARD ING BID FOR ONE (1) 3/4 TON PICKUP TRUCK UTILITY DEPARTMENT APPROVED Motion carried 5-0. 24. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to cancel the December 27, 1982 Council meeting. Motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF CANCELING THE DECEMBER 27, 1982 COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED 25. Mr. Line stated that on November 16, 1982, he and the City Engineer had met with residents affected by the proposed Walker Branch storm drain project in an effort to answer questions and facilitate the acquisition of easements for the project. Mr. Line stated there was a request made to have the southerly portion of the channel relocated to the back of the lots facing Oakridge Terrace. Mr. Line stated there would be an additional cost of $450,000 if this was approved. Mr. Line stated the Staff recommended denying this request. CONSIDERATION OF WALKER BRANCH DRAINAGE IMPROVE- MENT DENIED Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ramsey, to deny the request to move the channel, at a cost of $450,000. Councilman Davis asked if there would be a problem in obtaining the easements if the request was denied. Mr. Line stated it was not unanimous of all the residents in the area to move the channel. Motion carried 5-0. 26. Mr. Line stated this ordinance would set the speed limit at 40 miles per hour on Rufe Snow Drive from and including the 5300 block through the 5800 block. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve Ordinance No. 993. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 722 SPEED ZONE ORDINANCE APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 993 Motion carried 5-0. 27. None CITIZEN PRESENTATION 28. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of December l4, 1982. ~ ~j;-d~ ; CK ARAM - MAYOR December 14, 1982 Page 21 ADJOURNMENT