Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1981-12-14 Minutes 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, DECEMBER 14, 1981 - 7:30 P. M. 1. Mayor Faram called the meeting to order December 14, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. 2. Present: Dick Faram Jim Kenna Jim Wood J. C. Hubbard Wiley Thomas Jim Ramsey Dave Freeman Sharyl Groves Staff: Chuck Williams Jeanette Moore Rex McEntire Richard Albin Dennis Horvath Cecil Forester Margie Nash Carl Greenfield Don Bowen George Tucker Bob Skelton David Phelps Ed Szol CALL TO ORDER Mayor ROLL CALL Councilmen Councilwoman City Manager City Secretary City Attorney Ci ty Engineer Assistant City Manager Director Public Works/ Utilities Member Planning and Zoning Member Planning and Zoning Member Planning and Zoning Member Planning and Zoning Civil Service Commission Civil Service Commission Civil Service Commission 3. Councilman Freeman introduced Mr. Jay Bruner, who gave the invocation. INVOCATION 4. Councilwoman Groves moved, seconded by Councilman Ramsey, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 23, 1981. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET- ING NOVEMBER 23,1981 APPROVED Motion carried 6-0; Councilman Freeman abstaining due to absence from the meeting. 5. Mr. Edward Tate, member of the Snow Heights Homeowners Association made the following presentation: CITIZEN PRESENTATION SNOW HEIGHTS HOME- OWNERS ASSOCIATION - MRS. BARBARA McKINLEY "We thank the Mayor, City Council, Snow Heights Homeowners Association, North Richland Hills residents, Wayne Snyder and Associates and City Officials for this opportunity to present some viewpoints on a piece of property in our City. (Mrs. Tate showed the Council a map of the property.) Last May, Richland Terrace Addition saw an attempt made to change their deed restrictions. When they realized the possibility of a large commercial development abutting a huge section of neighboring homes, residents, along with Snow Heights Homeowners Association, assembled with their neighbors and decided this was not the most desirable land use around their homes for two major reasons: Number one flooding and number two, lack of a planned buffer zone between commercial and homes. The land in question lies in a flood plain and the consequence of flooding was exemplified in an article December 2nd and 3rd in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "Bill and Rose Connolly live less than five blocks from City Hall and on the afternoon of October 13th torrential rains poured out of the Texas skies and Calloway Branch Creek rose over its banks into the streets, and by the time it was allover, the water got as high as two feet. Mrs. Connolly said they applied for a S.B.A. loan immediately after the disaster, but it was denied because of their age." Some of Area Six residents viewed the land in question and saw where the Muffin Shop, Color Tile and Southern Mill Outlet had drastically flooded. The cost of protection against potential flooding based on information given by a local agent, flood insurance rates using a zone map showing North Richland Hills as "c" are as follows: For the first $35,000, $0.10 per $100.00; coverage over $35,000, $0.05 per $100.00. Thus flood insurance would cost $141.00 per year for the median home. Will the City pay this cost for each home- owner it is responsible for building in a flood plain when it is aware of the situation? Our second reason is lack of planned buffer zone between homes and commercial. This piece of land was zoned com- mercial without regard to the hundreds of homes neighbor- ing the land. According to Mike Monroe of Wayne Snyder and Associates, in a Free Press article on August 20, 1981, "the purpose of land use planning is to protect and enhance residential areas. A community has to have a place for everything." This leads to the question: How should a neighborhood area look that borders a "downtown?" Could a neighborhood park or municipal park create a buffer zone and serve a need to both? December 14, 1981 Page Two There are several examples locally, among them the city park of Hurst off Pipeline Road on 17.45 acres purchased in 1958 and built in stages. There is a recreation center building, a swimming pool, softball diamonds, tennis courts, picnic tables and playground. This park is located in what might be "downtown" Hurst. It is an ideal buffer zone, with its playground backing up to neighboring homes on three sides and commercial establishments along Pipeline Road. To quote Mike Monroe, "the core of Area Six is residential mostly single family housing. It is the most densely popu- lated, most developed neighborhood of the six in North Richland Hills." The land is considered by some to be the doorway to North Richland Hills and the City complex. It may not be the showplace of North Richland Hills, but it should not be allowed to deteriorate and in the resident's opinion it should be promoted. Residents of Area Six feel they currently are not adequately protected by a properly planned transition from commercial to residential areas and favor developing a park along the southern access road between Richland Terrace Addition and the businesses on the Grapevine Highway, not only as a buffer zone, but because, as the oldest, most populated area of the City with the least open land remaining and no parks or side- walks, Area Six feels it has "0" recreational area. As one resident says, "i t' s bad enough that our kids have to walk to and from school in the streets, they shouldn't have to come home to play in them." According to Mike Monroe, "of Area Six's 849 acres, 506 are single family, 21 multi-family, 157 commercial and 93 vacant, but this vacant acreage is in "trapped lots" with the exception of the land in question. In our entire area, no acreage is devoted to parks, while newer sections of town to the north are getting City park money for baseball diamonds and are being considered as sites for the proposed municipal swimming pool, Area Six gets zero parks. We the residents are going to remain residents for years to come, and we plan to keep our neighborhood decent, safe and beautiful. We are letting the City know exactly how we feel. In fact, this is the purpose of the creation of Snow Heights Homeowners Association, so we, the members, can vocal- ize our feelings about our neighborhood to the City. Ninety percent of us do care, and like the Council members, we have families, full-time jobs and commitments that make it dif- ficult to get together to express our ideas. Snow Heights Homeowners Association has held several meetings and talked to residents, and as difficult as it is to get them all together, the Association has their "vote of confidence" coming here tonight. December 14, 1981 Page Three December 14, 1981 Page Four As it now stands, North Richland Hills will allow the last large tract of vacant acreage in Area Six to be commercially developed right up to the oldest, most densely populated, most developed neighborhood of its six designated areas without dedicating a park recreation area to these citizens. There are alternatives to allowing this to happen: 1. Municipal pool and park as suggested in our original proposal of August 3, 1981. 2. Neighborhood park with community center and tennis courts, which does not have to be used just by Area Six residents, but by shoppers and all the residents of North Richland Hi lls . With either of these alternatives, Snow Heights Homeowners Association and other civic organizations could help with landscaping and maintenance. We could ask local businesses to donate trees, shrubs, even park tables and benches. Snow Heights Homeowners Association could vote these as annual projects. We would much rather spend our money on these positive attributes to our area and City than on court costs. A. How much would this project cost? 1. Snow Heights Homeowners Association has a letter of August 24 in which George Staples, Attorney for Donna Smith, offers the land in question for $15,000 an acre. For 15 acres, the land cost would be approximately $225,000. 2. City of North Richland Hills could condemn this land due to recent flooding and pay fair market value, which might be less than that figure. B. How could this project be financed? 1. North Richland Hills citizens voted for park money in August, 1980, one million dollar bond election, and North Richland Hills is still holding these bonds. "According to C.W.T. at Haltom Bank, interest rates are coming down fast." According to Tom Brennan at Paine, Webber, Jackson and Curtis, "people are hungry." Companies are bidding low to keep themselves in business. The current market is good and should be even better in about two months. What better time to sell our bonds than now? Park money is a general obligation bond. General obligation bonds are paid out of our homeowners mortgage payments, and we are ready to see our money put to use in our Area six. December 14, 1981 Page Five 2. We are aware that the City of North Richland Hills owns pieces of land throughout the City. Why not sell it and put the money in retainer for our park? In conclusion, Area Six wants and needs a park: 1. The largest tract of land is available at a decent price. 2. Money is available. 3. Citizens are very supportive. You have read numerous letters and proposals this fall from Area Six resi- dents, as well as those from other sections of North Richland Hills. 4. Parks are perfect in flood plains, according to many opinions. Please do not table this proposal indefinitely. You need your residents supporting positive City plans, not fighting in Court. Please consider the flooding potential of this area. Councilman Kenna stated that just a small portion of the prop- erty was in the 100 year flood plain and that was where the buildings were presently located that flooded, with the excep- tion of the small area along the access road. The area drawn in on the map that was presented was not in the flood plain. Mr. Tate advised the Council he had another meeting to go to and would turn it over to the other members of the Associa- tion. Mayor Faram stated it seemed as though the Association or himself had a misunderstanding on the bond issue. Mayor Faram stated he thought the Council had asked for an eight (8) million ability to sell bonds with the idea that the first four (4) million would be committed to the improve- ment of Rufe Snow Drive. He thought that was, at this time, all the ability the City had to retire indebtedness at the present tax rate. Mayor Faram stated he thought this was put before the citizenry when the bonds were asked for. Mayor Faram stated the City had only been able to go part way with Rufe Snow and was still hopeful to go all the way or go with an alternate route. Mayor Faram stated that with this in mind, and the fact four (4) million dollars was committed, the City did not have the ability to go with additional bond indebtedness without increasing the tax rate. Mayor Faram stated that it was anticipated that when the taxable inventories increased and the City had the ability, we would then sell additional bonds. Mayor Faram stated he thought Councilman Freeman could speak to the fact that the swimming pool idea was proposed in con- nection with school properties, a joint venture project. Councilman Freeman stated that was the origin of it. The school was doing a five year study at this point and he did not think any commitments had been made. It was to be a co-project with the School District. Mayor Faram stated that so everyone understood each other, he wanted to bring out these points. Mayor Faram stated, as he understood the proposal, as put before the voters, the City could go with the present tax rate and conceivably retire an additional four (4) million dollar indebtedness. Mayor Faram stated that in the last issue the City was able to meet the payments on approximately half of what was approved by the voters. Mayor Faram stated that $0.20 out of the $0.40 and the other $0.20 took it up to about four (4) million dollars on the present taxable inventories, so the City did indeed have a financial problem. Mr. W. R. Mayfield, 7205 Karen Drive, appeared before the Council. Mr. Mayfield made the following statements: "The area along Calloway Creek between the Grapevine High- way and Loop 820 is subject to flooding and flood damage from the 13th of October, 1981 flood was in excess of $300,000. The area flooded to a much wider limit and also to a higher elevation than shown on the report made by Federal Emergency Management Agency for the City. This would indicate the report is now inadequate due to additional urbanization of the drainage basin or other changes that have come about. This drainage basin (5.09 square miles) is not yet totally developed and with additional development there will be increased runoff and flooding during future rain storms. The rains that fell on the 12th and 13th of October were not anywhere close to a 100-year frequency storm. This is veri- fied by rainfall reports to the WBAP Weather Watcher and to the National Weather Service Office. The City had to pass regulations and ordinances to control development and restrict construction in flood prone areas to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. If these policies are not followed the National Flood December 14, 1981 Page Six Insurance Program could be cancelled for all of the City's homeowners and businesses. Therefore, extreme caution must be taken on permitting development on and around flood prone areas. It is obvious the subject area is considered a flood prone area and will continue to become more susceptible to flood- ing as time goes on. When these conditions exist, about the only use for such an area is to leave the areas as open spaces with very little, if any, construction being per- mitted. Park-type development could be an acceptable approach." Mayor Faram asked Mr. Mayfield what he would propose as accessibility to the area since one street had been closed off and there had been some indications the residents wanted another street closed. Mr. Mayfield stated he could not answer that. (Mrs. Tate showed an area map.) Mr. Mayfield stated that since it was rather obvious that the report the City had for this area was not current, he would suggest that the City contact the Federal Insurance Administrator and ask for a restudy of the drainage way. Mr. Mayfield stated that apparently the development had pickup since the study was done and more area was subject to flooding since the study. Mr. Mayfield stated he felt the report should be revised. Councilman Ramsey stated he lived in Area Five and had the same situation in his neighborhood. At the end of the block there were "x" amount of acres and everyone in his neighborhood thought that was where the swimming pool should be. Councilman Ramsey stated that was the kind of dilemma the Council was setting in right now. Mrs. Barbara McKinley, 7213 Karen, appeared before the Council. Mrs. McKinley stated she would like to make it clear that Snow Heights was not saying they wanted the swim- ming pool only. Mrs. McKinley stated if they could not have the pool then they did desire a little bit of park area for their children. Mrs. McKinley stated there were no sidewalks for the children and they had to cross Riveria, Vance Road, and Holiday Lane just to get to school. Mrs. McKinley stated the children had to come home and play in the streets. Mrs. McKinley stated she felt it was owed to the residents of Area Six to consider the park. December 14, 1981 Pa ge Seven Mrs. McKinley stated she had been told that the City owned several pieces of property that could be sold and the money put into the park they were requesting. Mayor Faram advised Mrs. McKinley if she was referring to the property where the water tower was located, that was out of a different fund and that fund would have to be re- imbursed when the property was sold. Mrs. McKinley stated she did not know where the property that could be sold was located. Councilman Freeman stated the property that was designated for the park fund was auctioned off about two years ago. Councilman Freeman stated there was some property along the Loop that the City had received a token bid on and did not accept the bid. Councilman Freeman stated he did not know of any property that was designated to the park fund. Councilman Wood stated a small neighborhood park was probably not inappropriate for this area. Councilman Wood stated there was a limit to what the City could pay for. Councilman Wood stated that all the property the City owned was obligated from the sources that the original money came from to buy it. Mrs. Dana Tate, 4620 Cummings Drive, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Tate asked if there was anything wrong with selling some of the park land the City presently had. Councilman Wood stated that the majority of the park land the City had was obligated under some form of State or Federal funding. Mayor Faram stated the Council would turn this request over to the Park and Recreation Commission and Land Planners and see what could be done. 6. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mrs. D. Byrd, 7924 Map1ewood, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Byrd stated she would like to have rebuttal time. Mrs. Byrd stated her family had been in this area since 1951 and had been in business in North Rich1and Hills since 1961. Mrs. Byrd stated they had never had any complaints about a junkie looking business. They closed December 14, 1981 Page Eight PLANNING AND ZONING APPEAL HEARING PZ 81- 32, REQUEST OF CLAUDE BYRD, BYRD AUTOMOTIVE TO REZONE LOT 6, BLOCK 23, CLEAR VIEW ADDITION FROM 1F- 9 - ONE FAMILY DWELLING TO COMMERCIAL during the week by 5:00 p.m. and were closed on Saturday and Sunday. Mrs. Byrd stated there were businesses at both ends of Maplewood between Davis Boulevard and Grapevine Highway, also across Davis Boulevard. Mrs. Byrd stated the old Chuck Wagon restaurant was across the street from them. Mrs. Byrd stated that the lot right behind the Chuck Wagon was zoned for duplexes. Mrs. Byrd stated the lot right behind their shop, which they would like to have for park- ing, was so narrow it was not good for anything other than what they had in mind. (Mrs. Byrd showed the Council pic- tures of the lot before and after they purchased it.) Mrs. Byrd stated they needed the lot for parking because sometimes they had 50 to 60 cars overnight and also for employee parking. Mrs. Byrd stated they had installed a six foot redwood fence with a cyclone fence inside. The gate was also redwood, that was installed so the parked cars could not be seen. Mrs. Byrd asked the Council to consider granting this request because they were in bad need of the parking space. Mr. Horace Downing, 7909 Maplewood, appeared before the Council. Mr. Downing stated he was an employee of Byrd's Automotive and had been in the area only a short time. Mr. Downing stated he had made several notations that Mr. Byrd was an upstanding neighbor in North Richland Hills. Mr. Downing stated he felt Mr. Byrd should be allowed to have the area for parking. Councilman Kenna asked if all the automobiles would be parked behind the fence. Mrs. Byrd stated yes and the gate would be locked if kept overnight. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposi- tion to please come forward. Mr. Ken Fickle, 7908 Maplewood, appeared before the Council. Mr. Fickle stated he was not in total opposition to the Byrd's request. Mr. Fickle stated that about four years ago there was a problem with this same lot. It was zoned Specific Use for a parking lot. The owner of the property had papers signed for the people in the neighborhood stating nothing would be put on the lot but a parking lot. Before the owner could be stopped there was a building 30 feet tall. December 14, 1981 Page Nine The Judge had to issue an injunction to get the owner to stop building. Mr. Fickle stated the lot was zoned back to residential and the building removed. Mr. Fickle stated that if the lot had been zoned commercial at that time the building would still be there and that was what the neighbors did not want. Mr. Fickle stated he was not necessarily oppos- ing the lot as a parking lot, he would like to see some type of specific use placed on it so there would be some control on what it was used for. Mr. Fickle stated he felt that the traffic that was going to be let out of the lot would cause a problem on Maplewood. The traffic was going to tend to go back up Maplewood and this was already a very busy street. Mr. Fickle stated he was given a list of names of the people within 200 feet so that he could go around and get a petition. Mr. Fickle stated there were fifteen names on the list, four were already zoned commercial; four were rent houses and he was unable to get a hold of the actual owner; two were operat- ing businesses out of their homes; and two lived on the other street. There were only three people that lived within 200 feet. Mr. Fickle stated he did not feel this was fair. Mr. Fickle stated he felt the people further down Maplewood should have something to say about what went on on Maplewood instead of property owners that lived in Dallas. Mr. Fickle stated he thought something could be worked out to put specific use on the lot so there could be some con- trol over what was put on it. Mayor Faram stated that in response to the petition, this was an appeal hearing and would require a three-fourths vote of the total Council. Mayor Faram stated that if there were those present that had an interest, this was a public hearing and if they so desired they would be heard. Mrs. Thelma Parks, 7912 Maplewood, appeared before the Coun- cil. Mrs. Parks stated that at one time the lot in question was zoned commercial and the lot next door to her was commercial. It was zoned back to one family dwelling after Mr. Stewart was put out of business. Mrs. Parks stated the whole street was in confusion over Mr. Stewart and she could see no point in letting commercial come back. Mrs. Parks stated the cars that were going to be parked could be seen from the street. Mrs. Parks stated there were others who were interested in this case but were not notified. Mrs. Parks stated there December 14, 1981 Page Ten were commercial businesses going on in a rent house next door to her. Mrs. Parks stated she did not know what kind of business but it was dangerous because of the traffic. Mrs. Parks stated she was very much opposed to this request. Mayor Faram asked Mrs. Parks if the illegal operation in the rent house had been reported to the City staff. Mrs. Parks stated she had heard that it had been reported but could not say for sure. Mayor Faram asked that it be reported to the City staff. Mrs. James Wilson, 7904 Map1ewood, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Wilson stated she was very much opposed to this request. Mrs. Wilson stated she felt it would hurt their property val ue. Mrs. Byrd reappeared before the Council. Mrs. Byrd stated that Mr. Fickle had said that it was the lot next to them that they wanted to make into a parking lot, but the lot they had purchased was next door to the lot Mr. Fickle was referring to. Mrs. Byrd stated that as far as the traffic, you could see better coming out of the lot than you could from the curve circle on Maplewood. Mrs. Byrd stated that in reference to the zoning, they were told they would have to have commercial zoning in order to park cars on the lot. Mr. Fickle reappeared before the Council. Mr. Fickle stated there were already cars parked in the area Mrs. Byrd was talking about. Mr. Fickle stated you could see the cars through the fence. Mr. Fickle stated he was only trying to stop what had happened in the past. Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 7. Mayor Faram reminded the Council this was an appeal hearing and would require three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the Council. Councilman Freeman asked if a parking lot was allowed in Specific Use zoning. December 14, 1981 Page Eleven CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 81-32 ORDINANCE NO. 931 DENIED Mrs. Wanda Calvert, Planning and Zoning Coordinator, stated that to have a parking lot you would need Commercial-Specific Use Zoning. Councilman Wood asked Mrs. Calvert if she was aware of any restrictions, as far as structures, in Specific Use, park- ing lot. Mrs. Calvert stated she believed that if it was stated Park- ing-Specific Use, it would have to be a parking lot only. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to deny PZ 81-32, Ordinance No. 931, as requested for commerical. Motion carried 7-0. Councilman Freeman stated he had no objections to Specific Use Zoning, but that was not the issue at hand. Councilman Freeman advised Mrs. Byrd if she would like to contact Mrs. Calvert on Specific Use Zoning he would be receptive. Mayor Faram called a fifteen (15) minute recess. Mayor Faram called the meeting back to order. The same Council and Staff members were present as recorded at the beginning of the meeting. 8. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. Dick Perkins, Consulting Engineer, Teague, Nall and Perkins, appeared before the Council. Mr. Perkins stated there were five items that were the concern of the Council and the Citizens in the area about the zoning request. Number one, they were concerned about the proposed zoning in relationship to the area they lived in. Mr. Perkins stated he went to the tax records and obtained the square footage of the homes in that particular area. The homes that were within 200 feet had an average square footage of 1796. The homes on Eden Road the average square foot- age was 1839. December 14, 1981 Page Twelve RECESS BACK TO ORDER PLANNING AND ZONING - PUBLIC HEARING - PZ 81-35, REQUEST OF AUBREY BROTHERS TO RE- ZONE TRACT 3A, ABSTRACT 1150, DAVID MOSES SURVEY FROM AGRICULTURE TO 1F- 12-1800, IF-9-l700 AND IF- 9-1500 December 14, 1981 Page Thirteen Number two, in regards to the school, Mr. Perkins stated he had talked with Carl Renford with BISD and there was a 10 or 12 acre school site at the corner of Stoneybrook and Rumfield Road to the northeast of the property in question. Mr. Perkins stated Carl Renford had assured them that when overcrowding became apparent and when additional rooftops built in the area, that the School District would entertain the thought of going ahead with the construction of a school on this site. Number three, concerning the sewer, Mr. Perkins stated they would bring the sewer from TRA and this would provide the opportunity for the people in the area to tie into the sewer system. Number four, there was some concern of the Council that the City Planners were working on a Masterplan for the area and entire City. The preliminary indicated this property should be single family. Mr. Perkins stated he felt the request before the Council tonight met that criteria. Number five, was the concern of the Council and homeowners on the condition of Eden Road. Mr. Perkins stated he felt they had come up with a solution to benefit the City and the homeowners. Mr. Perkins stated he had a meeting on the site with Mr. Bob Holder Tarrant County, Mr. Cecil Forester, Public Works Director, to dis- cuss the possibility of what might be done with their participation, County participation and the City to improve the conditions that already exist on Eden Road. Basically, their proposal was to take the money that would be set aside for escrow for the street improve- ments on Eden Road, take that money and put it with County labor forces to buy materials to improve Eden Road from Amundson Road to Rumfie1d. Mr. Perkins stated the cost was about $10,000.00 a mile to improve this section. Widen the street, clean out bar ditches, fill in the chug holes, regrade it and put on a penetration surface. Mr. Perkins stated they would also extend the headwalls. Mr. Perkins stated this would provide a means by which the people out there could have their road improved. Councilman Kenna stated that Mr. Perkins had mentioned in his let- ter that he would provide a date to the homeowners that the road would be fixed. Councilman Kenna asked if the residents had warning in advance of this meeting and that he would offer a better proposal. Mr. Perkins stated yes. Mr. Allison had made the information avail- able to the residents. December 14, 1981 Page Fourteen Councilman Wood asked how many homes were planned for this tract. Mr. Perkins stated the number of lots were not changed, only the minimum square footage. Councilman Wood stated he noticed that in the Planning and Zoning minutes there was a possibility of some access going on through to Precinct Line Road. Mr. Perkins stated if this zoning request was approved, Doug Long was interested in obtaining a copy of the plat so that he could proceed with a preliminary plan for the land on the east side. Councilman Freeman asked if the street would be built to City standards. Mr. Perkins stated they would regrade the existing pavement, reshape it, clean out the bar ditches, and widen the street. Councilman Freeman asked if he was talking about a temporary solution. Mr. Perkins stated temporary in relationship to curb and gutters. Councilman Kenna asked if Mr. Gregory himself ever agreed, other than through Mr. Holder, that the County would participate. Mr. Perkins stated Mr. Gregory committed himself through Bob Holder because he was going to be out of town. Councilman Ramsey stated the letter was not signed by anyone. City Manager Williams stated the Staff would strongly recommend not to go with this type of roadway. The experience the City had with this type was not very good. Mayor Faram asked how many lots would be in the subdivision. Mr. Perkins stated he thought there were 56 lots. Mr. Perkins asked for rebuttal time. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to please come forward. Mr. Billy Wallace, 7401 Eden Road, appeared before the Council. December 14, 1981 Page Fifteen Mr. Wallace stated the Council had voted this request down twice in the last two years. Mr. Wallace stated there had been very little change. Mr. Wallace stated the residents in the area had asked for 1800 square feet so their property values would not go down. Mr. Wallace stated he felt they would build 1500 square foot houses. Mr. Wallace stated that as far as the condition of the road, he had talked to Mr. Holder and he stated the County would use their labor. The road could not be widened until utilities were moved. Mr. Wallace stated that Mr. Holder stated all they could do to help was use their equipment to reshape the road. Mr. Wallace showed the Council pictures of the road. Mr. Wallace stated he asked a contractor friend to estimate what it would cost to fix the road properly and he came up with a half million dollars. Mr. Wallace asked the Council to please think of the homeowners in the area. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Wallace what the average lot size was. Mr. Wallace stated there was one that was one acre, most were two or five acre tracts. Dr. L. Tobias, 8800 Rumfield Road, appeared before the Council. Dr. Tobias stated improving Eden Road much. They needed access in and out. could not stand any more traffic. was not going to help Dr. Tobias stated they Mrs. Jean Wollenschliger, 7308 Eden Road, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Wollenschliger stated Eden Road and Rumfield were cut through streets to Precinct Line Road. Mrs. Wollenschliger stated that the residents in the area were not the only ones using the street. Mrs. Wollenschliger stated that ninety (90) percent of the resi- dents in the area were not interested in tying onto the sewer. Mr. Dick Perkins reappeared before the Council. Mr. Perkins stated that in their agreement to the City they had agreed to extend the culverts at the developer's expense. Mr. Perkins stated one other factor was that the people in the area wanted the street improved, but that street was not under the current bond program so it would be sometime before it would be improved to City standards. Mr. Perkins stated the proposal they were making was a measure by which they could have an improved street right away. Mr. Perkins stated his client was more than willing to allow his money he was putting in escrow to be used for the improve- ment of Eden Road. In order for him to do that, the people in the area were going to have to put up their money as well. Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 9. Mayor Faram reminded the Council there was a legal petition against this request and would require a three-fourths (3/4) positive vote of the Council. Councilman Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilwoman Groves, to deny PZ 81-35, Ordinance Number 932. Mr. Billy Wallace stated the homeowners were satisfied at the present time. Mr. Wallace stated the homeowners did not feel they should bear the expense of building this road for the project. Mr. Wallace stated they could live with the road as it was. Mr. Wallace stated what they were worried about was another 200 cars per day; the road could not stand it. Councilman Kenna stated he would like to remind the home- owners that IF-9-l500, 1800, and IF-12 was becoming a way of life in the city and developers could not afford to build larger houses. Councilman Kenna stated he would be more interested in seeing the developer work with the man to the east and have a thoroughfare through to Precinct Line Road. Motion to deny carried 7-0. 10. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Com- mission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's letter with the exception of Item Number 9. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Ramsey, to approve PS 81-60, subject to the Engineer's comments. Motion carried 7-0. 11. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Com- mission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments. Councilman Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve PS 81-63, subject to the Engineer's comments. Motion carried 7-0. December 14, 1981 Page Sixteen CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 81-35 ORDINANCE NUMBER 932 DENIED PLANNING AND ZONING PS 81-60, REQUEST OF J. McOIL COMPANY FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, A.G. WALKER ADDITION APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING PS 81-63, REQUEST OF DELMA AND J. R. PHILLIPS FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 34, COLLEGE HILL ADDITION APPROVED 12. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. James Rusk, 5001 Gage, Haltom City, appeared before the Council. Mr. Rusk stated his Engineer was Jack Angel and could not attend the meeting tonight. Mr. Rusk stated that if the Council would like to postpone this request until his Engineer could be present he would agree. Mayor Faram stated Mr. Rusk had indicated he would post- pone this request, but if he was ready to present the case, then the Council was ready to hear it. Mayor Faram stated he would like to point out that a legal petition had been submitted and accepted opposing this property and it would take a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of all Council in favor to approve this zoning request. There was a full Council present. Mr. Rusk stated he would go ahead and present the case tonight. Mr. Rusk stated that if it was feasible to de- velop this property, fine. Mr. Rusk stated he would like for the land next to him in Haltom City to stay open, but he could not buy it. The property was being developed and it was not into larger lots and bigger homes. Mr. Rusk stated he lived in a 2800 square foot house and 900 square foot houses were being built on the lot next to him with 50 foot frontage lots. Mr. Rusk stated he was only asking for the approval of the zoning on the property in question and not the plat- ting. Mr. Rusk stated he was only asking for the zoning so he could find out if it was financially feasible to go ahead with this. Councilman Kenna asked Mr. Rusk if he was the owner of the property. Mr. Rusk replied yes. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposi- tion of this request to please come forward. Mr. Grady Buck, 7629 Hightower, appeared before the Council. Mr. Buck advised the Mayor and Council he would like to show slides of the area in question. Mayor Faram called a fifteen (15) minute recess. December 14, 1981 Pa ge Seven teen PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING PZ 81-37, REQUEST OF AMON T. ADCOCK TO REZONE TRACT 7, ABSTRACT 321, WILLIAM COX SURVEY FROM AGRICULTURE TO IF-9-l500 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. Mr. Buck showed slides of the area in question. Mr. Buck stated he represented citizens who had presented the opposing this zoning request. caption: two groups of concerned City with a petition Mr. Buck read the following "We the undersigned, being residents, taxpayers, and/or registered voters of the City of North Richland Hills, do hereby petition the Mayor and City Council of North Richland Hills to reject the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission in the rezoning of Tract 7, Abstract 321, William Cox Survey from its present classification of Agriculture to a proposed classification of IF-9-l500 One Family Dwellings." Mr. Buck stated that of the 28 notices mailed to property owners within 200 feet, 23 property owners or 82 percent had signed the petition. The other signatures represented 34 residents who stood to loose as much or more than the residents who lived within the 200 feet. In all, there were 91 signatures representing 57 residences which was 100 percent greater than the number of notices sent out to the residences within 200 feet. All 57 residents were within walking distance of the prop- erty in question. Mr. Buck stated one reason for denial was there was no drainage. Mr. Buck showed slides of flooded homes in this neighbor- hood. Mr. Buck stated the water was directed to bar ditches, and the bar ditches had no protection around them. Mr. Buck stated there were not adequate drainage facilities for the water running from the property in question. Mr. Buck stated there was no way the property could be developed, provide adequate drainage and not affect the homes already built, unless the developer wanted to come in and develop the streets with adequate drainage provisions, curbs and gutters for an area roughly six hundred square blocks around the property. Mr. Buck stated the second reason the residents opposed the zoning was the streets. The streets were inadequate, over- crowded, and unimproved. Mr. Buck stated it was a major task when you tried to take the children to school, go to work, or to the store. Mr. Buck stated he was not just talking about December 14, 1981 Page Eighteen BACK TO ORDER December 14, 1981 Page Nineteen the residents within 200 feet of the property and down Little Ranch Road, he was talking about all the people in the neigh- borhood. Mr. Buck stated there were three or four new addi- tions being put in this area that had been rezoned and had adequate streets. These streets were directed on to their inadequate streets. Mr. Buck stated the residents did not feel that the streets could bear anymore traffic. Councilman Freeman asked Mr. Buck if he was aware of the efforts that had been made to improve Rufe Snow Drive. Mr. Buck replied yes. Councilman Freeman asked Mr. Buck if he was aware that there had been many people in his neighborhood that, when the City proposed an alternate route when the City ran into a deadend road north of the railroad on Rufe Snow, that did not want the street. Mr. Buck replied yes and he totally supported the argument that Meadow Road was not a thoroughfare street. Mr. Buck stated he did not feel the citizens were asking too much of the City to improve the streets before zoning more land for residential development in that part of the Ci ty . Mr. Buck stated the third point he would like to mention was the schools. Mr. Buck stated the lack of adequate school facilities was pathetic. A few weeks after Foster Village was opened, portable buildings were erected to have class- rooms for children enrolled there. Mr. Buck stated he dis- cussed this zoning application with the Administrative Assistant in the Research and Planning Department of the School District and he said the schools could not handle the children from this zoning request and the surrounding property that had already been zoned single family dwell- ings. Mr. Buck stated that the Foster Village Elementary School had an enrollment, as of last week, of something like 625 children. The school was built for an enrollment of 500 children. Mr. Buck stated one final consideration that must be made - the City mailed out 28 zoning notices on this request. Mr. Buck stated 82 percent of the residents who were suppose to receive the notice signed the petition opposing it. December 14, 1981 Page Twenty From the tax rolls of the City a list was provided with the petition of the property owners along with their square footage. The square footage was available on 25 of the 28 properties to whom the notices were mailed. Of the three that no square footage was given, one is an unimproved lot, the other two had no reference to a dwelling being on that piece of property. Of 25 residences located within 200 feet of Abstract 321, the average square footage was 1949, not 1500. Mr. Buck stated a home that was built at 1500 square feet would be 23 percent smaller than the residences within the 200 feet. Mr. Buck stated the residents urged the Council to deny this request or provide adequate protection to the property owners within 200 feet, that the homes built on this property have a minimum square footage of 1900; that was still not equal to the average size homes that were there now. Give the residents something comparable to the size of their homes. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Buck what his property was zoned. Mr. Buck stated IF-9-l500. Mr. Buck stated theirs was a deed restriction or a zoning amendment shown on the City map that said 75 percent of the homes in Briarwood Estates must be 1600 square feet or greater. Councilman Hubbard stated there was a typed copy of property owners within 200 feet and their square footage; there was a signed petition with approximate square footage and he noted there was quite a bit of difference in the two. Councilman Hubbard asked which list was correct. Mr. Buck stated he would like to think the one taken from the tax roll, the typed one. Mr. Michael Arnold, 7612 Hightower, appeared before the Coun- cil. Mr. Arnold stated he had been a builder for about five (5) years and thought it was unlikely that one builder could develop all this area. Mr. Arnold stated he would like to see the size of the houses moved up to IF-9-l700 or 2F-2000- Two Family. Mr. Mike Garvin, 6908 Little Ranch Road, appeared before the Council. Mr. Garvin stated he would like to take the Council back to the minutes of the May 22, 1978 meeting concerning the Wind- crest Addition. Little Ranch Road was located in Morgan Meadows and they did have a severe drainage problem there. Mr. Garvin quoted the following from the minutes: December 14, 1981 Page Twenty-One "Councilman Mills stated he felt it was the responsibility of the Council to look at the way this property had been de- veloped. It is essentially the same kind of problem that existed on Hewitt Street. Councilman Mills stated some kind of drainage plan needed to be worked out. Councilman Mills stated the Council possibly should consider requiring the drainage to be escrowed." Mr. Garvin stated this was the time for the Council to be- come responsible, their homes had been damaged by flood waters. Action was taken by the Council in May, 1978 and in October, 1979, he received a letter from the City stating new flood drainage maps had come out and the majority of the area on Little Ranch Road was placed in the flood plain on that map. Mr. Garvin stated the citizens were asking for relief. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Garvin if he was aware that Morgan Meadows was not in the City when it was first placed and developed. Mr. Garvin stated yes. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Garvin if he was aware that when he first built his house that it was a flood area. Mr. Garvin stated he talked to people who had lived in this area for fifteen (15) years and there had never been any flood water on his property or their property. Mr. Garvin stated he was aware that the areas to the south of his property had flood problems, but not on his end of the street. Mr. Roy Strickland, 5900 Meadow Creek, appeared before the Council. Mr. Stickland stated he agreed with all that had been said by previous speakers. Mr. Strickland stated he had lived in the area fifteen (15) years and this was the first time he had been flooded. Mr. Strickland stated the area could not take any more water. Mr. Calvin Kramer, 7601 Hewitt, appeared before the Council. Mr. Kramer stated he had been an amateur meteorologist since 1972 for Channel 5, Harold Taft's Weather Watchers. In 1972 there was 51 inches of rain for the year, this year 55 inches of rain. Because of the type of soil, alakine and clay, if you have moisture for several days and rain the condition is twice as bad. Mr. Kramer stated he lived south of the property in question and would appreciate it if anyone building on it would look at the lay of the land. Mr. Kramer stated any street running from Hightower that would cut through could possibly become flooded. December 14, 1981 Page Twenty-two Councilman Hubbard stated the property list showed Mr. Kramer's house to be 2,000 square feet. According to Mr. Buck and the tax records, it showed 1345. Councilman Hubbard asked which was correct. Mr. Kramer stated he was not sure of the square footage; it was a large house. Mr. Charles Roach, 6809 Little Ranch Road, appeared before the Council. Mr. Roach stated he was right in the middle of where all the rain hit. Mr. Roach stated he was just now beginning to come out of the flood problem. Mr. Roach stated that with more water coming down in the area, they would need some help. Mrs. Sherry Garvin, Little Ranch Road, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Garvin stated they looked at the property they now owned and even talked to Mr. Wood, who did not mention this was a flood area before the property was purchased. Mrs. Garvin stated they had no problems in getting a loan for the house, which if it was in a flood plain you would have problems in getting a loan. Mrs. Garvin stated one of the City employees, who worked at the City at that time, but no longer does, came to them and advised they were going to flood. Mrs. Garvin stated he told them they would be flooded because of an addition being built and there was not proper drainage. Mrs. Garvin stated they were not fighting improvements, they just did not want any more water. Councilman Freeman asked Mrs. Garvin who the man was from the City that had talked to them. Mrs. Garvin stated Mr. Jim Anderson. Mr. Burt Newman, 6916 Little Ranch Road, appeared before the Council. Mr. Newman stated that on October 13, 1981, his daughter was pulled out of the water on Little Ranch Road. For all practical purposes she was dead as she was not breathing and her heart was not beating. Mr. Newman stated she was alive now but this was going to happen again. Mrs. Helen Smith, 6805 Little Ranch Road, appeared before the Council. December 14, 1981 Page Twenty-three Mrs. Smith stated she had talked with the City Manager in September about the ditches, roads and culverts. On October 14, 1981, she talked with him as the Fire Department was vacuuming two rooms of her house. Mrs. Smith stated her car was also flooded. Mrs. Smith stated it was impossible to live under the conditions that every time it rained you were going to be flooded. Mr. Bob Grant, 6809 Meadow Road, appeared before the Council. Mr. Grant stated an obligation was owed to the developers that were there at the present time and allowing these developers to plan and develop houses they are building out there now and having a hard time selling. Mr. Grant stated the road you had to enter on to his road was not wide enough for a road. Mr. James A. Bellamey, 6912 Little Ranch Road, appeared before the Council. Mr. Bellamey asked that all the people who came tonight because of the problem to please stand. Mr. William Bell, 6825 Meadowcreek, appeared before the Council. Mr. Bell stated he had lived in the area for fifteen (15) years. Mr. Bell stated he would like for the Council to take into con- sideration that he had three neighbors who were not present tonight that had water in their homes on October 13, 1981. Mr. Bell stated he did not have water in his home. Mr. Bell stated they could not stand any more development until something was done about the drainage. Mrs. Juanita Packston, 7600 Little Ranch Road, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Packston stated her main concern was the traffic and chil- dren. Little Ranch Road leads into Richfield Park and any chil- dren or any new development was going to have to use this road. Mrs. Packston stated there was not enough room now down the road with the elementary school traffic. Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 13. Mayor Faram reminded the Council there was a legal petition submitted and would require a three-fourths (3/4) positive vote of the Council. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to deny PZ 81-37, Ordinance Number 933. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 81-37 ORDINANCE NUMBER 933 DENIED Councilman Ramsey stated several of the Council members went out and looked at this property and really was more concerned with the platting than the zoning of the property. Councilman Freeman stated this was not a problem of the de- veloper; it was a problem that had been in the making for quite awhile. Councilman Freeman stated he understood the water problem that needed to be solved. Councilman Freeman stated he did not know what the answer was. The City had asked the Engineer to look at it and had made several attempts to see what could be done. Councilman Freeman stated the City did not have the money to fix the drainage at the present time. Councilman Freeman stated the only thing he knew to do was to have a bond issue and improve the drainage in that whole end of town. Councilman Wood stated the City went through this same thing on Windcrest Addition and even had some quotes on trying to reroute the water. Councilman Wood stated that in talking about the law on mailing notices to people in the right distance, there were some strange laws in the State of Texas. The Courts apparently will not decide how far a developer was responsible for his drainage. Councilman Wood stated that maybe all development should be stopped until the Master Plan was developed. Mayor Faram stated he thought that at one time there was some sort of negotiation for some land west of Little Ranch Road for open drainage. Mr. Albin stated that was correct; however, that would only handle the drainage for the 300 acres west. Mr. Albin stated there were really two problems. There were two drainage areas that both funneled into this one subdivision. Mr. Albin stated there was a plan to handle the one on the west side but could not get the property owners to dedicate the easement required to construct the channel. Mr. Albin stated there was an existing drainage easement that went through Morgan Meadows that was about 25 feet wide which would have to be much wider than that to carry a 100 year storm. Additional easements would have to be dedicated. Mayor Faram asked if it was not correct that over the years, attempts had been made to get additional right-of-way in the area. Mr. Albin stated that was correct. There had been opposition to every attempt made to construct a channel that would carry the discharge from the upper drainage area. December 14, 1981 Page Twenty-four December 14, 1981 Page Twenty-five Mayor Faram stated he did not believe the City could allow another addition to go in and dump more water. Mayor Faram stated he believed that many of these homes in the area south were built on substandard streets and drainage and for the most part developed prior to its entry into North Richland Hills. Mayor Faram stated that in the meantime this problem was going to have to be addressed and he would like some suggestions on how the City could get some easements or something to handle the water. Mayor Faram stated he thought Councilman Wood's statement on the developers being required to only take the drainage to a certain point was, unfortunately, true. Mr. Albin stated the ordinance stated the developer must pro- vide for at least a ten (10) year capacity downstream from his property to the nearest recognized water source. Mayor Faram stated the problem that now existed, without the addition of the zoning request tonight, there was still going to have to be some relief in the area. Mr. Albin stated easements were needed between Little Ranch Road and Meadow Creek along the property lines in the back. Mayor Faram asked for a show of hands of who would be inter- ested in helping the City to acquire the needed easements. Mr. Garvin stated that when the discussion on Windcrest came up a few years back, the people on the east side of Little Ranch Road were in agreement. At that time the City's posi- tion was that they did not have the money for the improvements and the County held the same position. Mayor Faram asked if the City and/or County had the kind of equipment needed to excavate a channel. Mr. Albin stated it would depend on how big of a channel was put in. Mayor Faram asked if there was a way the City could get in with their equipment. Mr. Forester stated the City did not have the equipment needed to do the work. Mayor Faram asked if the County had any equipment the City might borrow. Mr. Forester advised the County would probably let the City use the equipment. Mayor Faram asked that the people who were willing to help the City obtain the needed easements to leave their names and telephone numbers. Mayor Faram stated he was going to turn this matter over to the City Manager to assign a Staff member to the proj- ect and see what could be done. Motion to deny carried 7-0. 14. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. Norman Esbrook, Real Estate Representative for Tenneco, appeared before the Council. Mr. Esbrook stated they planned to build a convenience store and would like to be able to sell beer. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposi- tion to this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 15. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Ramsey, to approve PZ 81-38, Ordinance Number 934. Councilman Wood asked what name the permit would be issued in. Mr. Esbrook stated he could not provide the name at this time. Councilman Kenna amended his motion, Councilman Ramsey amended his second, to state "the name of an official of the company would be furnished within 30 days." Amended motion carried 4-3; Councilman Kenna, Ramsey and Hubbard and Councilwoman Groves voting for; Councilman Wood, Freeman and Thomas voting against. 16. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone present wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. Delbert Stembridge, 3729 Flory, Consulting Engineer, appeared before the Council. Mr. Stembridge stated this property fronted on Rufe Snow Drive across from Lewis Lane. Mr. Stembridge stated Mr. Max Jordan, representative of Weitz Company, was in attendance and would answer any questions the Council might have. December 14, 1981 Pa ge Twen ty- six PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING PZ 81-38, REQUEST OF TENNECO OIL COMPANY TO REZONE BLOCK 5, SNOW HEIGHTS NORTH ADDITION FROM LOCAL RETAIL TO LOCAL RETAIL SPECIFIC USE-SALE OF BEER FOR OFF-PREMISE CONSUMPTION. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 81-38 ORDINANCE NO. 934 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING PZ 81-39, REQUEST OF CANADIAN TEXAS PROP- ERTIES, INC., TO REZONE TRACT lG, AND PORTIONS OF TRACTS 1,lA,lB, AND lC, ABSTRACT 1588, J. M. VANDUSEN SURVEY FROM LOCAL RETAIL AND MULTIPLE FAMILY TO COMMERCIAL Mr. Max Jordan appeared before the Council. Mr. Jordan stated they planned to develop a factory outlet mall. They had built one in Round Rock, Texas and one in Oklahoma. Mr. Jordan stated the project would cost three and one-half million dollars and would be $25,000 in property tax with an annual income of twenty million dollars. Mr. Jordan stated he would like to commend the Staff for their help. Councilman Hubbard asked if there would be space available to local parties. Mr. Jordan replied yes. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this request to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. 17. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Thomas, to approve PZ 81-39, Ordinance Number 935. Motion carried 7-0. 18. Councilman Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve PS 81-67, subject to the Engineer's comments. Motion carried 7-0. 19. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Thomas, to approve payment to Stolaruk Corporation in the amount of $204,246.00. Motion carried 7-0. 20. City Manager Williams stated specifications and bid forms were se~t to seven firms. Five bids were received. Mr. Williams stated the staff recommended the bid of Brazos Equipment Company (Case), in the amount of $25,450.00. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to award the bid to Brazos Equipment Company in the amount of $25,450.00. December 14, 1981 Page Twenty-seven CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 81-39 ORDINANCE NO. 935 APPROVED PLANNING AND ZONING PS 81-67, REQUEST OF TAPP CORPORATION FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 6, BLOCK 1, TAPP ADDITION APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF PAY- MENT TO STOLARUK COR- PORATION FOR DAVIS BOULEVARD WATER SYSTEM EXTENSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $204,246.00 APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF AWARD- ING BID FOR TRACTOR- LOADER BACKHOE APPROVED Motion carried 7-0. 21. Mr. Ed Szol, Chairman, Civil Service Commission, appeared before the Council. Mr. Szol presented the revised pay plan to the Council and advised that the Civil Service Commission recommended ap- proval of the pay plan for the classified personnel. Mr. Szol stated there would be an added cost to the City but felt the City would be rewarded. Councilman Ramsey moved, seconded by Councilwoman Groves, to approve Resolution No. 81-22. Motion carried 7-0. Mayor Faram stated that on behalf of himself and the Council he would like to thank Mr. Szol and the Civil Service Com- mission for the effort put forth in preparing the pay plan. 22. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve Ordinance Number 936 and incorporate the 1983 rates. Motion carried 7-0. 23. None 24. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of December 14, 1981. ~jr-dtt1~ DÍéK ARAM - Mayor ATTEST: December 14, 1981 Page Twenty-eight CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING $112,275.00 FROM RE- STRICTED RESERVE TO DEPARTMENTAL PAYROLL ACCOUNTS RESOLUTION NO. 81-22 APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF ORDI- NANCE AMENDING THE WATER AND SEWER RULES, REGULA- TIONS, POLICIES AND PRO- CEDURES ORDINANCE NO. 936 APPROVED CITIZEN PRESENTATION ADJOURNMENT