Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1980-05-12 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, MAY 12, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Mayor Faram called the meeting to order May 12, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 2. Present: Dick Faram Jim Kenna Jim Wood John Michener Bob Brady \~i 1 ey Thomas Dave Freeman Sharyl Groves Mayor ROLL CALL Councilmen Councilwoman STAFF: Tom Paul Jeanette Moore Rex McEntire Richard Albin Margie Nash Jo Ann Wi 11 i ams City Manager City Secretary City Attorney City Eng i neer Planning & Zoning Member Board of Adjustment Member 3. The invocation was given by Mrs. Stella Ramsey. RESOLUTION NO. 80-15 INVOCATION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 4-28-80 COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED CONSIDERATION & APPROVAL OF RESOL- UTION CANVASSING VOTES OF MAY 10, 1980 RUN-OFF ELECTION ELECTING PLACE 4 APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 80-15 4. Councilwoman Groves moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve the minutes of the April 28, 1980, meeting. Motion carried 7-0. 5. Mayor Faram read the following resolution: WHEREAS, on the lOth day of May, 1980, being the second Saturday in May, the run-off election was held within the corporate limits of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, for the election of City Councilman Place Four; and, WHEREAS, the following candidates for the office received the number of votes shown opposite their names as follows: NAME OF CANDIDATE Tom E. Newman J. C. Hubbard OFFICE Councilman Place Four Councilman Place Four NU~1BER OF VOTES 71 261 WHEREAS, as provided in the City Charter of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, it is the duty of the City Council to canvass the returns and declare the results of said election; and it appearing that the following candidate should be declared elected to the office: OFFICE Councilman Place Four DULY ELECTED OFFICIAL J. C. Hubbard May 12, 1980 Page 2 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, that the following candidate for the office having received a majority number of votes in the office named below for and during the term of two years, or until the next duly constituted election is held in said City, being the first Saturday in April 1982: OFFICE Councilman Place Four DULY ELECTED OFFICIAL J. C. Hubbard PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of May 1980, there being seven Council persons present and seven Councilpersons voting for the passage and adoption hereof and 0 Council persons voting against the passage and adoption hereof. Dick Faram - Mayor ATTEST: Jeanette Moore - City Secretary Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to approve Resolution No. 80-15. Motion carried 7-0. 6. City Attorney McEntire administered the following Oath of Office SWEARING IN AND to Mr. J. C. Hubbard: SEATING OF NEW COUNCILMAN PLACE OATH OF OFFICE FOUR (OATH OF OFFIC8 I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of (City Councilman or Mayor) of the City of North Richland Hills, State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State; and I furthermore solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, or promised to pay, contributed nor promised to contribute any money, valuable thing, or promised any public office or employment as a reward for the giving or withholding a vote at the election at which I was elected. So help me God. Mayor Faram presented John Michener with a plaque in recognition of outstanding and distingushed service to the City of North Richland Hills from April 1978 to 1980 as a Councilman. Councilman Hubbard recognized his wife, Mrs. Zoe Hubbard. 7. Mayor Faram opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone present wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. John Weir, Engineer, appeared before the Council representing Mr. Weldon Ward. Mr. Wier stated his client owned 13.2 acres that was presently zoned agriculture and they were requesting IF-9-l5 Single Family. This property is located north of Martin, south and east the Glenann Addition. Mr. Weir stated they would be developing 45 lots. Mr. Weir stated this zoning would be compatible to Glenann Addition which is to the west of the property in question. Mr. Weir stated he felt the reason the Planning and Zoning Commission denied this request was because of the proximity of Mangham Airport. Mr. Weir stated there were no violations of the air regulations. Mayor Faram asked that if, in the opinion of the FAA, the actual level of plane could fly in from the south property line and still be above and without danger to the subdivision. Mr. Weir replied yes, that was the opinion of the FAA. Councilman Kenna asked Mr. Weir how far the clear zone was from the runway. Mr. Weir stated it was about 1,000 feet. Councilman Kenna asked if a private plane on a baseleg flight would be over the subdivision or within the clear zone. Mr. Weir stated he felt confident they would be north of the airport. Councilman Kenna stated then the plane would come over the subdivision at 65 feet. Mr. Weir stated in the FAA's opinion they could operate very safely if they were as low as 65 feet. May 12, 1980 Page 3 PLANNING & ZONING - PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL HEARING FOR PZ 80-7 - REQUEST OF WELDON WARD Councilman Wood stated that each type of aircraft would make a different type approach to the airport. Councilman Wood stated that single engine planes would make their turn over Glenann Addition and more than likely the baseleg turn would be over the property in question. Councilman Wood stated the FAA based"their calculations on the slope of the land and not the height of the property versus the height of the runway. Mr. Wier stated the way the FAA~spéciftéd the measuring was to a point equal to the elevation at the end of the runway shifted 200 feet to the north, from that point on a twenty to one slope. ~~r., Wier stated they had taken all the facts tnto consideration. Mr. Walter Cook, Attorney, appeared before the Council. Mr. Cook stated the Planning and Zoning Commission denied this request because of the proximity to the airport. Mr. Cook stated they were requesting the Council to approve this request. Councilman Freeman asked Mr. Cook if the city would be liable in approving this plat. Mr. Cook stated the city's test was a reasonable exercise of their interpretive powers on safety; would this be unreasonably unsafe for the ccmmunity. Mr. Cook stated in his opinion the city would not be liable. Councilman Kenna asked Mr. Cook if his client had any time plan to start the subdivision. Mr. Cook stated they planned to have the subdivision developed in 2~ years. City Attorney McEnti re asked ~1r. Cook how far the property was from the runway. Mr. Cook replied it was about 1,800 feet. Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to please come forward. Mr. Charles Mangham appeared before the Council. Mr. Mangham stated he was in opposition to this request. ~~ay 12, 1980 Page 4 Mr. Mangham stated he would not be in opposition of this request if there was some way to assure him that the people would not oppose the airport. Mr. Mangham stated he would leave the safety factor up to the Counci 1. Mayor Faram stated he had noticed that at the Planning and Zoning meeting there was a speaker that indicated some accidents to the north of the airport. Mayor Faram stated he had observed an accident about six or eight weeks ago. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Mangham if there was anyway he could control the aircraft to get them up higher and make their approaches more safely. Mr. Mangham replied no. Councilman Wood asked what slope the glide slope light was set on. Mr. Mangham stated it was set on 5 degrees. Mr. Mangham stated he had tried setting it higher, but the pi lots would not use them. Mr. Bill Stimmel, 6509 Massey Court, appeared before the Counci 1. Mr. Stimmel stated he lived about three blocks west of the glide pattern from Mangham Airport. Mr. Stimmel stated he had flown out of Mangham and is aware of the problems the airport has.. Mr. Stimmel stated he was not against the airport. Mr. Stimmel stated a plane had crashed today about 1,000 yards north of the end of the runway. This was a larger plane not one you would normally see coming in and out of Mangham. Mr. Stimmel stated that if the crash had been 1,000 yards to the north rather than the south, it would have landed on Chilton Court which was south of the proposed additi on. Mr. Stimmel stated he was not against the airport but was against overcrowding in the area directly in front of the airport. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the Public Hearing. 8. Mayor Faram advised the Council this was an appeal hearing and would require a 3/4 affirmative vote of the Council to change the re~zoning. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to deny PZ 80-7. May 12, 1980 Page 5 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 80-7 DENIED Councilman Freeman stated he based his motion on his belief there was a safety problem. Councilman Freeman stated he felt it was just a matter of time before someone in that area would be killed and he thought approving this request would increase the chances. Councilman Freeman stated a part of him said approve the project because anyone financially able to buy a house should be able to purchase one where he wanted to and hopefully under these circumstances they would be wise enough to realize these are in a dangerous zone. Councilman Wood stated he felt strongly that there were two sides to look at and you had to weigh the maximum to the citizens. Councilman Kenna stated he would have to take up issue with ;his colleagues; he did not think it was up to the Council to determine if the airport was safe or whether the subdivision was safe. Councilman Brady asked if all the known or existing safety requirements had been met. Councilman Freeman asked the City Attorney to comment on Councilman Brady's question. City Attorney McEntire stated the only safety requirements he knew of were contained in publicati ons by the FAA and.cthis particular airport was not controlled by the FAA. Mr. McEntire stated he did not know whether or not the requirements had been satisfied for the Council. Motion to deny failed by a vote of 4-3; Councilmen Wood and Freeman and Councilwoman Groves voting for; Councilmen Brady, Kenna, Hubbard and Thomas voting against. Councilman Brady moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve PZ 80-7. Motion to approve failed by a vote of 4-3; Councilmen Brady, Thomas, Hubbard and Kenna voting for; Councilmen Wood and Freeman and Councilwoman Groves voting against. Mayor Faram advised the Council the motion did not receive a 3/4 vote, therefore, the re~zoning request was denied. 9. Mr. Dan McLeland, Agent, Jamies Restaurants, appeared before the Council. Mr. McLeland stated he wished to appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of this application for rezoning from Commercial to Commercial-Specific Use- Sale of Alcoholic Beverages. Mr. McLeland stated the property was located on Bedford Euless Road. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to grant an appeal hearing to Jamies Restaurants to be heard June 9, 1980. ~,1ay 12, 1980 Page 6 PLANNING & ZONING - REQUEST OF AN APPEAL HEARING ON PZ 80-15 - DAN MCLELAND, AGENT - JAMIES RESTAURANT APPROVED May 12, 1980 Page 7 Motion carried 7-0. 10. Mr. Joe Gray, 9216 Amundson, NRH, appeared before the Council. Mr. Gray stated that if he lived in many areas of North Richland Hills he would not be making this request. Mr. Gray stated he did believe the regulations on fences around swimming pools were applicable in most areas. The majority of the homes were on 100 foot lots and neighbors on both sides and across the street. Mr. Gray stated he lived on an eleven acre farm which was in the northeast portion of North Richland Hills. Mr. Gray stated across the road from him was 62 acres and the nearest people to him had five to seven acres. Mr. Gray stated his nearest neighbor was about 1,000 feet away. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST OF MR. JOE E. GRAY, 9216 AMUNDSON DRIVE, FOR VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING CODE APPROVED Mr. Gray showed pictures of the location of the pool. Mr. Gray stated he had five strands of barbed wire around his property and no trespassing signs posted. Councilman Wood stated that in reference to the ordinance, paragraph D, which states lithe Board of Adjustment and City Council may make modifications in the individual cases. Councilman Wood stated that paragraph D of the Building Code stated all gates or doors opening through such enclosure shall be equipped with a self-closing and self-latching device for keeping the gate or door closed at all times when not in actual use." Councilman Wood asked Mr. Gray if he was making an offer whatsoever to secure the area from children who could crawl through barbed wire fences. Mr. Gray stated that the nearest house was 1,000 feet and he did not think it would be necessary in his case. Councilman Wood stated he thought he had seen a_house within 200 feet of Mr. Gray's property and another one under construction. Mr. Gray stated the house was not occupied and the other one was about 350 feet of his house. Councilman Brady moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve Mr. Gray's request for a variance from the Building Code. Motion carried 4-3; Councilman Kenna, Brady, Freeman and Hubbard voting for; Councilmen Wood and Thomas and Councilwoman Groves voting against. May 12, 1980 Page 8 11. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to approve PS 80-16. PLANNING & ZONING PS 80-16 - REQUEST OF LARRY R. HUTCHENS FOR REPLAT OF LOT lR, BLOCK C, HEWITT ESTATES APPROVED Motion carried 7-0. 12. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve PS 80-17. Motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING REQUEST OF CONOCO, INC., FOR REPLAT OF LOT lR, BLOCK B, RICHLAND OAKS ADDITI ON APPROVED PLANNING & ZONING PUBLIC HEARING - PZ 80-l4-REQUEST OF CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS TO REZONE TRACTS lA, lAl, & 2F, ABSTRACT 1606, FROM MULTI- FAMILY & LOCAL RETAIL TO IF-9-15 ONE FAMILY 13. Mayor Faram opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mrs. Nancy Strauser, 7525 Circle, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I represent a group of homeowners from Holiday North Addition of this City. To save time and to let it be known who this group is, I would like to ask that those property owners that feel as I do about this zoning please stand. I would like to thank the members of the Council and the Mayor for the interest that was shown by coming out and looking at the property that we are discussing at this time. There were some that felt as if they knew this area pretty well, but still came out to take another look. We feel that by doing this you are more aware of the problems and possible solution that accompany this zoning request. We do want the Council to know that we are still supporting the decision of the previous council, of which two of you were members, to request the rezoning of this land and also supporting the Planning and Zoning Commission in their recommendation for approval of the zoning change. I would like you to take into consideration now some of the history of this area. Back in 1967 and 1968 when the Comprehensive Master Plan was accepted by the Council, this area, that we are speaking of was zoned single-family, low density in the area in which we live and also the area that is under consideration, except for a part that is in the flood plain which was designated as public and semi-public property. I point this out because the question has been raised that this land has continued to grow in the way that it was originally planned, which it has not. May 12, 1 980 Page 9 If we look further we will notice that the land that is now being developed into Holiday West, which is single- family, was at that time zoned industrial. That too has changed. This whole area has changed since that time. We have more single family in this area than was originally shown. We have no multi-family zoning in our immediate neighborhood. We can look also at the map that shows where our primary and secondary thoroughfares were originally proposed to be. We can see that back at that time Noreast was to go through to Rufe Snow, making a secondary thoroughfnre. Fieldstone'Jat one time was proposed to be a secondary thoroughfare. Holiday Lane was suppose to be a secondary thoroughfare. As it is now, that has all changed. Noreast was cutoff when the School District bought property to use as a sportsfield. Fieldstone was cutoff when J. B. Sandlin built a house in line where the street should have been. Holiday Lane is still not connecting with Watauga Road and may_ not connect. North Richland Blvd. is a secondary street but is currently being used as a drag strip. It does not go through but borders this property in question. It clearly states in our Zoning Ordinance on page 8; lilt is anticipated that additional areas may be designated in the multi-family district from time to time in the future where such change is appropriate and access and utility services can reasonably accommodate the increased density. These districts should be located in proximity to major thoroughfares and preferably adjoin business zoned property. II Concerning the property that is facing Holiday Lane, it also states in our Zoni ng Ordi nance on page 9; "l'hese areas shoul d primari ly be located at the i ntersecti on of maj or thoroughfares II and this is concerning local retail. I feel as do the rest of the neighborhood that this is enough in itself to show just cause for not developing this as multi-family. If we don't abide by our Zoning Ordinances, why waste the time and energy. The nearest major thoroughfares to this area are Davis Boulevard and Rufe Snow Drive. We all know what kind of roads we are talking about when we mention either of those, and hopefully, the condition of both will soon be improved. But it surprises me that any builder would ask that we open up our residential street to traffic such as set out in our ordinances for secondary and primary thoroughfares, on a street that has trouble at times absorbing the traffic now. If Davis Boulevard and Rufe Snow have trouble doing it just think what it would do to us. We feel that not only would this cause a problem for us now, but if we have to again reconstruct streets, in this case being our residential streets, because of the excess traffic this does not fall back on the builder to help improve, this is going to come out of our city taxes and increase the burden of the homeowners that live here. In regard to the street situation, I honestly feel if the City Council had been intent on Multi-family developing in this area, that along the way provisions would have been made to develop rur streets into wider widths that would withstand the traffic and also to have made provisions for more access by primary thoroughfares. We, in one way are trying to make judgments on the past councils of our city. We are not trying to look back and say what if. We are dealing with the present. Things have changed in the past 11 years. The conditions are no longer the same as they existed at that time. That is why the City has been given the discretion to make changes that become necessary. Zoning on undeveloped land should not be expected to remain the same forever. In this instance, I feel that the zoning was speculative at the time, with the owner hoping to use it as an investment. The city is not responsible for quaranteei ng that anybody can make money off of an investment. We by no stretch of the imagination or twisting of words, want to take and confi scate anyone's property and throl¡~ it in a scrap pile. Number one, we are only interested in the betterment of our nei ghborhood, as we a 11 have invested in thi s property that we own; also number two, to try to avoid future problems for the city which would fall back on us as taxpayers and number three, to come up with an equitable solution for the property owner. We feel that we could do that. We have met with Dal-Worth, who is holding a contract on this land. We have offered an alternate proposal to them that would fit into all three categories I mentioned. We were met with the fact they were in the building of apartments; not houses. They were not interested in our neighborhood; they were interested in apartments. They had met all requirements and specifications as they saw; overlooking I think the street situation, and that if we were unsatisfied with this that they would let a judge decide. I, myself, take great exception to the fact that this is so easily and readily an escape for them. We would have originally in October been willing to sit down and negotiate a solution on this thing. Their first impulse was to sue the City because of their decision to deny the plat by doing this, they in turn are suing us, because we foot the bill. They looked at all the information and data that was presented and decided that it was in the best interest of all to deny the plat. May 12, 1980 Page 10 May 12, 1980 Page 11 The builder, hoping to soften things, orally amended the plat with something that was not acceptable either and in that, helped the Judge to rule against the plat. The City Council again decided after hearing all information and data that was presented, at that time being none from the builder-develq:>er, voted unanimously to send this zoning back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation on a zoning change. The Planning and Zoning Commission took into consideration the information and data that was supplied, at this time some i nformati on from the deve 1 oper and other prq:>erty owner, and voted to request approval for zoning this back to single-family zoning as it was originally set out to be. This being the fourth time that those peq:>le were placed in the position to rule and make a decision, they voted that this zoning should be chqnged. There are also other considerations that we feel should make a difference in this case. One in particular is the drainage problem which we do have now. We feel that not only would this endanger property and perhaps lives in some instances, for our immediate neighborhood, but also for those people on da1nstream of us who at this time sometimes have high water problems. We have in the past when we have had high rains, as I know we have stated before, have had water up over our curbs and standing up four feet in our yards. We feel that by compounding this situation with this additional Calcrete from streets, driveways, roof tops and anything else that is going to allow rain to runoff, will cause us an even greater problem and possible flooding. Will the city make good our investments if something like this should happen? We are also concerned with the increased population, mainly children, that would come from these apartments. We certainly have nothing at all against kids, we have approximately 40 on our one street, but the fact is they will have no place to play except down by the creek or down in our streets and yards. We have enough trouble now watching out for our own children with traffic, much less anyone elses'. Also we feel as if we are going to be giving an open invitation to make our street, being Circle Drive, an open raceway for the high school kids. Not all high school kids, but enough that matter~, already speed down through our streets. Many of us could speak of property that has been damaged and scares that we have had by a speeding car. Just a day or so after our last P & Z meeting, one of our children on Carolyn was hit by a young man driving too fast. This child was a fifth grader.. She could have gotten out of the way probably if the car had not been going so fast. Must we have a child seriously hurt or killed before this would make a difference? Would the city make this good to us? May 12, 1980 Page 12 Also dealing with children, our elementary school is how completing its first year without an overload of children. We are at a comfortable limit. Birdville does have in the plans for a newer elementary school but in the meantime we must absorb these children because that's what the school is there for. We feel as if this is not only unfair to our children, but also to put these other children in the situation where they might not be able to get the attention and education they need by overcrowding situations. We are very happy at this time with Holiday Heights and feel that our children are receiving what they should, and we would like to continue that. The high school is supposedly going to enlarge. There is an expected growth of 600 more children. Anyone that has had any dealings with the high school knows that it is extremely large now. To add what might come from the apartments would be only compounding that problem also. Not to speak of the traffic situation around the high school and on Holiday Lane. It is expected in our society today that all high school students drive their own car. By looking at the parking lot at Richland High it would be hard to believe we are in an energy crisis and that we are conserving gasoline. We also feel that we are apt to lose on our property valuations. We do know that regardless of what is going to go in there we are going to have to continue to pay the same amount of taxes on our homes. We also know that when and if we should try to sell our homes that we would not be able to get as much for them. We realize people do not want these problems in their neighborhood and therefore, we would not be able to ask or expect as much for our homes. Would the city make up for our loss? We have a very good police and fire department as it is now. We do have things that need changing, but they will be worked out. We have talked not only to some of our own, but some in different parts' of Fort Worth and each of them contend that this does add to the problem of crime in our neighborhoods. We have been called many things, but we are concerned. We are concerned about each other's homes and children. We don't want anything or anybody comi ng into our nei ghborhood that is goi ng to harm anyone of us. We know who is usually in and out and we note pe q:> le that look suspi ci ous and questionable or out of the ordinary around here. W'e're going to be able to help as best we can to find the solution. If we have this overload of cars and population there will be no way that we can possibly keep tabs on what's going on. In this way, we are helping to eliminate a problem for the city as far as additional police protection. We can help each other. We are a good neighborhood. May 12, 1 980 Page 13 We have been accused of not wanting apartments. We are saying that we don't want apartments in our neighborhood because of the problems I have stated. We are not saying that apartments are not good anywhere they are located. We, too, have lived in apartments. It is a fact that many people have to. We are certainly not trying to typecast these people as being ugly, bad or different. But few will argue the point that when given a chance to get out of apartments and into your own home that the chance is taken. We just realize that because of apartment dwellers being so transient:and because of the other problems that I have stated that we have a desire not to have them adjacent to our property. We do want to say that the majority of us did realize at the time that we bought our homes that this property was zoned multi-family. We were also told by either real estate people, many of whom were employed by J.B. Sandlin who was at that time an owner of this property, that this area would not be developed because of the flood plain. It was to have cost too much to develop the area so that it could be used. We have also been told by city employees, not knowing that we would ever need to know names, that this was the same situation. It was only last spring that many of my neighbors were told this by the city, and after being reassured that nothing would be built there that they built additions on their homes and some added swimming pools. Will the city make good their investment if they choose to move but can't recover the money for that? We feel that the proposed apartments would be very much out of character with the neighborhood. The "luxury apartments" as they have been called are to be constructed out of stucco and redwood. We feel that if the restrictions on homes in our area are to a certain degree, that this would also be the same for apartments. We have some stucco and redwood apartments on Maplewood, I know you are all familiar with them, and they have been a nuisance since they were built. They also look very bad. Would any of you want your fence backed up to that? I'm sure not. All of you have very nice homes and would want to protect them from something like that. We feel the same. There are proper places for apartments, places where they are readily accessible to major thoroughfares and would not cause an unnecessary traffic burden from its occupants. We also are very leery of a developer, not even for NRH, coming and building this apartment complex in phases. We may not be builders, but we do have a reasonable amount of knowledge to know that the part of the land that is least expensive to build will be built first. But there is nothing to say that when this land is built and the profit is started to be recognized that the development work for the channel and area west of the creek will not be completed or that he will build beyond Phase I. We have all read or heard about projects in the past that have been done thi sway. We wou ld not a 11 ow a builder who primarily works in this area and lives here to do that because of him wanting th~ngs done later, but we would have no privilege over a builder from out of the city. May 12, 1980 Page 14 We do realize that this owner only wants to rid himself of this land. That is why we feel that we can work out a solution for him and us that would be beneficial to all of us and the city. We have not from the beginning wanted to cause a hardship for him. Let me also emphasize that we are not against anything being built down there. We were at first caught very much unaware that anything could be built down in there. We took the word of those we felt knew that nothing could or would and didn't doubt it. At this point in time we are very willing to have something down there. We have researched it and know its merits. That creek is a continuous danger to our children. It stands year round in water that at some points are as deep as six to eight feet. We breed mosquitos back in there and recently we have had water moccasions and rats to come up from there. We also would like to see the new city dump eliminated. Not only is that an eyesore for the ones of us that drive Holiday Lane everyday, but it is definitely not a selling factor for people we are wishing would buy homes in Holiday West. I have personally seen builders from Holiday West using that as a dump ground and for the life of me, I can't imagine how they could expect to sell a home across the street from it. We would like to see this area developed. It would eliminate a lot of definite health and safety problems. But to build in apartments, we don't know which would be worse. I would like to say that I have been questioned about the legality of the City doing this rezoning. It states it very clearly in many legal references that I have researched and I have inquired of several attorneys about this. There is ample information stating that the city has the power and authority to rezone or zone for that matter, land taking into consideration the health, safety, law, ethics, and moral aspects of the property. We feel that this falls into that category without doubt. If we were trying to cause harm or in fact confiscate this property, I could see where it would not be advisable. It is salable land. We do have an alternate solution. There are legal reasons to change the zoning. We are not being unreasonable. We are not being a mob. We are not being vigilantes. We are not being rebel rousers. We are not being agitators. We are not being any of the things we have been called. We are trying to handle this without too much emotion. We have from the inception of this thing been well organized, well behaved and willing to work out a solution. We have been good neighbors. We have met together, a group of 32 neighbors representing our addition, to work out a solution that would benefit us all. We feel that the single family dwellings is the way to finish out our addition. We feel the problems would be minimal. May 12, 1980 Page 15 I have checked with local realtors. There is a need for good lots. The housing market is looking up. We have compared the prices of lots that are being sold in Holiday West and the amount of land that is available next to us. We do feel as if we could work this out and really have something satisfactory to us all. I would ask that the Council continue to support the decisions of those before you. Take into consideration the research and experience that they used when making their decision and to do the same. We are here showing our support for that decision. I would also like to ask that I be given rebuttal time after the developer is presented and he in turn be granted rebuttal time. We may each have overlooked or come up with something that might be of additional help to you." Councilman Kenna stated that in touring the neighborhood, it was obvious there was a very serious flood problem for some of the houses that backed up to this property. Councilman Kenna asked if the homeowners did not think the rechannelization of the creek would do away with the flood problem. Mrs. Strauser stated no. They felt because of the increa~ed concrete, and because tbey were lower than the field, it would continue to drain not only in their neighborhood but also downstream. Councilman Thomas asked Mrs. Strauser if he understood her to say many of them were aware that this property was zoned multi-family when they purchased their property. Mrs. Strauser replied yes, but they were told by the realtor it would never be developed because of the great cost involved in re....doing the channel. Most everyone in the nei ghborhood was told the same. Mr. Gary Morphew, 7508 Circle Drive, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "Obviously beginning back in October and until tonight this has been an emotional issue. I feel like the citizens, the Council and the representative for the development firm have handled this in a presentable manner. This had been a lengthy matter and many of the citizens in the area have begun to feel completely unaware of the workings of city government and the complicacy involved that the city government has shown a,n ina,dequate ability to represent them. I feel this Council is willing to hear the voice of its citizens and on the surface it appears there are three main issues. The flood plain, the channelization of the creek and the tax income disparity between undeveloped land, developed for ~·1ay 12, 1980 Page 16 apartments and land developed for single-family. What appears to be the main issue, maybe in fact only secondary to another issue and that is what the city government's responsibility in this issue; well over 300 families lives will be affected and many hundreds more indirectly by what is decided here. II Mayor Faram called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition of this request to please come forward. Mr. George Staples, Attorney, Hurst, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "In October the developer came in with a plat of this property. It was layed according to the city's ordinances. Yet the people rose up and spoke against it. The City Council listened. The main thrust of the arguments, as reflected by the minutes, was that they did not want any apartments out there despite the fact it was legally zoned for this. Now, you recall I was not a party to that. Generally speaking, people do their own thing. They do not hire lawyers until they are in trouble. There was a lawsuit. We think the judge probably decided wrong, but it was my advice which Dr. Pentecost followed. That instead of taking an appeal on this case we would follow the business of the plat and meet Jim Anderson's objections to the plat that there were not sufficient streets through the development. We put the street on the plat and submitted it at approximately the same time there was a meeting of the previous council who voted to send the matter to the Planning and Zoning to consider rezoning. At the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which due to an error or oversight, the recorder was not working and you do not have verbatim minutes, the statement was made because the property had single family from 1967 to 1970, as I recall and for this reason it should be rezoned single family at this time. Now we spent considerable effort going back and trying to find out what the records of the city were. In about 1968 you had a Comprehensive Plan that was prepared. This Comprehensive Plan recommended that this property be public or semi-public open space. There was no Comprehensive Plan that it be single-family residential. The City Council zoned that property in 1968 single family. Approximately one year thereafter the developers of this property, and they were owners of much of the surrounding property, came in with plans. Mr. Staples gave the Council a copy of the plans. This depicts the property in question as well as the property immediately to the east and it shows what the plans of that development was. This was submitted to the City Council after the Planning and Zoning Commission saw it and the City Council unanimously voted with one abstaining that this property be rezoned to Local Retail and Multi-family. This was in about 1969. In other words tnls property was zoned single family for approximately 1 to l~ years. ~1ay 12, 1980 Page 17 Since that time much of the property in that area was rezoned. Most of it was rezoned for higher uses. By in large development has taken place substantially in accord with this plan as rezoned. That was in 1969. Dr. Pentecost, whom I represent tonight, owns the 36 acres which was the subject of the earlier plat and which is also on the agenda for an item for you after this matter is attended to, bought this property after it was zoned Local Retail and Multi-family. In order to prepare for this and we quite frankly are unsure about the legal description; whether it really describes the property. We have attempted to point this out and have submitted to the City Secretary a protest against this rezoning for both technical reasons and also because we feel that it is both inappropriate and it amounts to confiscation of Dr. Pentecost's property. There were many words used here in the initial presentation that this would not confiscate the property. Ladies and Gentlemen, they are not talking about a reasonable plan. They are talking about this 36 acres presently zoned for 11 years multi- family and Local Retail and zoning it single-family. Now we have gone through the effort and we will try to go through it again to show you what the facts of whether this property is usable or can be used for single-family residents. We can not approach you until we get into the platting process. We have dealt with the flooding. We have dealt with it on the previous plat as well as the present plat. Your own engineer has stated as far as the drainage was concerned, we have dealt with this according to your ordinance. We have a 100 year flood allowed for as far as channeling. This is not the first phase of deve 1 opi ng. This plat, you will see later, does not have us develop the best part first and leave the channel for later. It has us expending a couple of hundred thousand dollars for improvement of this channel to considerably reduce the flooding of these people now and flooding caused by property even further off-site. Naturally, we cannot say waht the ultimate development of this property will do. Most of the flooding that takes place here takes place on the immediatp.ly adjacent property because this property is low. As far as this property being developed causing flooding, we do not think you can show, or we think we can show that it would not cause any particular flooding hazard. The main water that comes onto this comes from upstream. Now many people have said that we should safeguard all property in the city because of any possibility of anybody being flooded there should not be any development. This is not realistic. We cannot take the flood hazard all the way to the Gulf of Mississippi. We can go as far May 12, 1980 Page 18 as our property, but we cannot go downstream until it gets out of North Richland Hills. We have to deal with it and we have dealt with the responsibility in this plat according to your latest updated revised flood plans which are even more strict than the plans the Council considered at the last meeting. In order to try and show you what we are talking about, we think that the best thing you can use here is facts. As far as what the previous plans were, we cannot look in the minds of the Council in 1969. However, there is one important planning thing that has to be considered. Not only should you consider what is good planning, but you should not slip your zoning one way and then another. There should be some stability. People canno build, they cannot plan and they cannot grow if they do not have something they can rely on. These people have stated to you that the people that live out in this area stated the only reason they bought their homes was because they believed the property in question could not be developed, even though they knew that this property was zoned for multi-family development. It is reasonable for them to rely on the inability of a developer to even come up with anything he could do. We think that the will of the peq:>le, while of no significance legally, should be considered but it is not to bethe al,lërldend all. This is not entirely a political process; this is not entirely a legislative decision. It is in many respects a judicial decision you are undertaking at this time. No one on the Council is counting votes in a zoning decision. What you are actually trying to see is not just the wi 11 of the people ,or what their desire is, but what is in the best interest of all the citizens of the City of North Richland Hills. Apartments have to go somewhere. You cannot just take this property and say we are going to make this a public park. What I am saying is there has to be some use for the property. Now what I would like to do at this point is to go through some of the exercise we went through with the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the useability of this property for single- family development. We have a buyer for this property for multi- family. We have done this two ways; we have gone first and considered the one side that is to the east side of Calloway Branch. We have thrown in the west side if you want to see what the whole property would bring as far as development costs are concerned. The most number of single residential lots that you could get on this is some 78 lots. If you will look at the cost of developing Calloway Branch, channelization at $279,000.00 and there is no difference in channelization whether you channelize for single-family or multi-family. The whole thing is caused by the 100 year flood. You have to get the channel through to accommodate the 100 year flood. What I am trying to tell you is with the development cost alone of nearly $8,000.00 per lot we can not economically develop and market these lots. We are trying to come up with a decision here, where we have a conflict of interest. These property owners do not want these apartments next to them. We would respectfully submit to you that they have to go next to somebody. Thi s is a good site., That the Council eleven years ago considered all of these things. May 12, 1980 Page 19 I will go through some of the points made here by Mrs. Strauser; one of these was that the children would crowd the schools. I do not think that is true, there are very low numbers of children in apartments. The studies that I have seen indicate apartments do not place the burden on schools. What places the burden on schools is single-family development. As far as open streets to high school kids, no matter what goes in there the streets are going in. Mrs. Strauser also says apartments will make their property harder to sell. But what she said earlier is that the city does not owe zoning to anybody. The City does not owe zoning to a single-family property owner anymore than it owes it to Dr. Pentecost. When you single out a small area such as this for special treatment simply because of dislike without any plan, that is spot-zoning. Mr. Staples advised the Council he would like rebuttal time. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Staples if he had access to a copy of the Planning and Zoning minutes on PZ 69-8, March 27, 1969. Mr. Staples replied yes. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Staples if he had read Mr. Hamm's comment after a protest by a Mr. \~ood that "plans for constructi on would look like plans for single-family dwelling but would be multi -fami ly." Mr. Staples stated he had seen that comment but did not think it pertained to the property in question tonight. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Staples if he had the total amount of apartments that were being planned for the property. Mr. Staples replied he could give the number of apartments planned for Phase I because that was all that was planned at this time. Mr. Hedgcoth stated Phase I would be 100 units, Phase II would be 100 units and he did not think they could get 100 units on Phase III. Councilman Wood stated he had heard there would be 104 units in Phase I and Phase II. Mr. Hedgcoth stated there would be 104 units in Phase I and approximately the same in Phase II. Mayor Faram asked if there was anyway they could go along with the east side of the drainage ditch and get some relief on the channelization figure of $279,000. Mr. Staples stated he was not authorized to speak to that issue. Mr. S. G. Johndroe, Jr., Attorney representing Mr. Omar Harvey and Mr. C. T. Beckham, appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "Mr. Beckham and Mr. Harvey are owners of all the 13.66 acres designated as Tract II, Abstract 1606, W. W. Wallace Survey as shown on the tax records of North Richland Hills. On May 9, 1980, by certified mail you received a copy of the written protest of these owners. Heretofore, they have filed their written protest to change the zoning recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission from Multi-family and Local Retail to IF-9-l5 One Family Dwellings. I understand this property is zoned Multi-family and Local Retail and has been for a number of years. The owners of this 13 acre tract acquired in excess of 200 acres of land in the immediate area more than 10 years ago. These owners sold 160 acres on the west side of this tract for single family residential purposes and 33 acres to the south for the public school system for playground and park purposes. They have retained the 13.66 acre tract for what it is presently zoned. Now the owners of Tract II have not brought any rats or cottonmouths onto the property or into the area. The owners of Tract II are not using Holiday Lane as a drag strip. The speeding is not related to their land use and no offer has been made to my clients. These owners purchased, in 1970~and retained the 13.66 acres on this 1969 zoning and that it remained permanent. Mr. Beckham, prior to Mr. Harvey obtaining an interest in the property, participated in a portion of the cost for reconstruction of Holiday Lane which is substantially wider than a residential street and does serve and will be adequate to the school system. Mr. Beckham and Mr. Harvey have relied upon the Multi-family and Local Retail zoning of their 13.66 acre tract in all of their future planning for development and use of their property. They anticipated to use their property for neighborhood local retail, doctor's offices, small shops, bookstore or drugstores, no large shopping center. In all probability the use of the 4.3 acres east of the creek will be used in the same manner that the property to the north will be and the property to the west will be used for local retail. The proposed zoning change from multi-family and local retail to one family dwellings, if adopted by the City Council would destroy the value of this property. The highest and best use for the property is the construction and development of duplexes or apartments on one side and local retail as presently zoned. May 12, 1980 Page 20 We would like to also state to the Council that the proposed change in zoning from multi-family and local retail to single family zoning would substantially reduce the tax value of the property and decrease the revenues of the city. The propsed change of the Beckham-Harvey tract would be an arbitrary and capricious act." Councilman Wood asked Mr. Johndroe if he knew the occupations of Mr. Beckham and Mr. Harvey and where they were employed. Mr. Johndroe replied he did not know. Mr. .J. B. Sandlin, 5137 Davis Blvd., appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "Mr. Allan Hamm and I are co-owners of the corner of Holiday Lane and North Richland Blvd. I guess we are the trouble makers because we started all of this mess back a number of years ago. When we first started planning this we had a junior high site in it. We almost had a junior high there I do not remember what happened but it fell through. We had to go back to the land planner and re-design the junior high site, which was on top of a hill in Holiday North. We paid quite a bit of money to have this tract of land planned. I have been accused of telling people it would never be developed. Personnally, I have never told anyone that. We have always had a plat in our office showing that this was zoned other than single family. My sales manager has always told the sales people to tell the people what is going in around them. We have only one acre involved in this, but it is zoned multi-family and we have had a sign on it for some nine or ten years. So we have not tried to hide anything. The people have known that this land has been zoned for that purpose. We are the developers of Holiday West. We are not opposed to this zoning across the street because we do not feel like it will harm our development. Speaking of apartments and what they do for property, seems like over in Woodhaven, people knew what was zoned for multi-family and we have $150,000.00 homes backing up to apartments. I have not noticed any trouble on these people re-selling their houses. II Mr. Allan Hamm, 5137 Davis Blvd., appeared before the Council and made the following statements: "I can remember quite well the length we went to in planning this particular tract of land. Over a period of years, we put together several tracts of land in that area and had at that time under our control, quite a large tract of land that we knew would be in the path of development of North Richland Hills. We wanted very much to do an excellent job of planning and developing that piece of property. We employed the best firm we could find. We asked them to plan that land and I think they did a very good job. We referred that plan to Carter and Burgess who added the engineering to it. We brought the plan to the city as a total plan. We have a lways been told as deve 1 opers that we should never b.8 guilty of spot zoning. In this particular case, I think we went the ninth mile to zone this piece of property and to plan it properly. May 12, 1980 Page 21 I think we followed the direction of this city and a 11 of its staff; we l1ë ve C00p e'rated fu lly. I kn ow that the city, about that time, was planning their thoroughfare program and Holiday Lane went through this property. Through Dr. Pentecost, we escrowed the money for calstruction of Holiday Lane, which is a thoroughfare street and is sho...m on the thoroughfare program. We donated the ROW for Holiday Lane as part of the platting procedures as tHe land requirements of the City of North Richland Hills, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council. They required that North Richland Blvd. be a wider than normal street as a collector street to connect to that thoroughfiare. In all due fairness to these people wh 0 have purchased these lots fran the bui lder, who purchased them from us, and fairness to Dr. Pentecost, who was the ultimate receiver of the land we sold this propert,yto in 'go:odfaith, zoned as shown, I quite frankly feel the zoning should be den i ed. II Mayor Faram called a recess at this time. Mayor Faram called the meeting back to order. The same Council Mèmbers and Staff were present as recorded at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Faram called for anyone else wishing to speak in opposition of this request. There being no ale, Mayor Faram granted Mrs. Strauser rebuttal time. Mrs. Nancy Strauser appeared before the Council and made the follcwing statements: "I have a map from the Comprehensive Master Plan that was approved by the Council in 1968 and it does show the low housing density on it. Our Zoning Ordinance says that multi-family should be built on secondary thoroughfares. I have a map of the secondary and primary thoroughfare fran May of 1971 and this property is not on either. I have the minutes of the meeting when this property was zoned. Back at that time there was no development anywhere around so there was no oppositi al to the request. It was a 5 to 1 vote at that time with Councilman Cato voting no, Sandlin abstaining due to an interest in the property and the others voting for. There was no discussion, no thought of major secondary thoroughfares, nothing about the development of this area. It has also been said that this land was not zoned IF-9-0ne Family. The local retail and multi-family was published in the paper and it says fran its present classification of IF-9-0ne family dwelling. I have a copy of the flood way map showing how the channel runs down through there. May 12, 1980 Page 22 RECESS BACK TO ORDER This channel is going to have to be straightened out. It does not make any difference what goes in there. We feel that with excavation work that is going to have to be done over on the east side of the channel, the field could be taken over and used on the west side. With the straightening of the channel a lot of that field dirt can be used over there to develop which is going to cut down on the cost of the development. Also if the developer would request from builders in the area, instead of dumping all their junk there, just dump their dirt that would help eliminate a lot of the cost. We feel there has been no proof or nothing said about a major or secondary thoroughfare that is going to get these people in and out of these apartments. It says it in our ordinance and it shows it in the Comprehensive Plan. We checked with Richland Enterprises on the price of what lots are going for in Holiday West. Holiday West is zoned IF-8, which is smaller lots than we are asking for zoning for. We feel the average price is $13,800.00 per lot. If you take an acre of land and divide it into three lots at an average of $13,800.00 you will come out with somewhere arrund $561,000.00. If you sold off those, we are saying 38 lots over the land that is already pretty well developed, you make 561,000.00. That is more than what they are selling the land for. There is going to be development cost and there is going to be other things that are going to be involved. We would also like for them to not put the bridge in because we feel it will put a lot more excess traffic over there. Why can't we compromise; why can't we make a solution for everybody? At this time there are residents on all four sides of that area" If that is allowed to be multi-family it is going to be as if it were spot zoning. If this was bought as an investment when the owners knew what was happening, why didn't they come in then and try to develop it. The state engineer of the State of Texas states that any developer may not adversely affect the drainage in downstream areas. May 12, 1980 Page 23 Councilman Hubbard stated he understood that if the developer would go in on the east side of the creek and develop hanes, then the homeowners would be willing to address the fact they could go multi-family on the west. Mrs. Strauser stated they would be more willing to come to a compromise if the developer would meet them ha lfway. Councilman Hubbard asked Mrs. Strauser if she would c ompromi se with that. Mrs. Strauser stated she would if there was no access into their residential neighborhood. Mayor Faram granted Mr. Staples rebuttal time. Mr. Staples stated he had asked for rebuttal time only if there were questions raised that he had not addressed. Mr. Staples stated he did not feel there had been any questions raised, therefore he stood on what he had presented. Mayor Faram closed the Public Hearing. l4~ Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve Ordinance No. 817, PZ 80-14. Mayor Faram stated he was advised by Counsel that it would take a 3/4 vote of the Council because a legal petition was submitted on time opposing this zoning. Councilman Freeman stated that at this time he would like to get into apartments versus single family dwellings. Councilman Freeman stated something he had not reconciled in his mind and had not been convinced by a legal opinion was that the City had the right to re-zone property. Councilman Freeman stated he hoped this could be discussed to the point that he would be ready to discuss the re-zoning of multi-family. City Attorney McEntire advised Councilman Freeman he would be glad to answer his questions in executive s e s s i on . Mayor Faram adjourned to executive session. Mayor Faram called the meeting back to order. The same Council Members and Staff were present as recorded at the beginning of the meeting. May 12, 1980 Page 24 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 80-14 ORDINANCE NO. 817 DENIED RECESS BACK TO ORDER May 12, 1980 Page 25 Mayor Faram called for a vote on the motion. Motion failed by a vote of 3-3; Councilmen Wood and Hubbard and Councilwoman Groves voting for; Councilmen Freeman, Kenna and Thomas voting against; Councilman Brady abstaining. 15. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to approve PS 80-18. Councilman Freeman asked Mr. Hedgcoth if he had a display of what was planned to be built in Phase I and a time schedule. PLANNING & ZONING PS 80-18 REQUEST OF DAL-WORTH DEVELOPERS, INC. FOR FINAL PLAT OF HOLIDAY NORTH ADDITION, SECTION 7 DENIED Mr. Hedgcoth stated they planned at this time to construct Circle Drive from the north property line to the south property line and initial stub-out of Conn Drive down to Mr. Beckham~s project; channelize Calloway Branch from the north property line at Holiday Lane to the south property line of the Pentecost property. The channel section will have a 120 foot bottom, with a 3-1 side slope and 6 feet deep. Mr. Hedgcoth stated they plan to construct the bridge across from Circle Drive to Holiday Lane to accommodate the apartments. Mr. HedgcQth stated they planned to start construction of 104 units at this time at the north end of the property. Councilman Freeman stated he assumed the first thing to be done on the project would be the streets and drainage. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that was correct. Councilman Freeman asked if the streets and drainage work would be done before any apartments were built. Mr. Hedgcoth stated they would start the streets and the channel work and when they got far enough long they would start the building construction. They would not be able to operate any apartments until everything was complete. Councilman Wood stated he understood there was some disagreement over the width of the street between the City Engineer and the developer's engineer. Mr. Hedgcoth stated the city engineer had requested that Circle Drive be sixty foot right-of-way from the north end of the Pentecost property to the south end of the property and the existing Circle Drive at the north and south end at the property line was only a fifty foot right-of-way. Mr. Hedgcoth stated they saw no need for sixty foot right-of-way to accommodate the 36 acres. May 12, 1980 Page 26 Councilman Wood asked what size the street would be. Mr. Hedgcoth stated they would tie into the existing street at the north and south end of the Pentecost property. Councilman asked if that was a thirty foot street and the city engineer had recommended a forty foot street. Mr. Hedgcoth replied yes. Councilman Wood asked if the plans had been submitted to the Fire Marshal and had the problem with fire plug location had been resolved. Mr. Hedgcoth stated he was unaware of any problems with fire plug location. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Hedgcoth if he was aware the Fire Department did not like to have apartments or any type of structure under construction that did not have a street going to it so they could get a fire truck in. Mr. Hedgcoth stated that before any actual construction work was started they would have access to the property. Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Hedgcoth that when he spoke of the bridge was he talking about Terry Drive. Mr. Hedgcoth replied yes. Terry Drive would have a bridge that crossed the channel. Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Hedgcoth if they were going to complete Terry Drive in Phase I. Mr. Hedgcoth replied yes. Councilman Freeman asked Mr. Hedgcoth if he would be objective to all the requirements being in the motion. The timing and what was being included in Phase I. Mr. Hedgcoth stated he had no objections. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to amend the motion to state the plat was approved contingent on Phase I including the completion of Cirdle Drive from the north end at Fieldstone to the south and completion of Terry Drive from Holiday Lane to Circle Drive along with the bridge and rechannelization. All of this to be part of Phase I and the majority of the work to be completed before the apartments are completed. May 12, 1980 Page 27 Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to amend the motion that the right-of-way be increased to a mi nimum of 60 feet with a forty one foot street for Circle Drive and sixty foot of right-of-way for the bridge. Councilman Kenna asked Mr.Hedgcoth if the culvert on Lola Drive could take the water. Mr. Hedgcoth stated the bridge did have the capacity for a ten year flood. Mayor Faram asked if that was with the improvements that were pnoposed. Mr. Hedgcoth replied yes. Councilman Freeman asked if the bridge would carry a ten year flood, what happened in a 100 year flood. Mr. Hedgcoth stated he could not say it would not be over the bridge. He did not have his notes with him. Mr. Staples asked the justification for the width of the street. They were uncertain about it. City Engineer Albin stated the reason for the recommendation for the street was because of increased traffic from the apartments. Mayor Faram stated he had some requests to speak on this item.. Mrs. Nancy Strauser appeared before the Council. Mrs. Strauser stated she was opposed to this plat main ly because of the traffic problem. Mrs. Strauser stated it plainly stated in the Zoning Ordinance that multi-family had to be on a secondary thoroughfare and 60 feet of ROW would not allow this. Mrs. Strauser stated that if this was approved, she felt the city needed to put one-way signs on the street so no traffic could come into their residential area. Mr. Tom Curran, 5705 Carolyn Drive, appeared before the Counci 1. Mr. Curran stated he was hi gh ly opp osed to this request. Mr. Gerold Ottinger, 7520 Circle Drive, appeared before the Counci 1. May 12, 1980 Page 28 Mr. Ottinger stated he lived five houses from where the apartments were to be built. Mr. Ottinger stated he was 100% against the plat. Mr. Ottinger stated he felt the apartments would devalue his property. The apartments would also overload the schools. Mr. Ottinger stated the apartments would not be compatible with the neighborhood especially if they were stucco. Mr. C. C. Emerson, 7517 North Richland Blvd., appeared before the Counci 1. Mr. Emerson stated he was highly opposed to the plat. Mr. Fred Collins, 7528 Circle Drive, appeared before the Counci 1. Mr. Collins stated he was opposed to the plat. Mr. H. K. Shuler, 5805 Ca~olyn Drive, appeared before the Council. Mr. Shuler stated that when this plat was initially presented there wasqu i te a bit of discuss i on. Mr. Shu ler stated that when it came to the final discussion the Council asked what Phase I, II and III was. The question also was asked that if Phase I was approved, would the whole plat be approved. Mr. Shuler asked what was going to happen n a1 if approved. Mayor Faram stated yes, if approved, it would be the entire plat. Mr. Shuler stated that the developers could not at this time give the number of units that they are going to build at this time. Mr. Shuler stated he was opposed to the plat. Mr. Leon Hatfield, 7509 Jean Ann, appeared before the Council. Mr. Hatfield stated he would like to thank the Counci 1 for the time they had spent on studying the apartment complex. Mr. Hatfield stated that if the Council approved this to at least make it comfortable to the neighborhood. Mr. Hatfield stated that in ten years who knew where Dal-Worth would be. Would they build Phase I and leave the country. Mr. Hatfield asked the Council to stick to the stipulation on the width of the street. May 12, 1980 Page 29 Councilman Freeman asked Mr. Hedgcoth what kind of construction the apartments would be and if he had pi ctures of the proposed apartments. Mr. Hedgc oth stated the constructi al wou ld be redwood and asbestos singles and a firewall stucco. Councilman Freeman asked how this would meet the Bri ck Ord i nance. Mr. Hedgcoth stated they would meet the building ordinance. Mayor Faram called a recess at this time. 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. BACK TO ORDER Councilman Freeman stated the Building Code the City now had would not allow anything but brick. The apartments, if built would be brick. Mr. Tom Moore, 7524 Fieldstone, appeared before the Council. Mr. Moore stated he mCNed to North Richland Hills in 1959 and made permanent residence. Mr. Moore stated he had seen a lot of development. Mr. Moore stated he had seen a lot of Council's promises and changes of a lot of Crdinanc.es. Mr. t~oore stated the citizens would fight the Council on this matter. Mayor Faram called for a vote on the amended motion. Motion carried 5-2; Councilmen Kenna, Wood, Thomas, Freeman and Hubbard voting for; Councilwoman Groves voting against; Councilman Brady abstaining. Mayor Faram called for a vote on the original motion as amended. Councilman Freeman stated the last time the plat came up~the citizens; the ones that border the property, were promised a 30 foot set back and there was nothing on the plans that indicated the 30 feet. Councilman Freeman stated he would like for someone to respond to this. Mr. Hedgcoth stated they would put the apartments on the east side 30 feet from the property line. Motion to approve failed 3-3; Councilmen Kenna, Thomas and Freeman voting for; Counci lmen \''/ood and Hubbard and Counci lwoman G~oves voting against; Councilman Brady abstaining; Mayor Faram voting against to break the tie. ~1ay 12, 1980 Page 30 16. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to approve Ordinance No. 818. Motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 179 REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF ALTER- NATE MEMBERS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 818 CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT TO CITY ATTORNEY REX McENTIRE IN THE AMOUNT OF $460.00 APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE GRANTING LONE STAR GAS COMPANY A RATE INCREASE DENIED 17. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to approve payment to Rex McEntire in the amount of $460.00. Motion carried 7-0. 18. Mr. Charles Mettler, representative for Lone Star Gas Company, appeared before the Council. Mr. Mettler stated that each of the Council had received a letter of why Lone Star had found it necessary to seek additional revenues from residential and commercial customers in North Richland Hills. Statements of intent changing gas rates had been filed in all seventeen towns of the Fort Worth distribution system and each requesting a 9.98 in annual revenue. Mr. Mettler stated the statement of intent filed with the city on April 24, 1980, Lone Star requested an estimated $171,266.00 of additional revenue from the customers in North Richland Hills. Mr. Mettler stated he had provided the Council with a residential bill showing the increase by level of consumption. For example, a monthly summer bill of 2,000 cubic feet would increase $1.88. A winter bill of 15,0001~ubic feet would increase $3.70. Mr. Mettler stated that in completion, please note the application before the Council reflects the Texas Railroad Commission recommendation that the investment made in the metropolitan area such as the Fort Worth distribution area was for the equal benefit for all customers within that system. Mr. Mettler stated that the Commission further concluded in the interest and fairness to all customers within subject system the rates should be uniform for each classification of customers. Councilman Thomas moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to table this item. Motion carried 7-0. 19. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to approve Resolution No. 80-16. Motion carried 7-0. 20. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to postpone this item. Motion carried 7-0. 21. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve the purchase of an aerial photograph of North Richland Hills in the amount of $290.00. Mot~)on carried 7-0. 22. Councilman Thomas moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve partial payment to Walker Construction Company in the amount of $92,934.00 for Central Fire Station. Motion carried 7-0. 23. Mr. Paul stated this was something new and he recommended not approving it at this time. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to postpone action on this item. May 12, 1980 Page 31 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING SERVICES OF ASSOC- IATED UTILITIES SPECIALISTS & REX McENTIRE, ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE, ANAYLZE AND ADVISE THE COUNCIL IN CONNECTION WITH LONE STAR GAS Cm1PANY' S RATE INCREASE REQUEST APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 80-16 CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT BETWEEN TARRANT COUNTY, CITY OF HURST, CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS OF PRECINCT LINE ROAD BETWEEN GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY & WATAUGA-SMITHFIELD ROAD POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $290.00 APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF PARTIAL PAYMENT TO WALKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE At~OUNT OF $92,934.00 - CENTRAL FIRE STATION APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT FOR COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION WITH TARRANT COUNTY POSTPONED Motion carried 7-0. 24. Mayor Faram opened the Public Hearing on street improvements on Booth Calloway Road and called for anyone wishing to speak to please come forward. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the Public Hearing. 25. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve Ordinance No. 819. The caption of Ordinance No. 819 reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERING AND PROVIDING FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING STREET: BOOTH CALLOWAY FROM LOOP 820 SERVICE ROAD TO GLENVIEW DRIVE IN THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, LETTING CONTRACT TO FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION: MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE INDEBTEDNESS THEREBY INCURRED: MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND THE OWNERS THEREFORE FOR A PART OF THE COST OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR METHODS OF PAYMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATES IN EVIDENCE OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS; DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE ESTIMATES OF COST; DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO SAID STREET IMPROVEMENTS ARE AND SHALL BE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1105b OF VERNON'S TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES; DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO ENGROSS AND ENROLL THIS ORDINANCE BY COPYING THE CAPTION OF SAME IN THE MINUTE BOOK OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND BY FILING THE COMPLETE ORDINANCE IN THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE RECORD OF THIS CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Motion to approve carried 7-0. 26. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve Ordinance No. 820. The caption of Ordinance No. 820 reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING ESTIMATES TO THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND OF AMOUNTS TO BE ASSESSED FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING STREET: BOOTH CALLOWAY ROAD FROM LOOP 820 SERVICE ROAD TO GLENVIEW DRIVE IN THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS; FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING TO THE OWNERS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY AND TO ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES; DIRECTING THE ~1ay 12, 1980 Page 32 PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOOTH CALLOWAY ROAD BETWEEN GLENVIEW DRIVE AND LOOP 820 SERVICE ROAD CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERING AND PROVIDING FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF A PORT! ON OF BOOTH CALLOWAY ROAD APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 819 CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING ESTIMATES FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON BOOTH CALLOWAY ROAD APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 820 CITY SECRETARY TO GIVE NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING; AND DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO ENGROSS AND ENROLL THIS ORDINANCE BY COPYING THE CAPTION OF SAME IN THE MINUTE BOOK OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AND BY FILING THE COMPLETE ORDINANCE IN THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE RECORDS OF THIS CITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Motion to approve carried 7-0. 27. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve Ordinance No. 821. The caption of Ordinance No. 822 reads as foll~Js: ORDINANCE CLOSING HEARING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR A PORTION OF THE COST OF IMPROVING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING STREET; BOOTH CALLOWAY FROM LOOP 820 SERVICE ROAD TO GLENVIEW DRIVE IN THE CITY OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS, TEXAS; FIXING CHARGES AND LIENS AGAINST PROPERTY ABUTTING THEREON, AND, AGAINST THE OWNERS THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS AND THE ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATES IN EVIDENCE THEREOF; RESERVING UNTO THE CITY COUNCIL THE RIGHT TO ALLOW CREDITS REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ANY CREDIT GRANTED: DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO ENGROSS AND ENROLL THE ORDINANCE BY COPYING THE CAPTION OF SAME IN THE MINUTES OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, AND BY FILING THE ORDINANCE IN THE ORDINANCE RECORDS OF SAID CITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECT DATE. Motion to approve carried 7-0. 28. Mayor Faram stated this resolution could be passed and the Council each appoint two members to the Commission. The deadline for the Charter Commission to report back to the Council was set for July 1, 1980. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve Resolution No. 80-17. Motion carried 7-0. 29. Mr. Jim Bowen, 4704 Susan Lee, North Richland Hills, appeared before the Council. Mr. Bowen stated he wanted to build a 20x24 foot storage building in his backyard. Mr. Bowen stated he wanted to use lx12 prime masonite siding instead of brick. Mr. Bowen stated the building would be strictly for storage. Councilman Wood asked what type of foundation he planned to use. Mr. Bowen stated the foundation would be slab. ~1ay 12, 1980 Page 33 CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE CLOSING HEARING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR A PORTION OF THE COST OF H~PROVING A PORTION OF BOOTH CALLOWAY ROAD APPROVED 'ORDINANCE NO. 821 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CHARTER AMENDMENT COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 80-17 REQUEST OF JIM BOWEN 4704 SUSAN LEE LANE FOR VARIANCE FROM BRICK ORDINANCE APPROVED May 12, 1980 Page 34 Councilman Wood asked Mr. Bowen if his property backed up to commerical. Mr. Bowen replied yes. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to grant Mr. Bowen's request for a variance from the brick ordinance. Motion carried 7-0. 30. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of May 12, 1980, at 12:15 a.m. ADJOURN~~ENT ATTEST: