Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1980-09-15 Minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820, SEPTEMBER 15, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Mayor Faram called the meeting to order September 15,1980, at 7:30 p.m. 2. Present: Dick Faram Jim Kenna Jim Wood J. C. Hubbard Bob Brady Dave Freeman Sharyl Groves Staff: Chuck Williams Jeanette Moore Dennis Horvath Richard Albin Press: P. J. Harbruck Pam Harwick Joe Norton Absent: Wiley Thomas, Jr. Rex McEntire 3. Councilman Dave Freeman gave the invocation. CALL TO ORDER Mayor ROLL CALL Councilmen Councilwoman City Manager City Secretary Assistant City Manager City Engineer North Richland News Mid Cities News The Tribune Councilman City Attorney INVOCATION 4. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to confi rm the appoi ntment of Mr. Jim Ramsey, r·1r. Don Bowen and r~r. Ronni e Newman to the Pl anni ng and Zoni ng Commi ss i on. Motion carried 6-0. CONFIRMATION OF APPO I NTt1ENTS FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMtlISSION 5. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval subject to the Engineer's comments. Councilman Brady moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve PS 80-30. PS 80-30 - REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT OF BLOCKS lR & 4, SNOW HEIGHTS NORTH ADDITION POSTPONED Councilman Wood stated that according to the right-of-way map on the proposed plat, the City Engineer had made a comment on traffic. Councilman Wood stated there was a five lane - center lane turn lane down to a certain point. Councilman Wood stated he assumed that toward the south end of the expansion those five lanes would actually turn to a two lane, north bound, a two lane south bound with a right turn lane to gain access to Loop 820 west bound. Councilman Wood asked if an evaluation of this particular corner that was being platted had been cross-checked with a no center lane in the proposed road. Mr. Albin stated it had been checked. Mr. Albin stated the preliminary plan right now was not to provide a left hand turn into Block 4 of this particular platting, you would be able to turn into Block lR. The center turn lane would become a south bound thru lane about 250 feet north of the intersection of Loop 820 and Rufe Snow. Councilman Wood stated he felt the Council was approving a plat which basically was a series of lines drawn on a map which was surveyed on a piece of ground. Councilman Wood stated that at this time, other than the verbal comments in the Planning and Zoning hearing no one was aware of what type of facil ity other than a II Gulf station" would be placed there. Councilman Wood stated his concern was more to the self-service station selling groceries and such. Councilman Wood stated the question in his mind was if that type of facility would be the appropriate use of that corner. Mayor Faram stated he believed the enterprise would stay with the commercial zoning that now existed. Councilman Wood stated that in the past the city had required other businesses to show basically what they had in mind in green belts, structure and appearance. Mayor Faram advised that Mr. Delbert Stembridge, engineer, for the. plat in question was present and with the Council IS permlsslon he would ask Mr. Stembridge to speak. Mr. Stembridge, 3729 Flory, Engineer, appeared before the Council. Mr. Stembridge stated he would attempt to answer any questions. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Stembridge if he knew of any plans for a green-belt area. Mr. Stembridge stated that as far as he knew there were no plans for a green-belt. Mr. Stembridge stated this was a tract of land that Gulf Oil Corporation was considering buying and the sale was contingent on the approval of the final plat. Councilman Brady stated he thought the question was if there was going to be a gas station with six or eight pumps or more of a grocery store. Mr. Stembridge stated he did not know what Gulf planned to build. September 15, 1980 Page 2 Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to postpone action on this request until the next Council meeting and someone from Gulf be present at the meeting to determine what type of building would be at the location. Motion carried 5-1; Councilmen Freeman, Kenna, Hubbard and Wood and Councilwoman Groves voting for; Councilman Brady voting against. 6. Mayor Faram advised the Council the Planning and Zoning had recommended approval of this request. Mayor Faram advised the Council that Mr. Jim Stevens was here in interest of item 6 and item 19. With the Council's permission he would like to move item 19 behind item 6 because Mr. Stevens had another commitment. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded byCounci 1 man Kenna, to approve PS 80-31. Motion carried 6-0. 19. Mr. Jim Stevens, Stevens-Owen Company, appeared before the Council. Mr. Stevens stated the nature of the agreement was to get into the Industrial Park from Industrial Park Boulevard at the railroad crossing. Mr. Stevens stated the developers would be paying for the crossing. Mayor Faram asked if the total cost would be paid by the developers. Mr. Stevens replied yes. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilwoman Groves, to approve the authorization for the Mayor to sign the agreement with the provision that the letter from Oak Grove dated September 10, 1980,be a part of said agreement. Motion carried 6-0. 7. Mayor Faram opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. John Barfield, 416 Loulla, Hurst, appeared before the Council. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he had any objections to holding the public hearing at this time on all three of his requests. September 15, 1980 Page 3 PS 80-31 - REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2, and LOT 1, BLOCK 3, INDUSTRIAL PARK ADDITION APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN ST. LOUIS SOUTH- WESTERN RAILWAY CO. AND THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING - PZ 80-21, REQUEST OF JOHN BARFIELD TO REZONE PORTIONS OF TRACTS 3A, 3B, 4A, & 5, BRENTWOOD ESTATES FRDr1 AGRICULTURE TO 1F-8-1400-0NE FAMILY DWELLING Mr. Barfield stated he had no objections. Mr. Barfield stated this property was located at the far end of the city. This property contained 180 acres. Mr. Barfield stated he and Mr. Doug Long had met about a month ago with city staff and some of the Council members to try and work out any questions or problems with the zoning request. Mr. Barfield stated that if this zoning request was approved, his next step would be to profile the sewer to serve the subdivision. Mr. Barfield stated the water was already available. Councilman Hubbard stated several things were covered in the meeting with Mr. Barfield and Mr. Long. Councilman Hubbard stated that Mr. Barfield had discussed the possibility of a temporary fire station on Block 14, Lot 8. Councilman Hubbard stated that Mr. Barfield had expressed the point that he would be willing to go along with the station at his cost. Councilman Hubbard stated he assumed that meant the cost of the property and cost of construction of the building. Mr. Barfield stated that was his intention. Councilman Hubbard stated he had talked to Mr. Kenneth Payne with the Keller School District and he had told him there was no way his school system could take care of this amount of people, unless some agreement could be worked out where the school system could purchase a minimum of ten acres for a school building. Councilman Hubbard asked Mr. Barfield if there was anywhere in this tract that he could see fit to sell ten acres to the school district. Mr. Barfield stated he had sold two sites in the past to school districts and could see no reason why he could not work out something on this tract. Councilman Hubbard stated that Mr. Barfield was requesting IF-8 zoning, but had agreed that he would put 50% of the lots at 9,000 square feet. Mr. Barfield stated that was correct. Councilman Hubbard stated the type of fire station that would be built was to be a house built along Davis Boulevard and look exactly as the homes in the area with the entrance coming off Davis Boulevard with the garage doors to service the fire trucks and in the future the city could sell it as a residence if not needed for a fire station. September 15, 1980 Page 4 September 15, 1980 Page 5 Mr. Barfield stated the station would be a residence as such, it would be just like the rest of the residences. Councilman Hubbard stated that Mr. Barfield had also agreed that if the request was approved that a stipulation would be placed on the ordinance that 50% of the lots would be 9,000 square feet. Mr. Barfield stated that was correct. Councilman Brady asked Mr. Barfield the earliest date he would start developing homes. Mr. Barfield stated not knowing how long it would take to work out the sewer line, he was sure some easements would have to be secured. Mr. Barfield stated if they could secure the easements he hoped that in a year to a year and one-half from now that he would be able to have a developed lot. Mr. Barfield stated he would develop in phases, probably twenty acres a phase. Councilman Brady asked Mr. Barfield considering the size of the houses and the time frame, what he thought the home would sell for. Mr. Barfield stated he had some 1,400 square foot homes in Stoneybrook and they were selling between $63,000.00 and $69,000.00 depending on the plan and lot size. Mr. Barfield stated that by the time the homes were built in Brentwood Estates and they continued to escalate as they have in the past they would sell for around $75,000. Councilman Brady asked Mr. Barfield if he felt that in one to two years he would be able to sell that size house at that price. Mr. Barfield stated that at the present time that was about the only market he had. Mr. Barfield stated he was selling 1,400 to 1,500 square foot homes in Crestwood. PZ 80-22 was heard at this time. PUBLIC HEARING - PZ 80-22, REQUEST OF JOHN BARFIELD TO REZONE PORTIONS OF TRACTS 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, BRENTWOOD ESTATES FROM AGRICULTURE TO COMt~ERCIAL Mr. Barfield stated this property was located at the intersection of Highway 1938 and Shady Grove Road. Mr. Barfield stated he was asking for commercial zoning on that section of property. September 25, 1980 Page 6 Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he could settle for any zoning less than commercial. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield what his plans for the property were. Mr. Barfield stated he planned to build a shoppi~g center. Mayor Faram asked if local retail zoning would satisfy those needs. Mr. Barfield asked if a fire station could be built in local retail. Mayor Faram stated you did not have to have zoning for a fire station. Certain things were exempt from zoning. Mayor Faram stated that in his opinion there were certain things under commercial zoning that would be undesirable for a neighborhood. Councilman Wood read from the Zoning Ordinance what businesses was allowed in local retail. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he could reduce his request to local retail. Mr. Barfield stated he saw no problem with local retail zoning. Mayor Faram called for anyone present wishing to speak in opposition of the requests to please come forward. Mrs. Nancy Simmons, 8725 Stewart, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Simmons stated she was here to say mainly that the homes Mr. Barfield planned to build would bring in several more vehicles. Mrs. Simmons stated she did not think Shady Grove Road could handle the vehicles. Mrs. Simmons stated that the Shady Grove Road and Davis Boulevard was a dangerous intersection and if more homes were built it was going to bring more people trying to get off Shady Grove on to Davis. Mrs. Simmons stated she did not think the intersection could handle the traffic and Davis Boulevard could not handle it. Mrs. Simmons stated she had been here in the past and heard people talk of the drainage and sewer. One lady in particular that lived on Shady Grove could not get sewer. Mrs. Simmons asked Mr. Barfield if he would offer sewer to this lady. Mrs. Simmons stated the drainage ditches and bar ditches out in that part of town should be maintained by the city. When Mr. Barfield started building a lot of homes out there, there would be a lot of concrete and a lot of streets. Mrs. Simmon stated that normally agriculture land could take up a lot of water but when this water started running down the streets where would it go. Mrs. Simmons stated she heard that Mr. Barfield was willing to donate land for the school. Mrs. Simmons stated she was all for the school system but as it stands, the school could not handle the kids that would be brought in. Mrs. Simmons stated that as far as water was concerned, the water pressure was already bad. Mrs. Simmons stated she did not think Mr. Barfield should be allowed to build. City Attorney Rex McEntire present now. Mr. Charles E. Rojenau, 6929 Precinct Line Road, appeared before the Council. Mr. Rojenau stated the only thing he would like to add to what Mrs. Simmons said was that several weeks ago he was present in the discussing of the tax increase. Mr. Rojenau stated it was brought up at that meeting by the Council that industry was what brought in the tax revenue. Mr. Rojenau stated the building of small homes cost the city more to maintain than they received in taxes. Mrs. Stella Allison, 8209 Precinct Line Road, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Allison stated she had protested the road change Mr. Barfield planned before. Mrs. Allison stated Mr. Barfield proposed to change Shady Grove Road to meet up with McDonald School Road to come straight across. t1rs. Allison stated the road would come straight across her property and she still protested. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Faram closed the public hearing. September 15, 1980 Page 7 September 15, 1980 Page 8 8. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve PZ 80-21, Ordinance No. 841, with the stipulation a minimum of 50% of the lots be 9,000 square feet; Block 14, Lot 8, be available for a temporary fire station for the City of North Richland Hills and a minimum of 10 acres of land be made available for a Keller School District site below or at Mr. Barfield's cost. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 80-21 APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 841 Councilman Freeman stated that he would request that the Council look at this zoning from the stand point of the zoning map. The whole north end of that end of town had never been zoned. Councilman Freeman stated it was his feeling that by approving this zoning the Council would be in effect planning the north end of the city. Councilman Freeman stated that if you looked at the zoning map he would say you could propably put five or six subdivisions of the same size in. Councilman Freeman stated that if it was the Council's intention to plan the north end of town for smaller houses and smaller lots, which he considered a IF-8-14 a very small house in North Richland Hills, and he hoped the Council would take a hard look at this. Councilman Freeman stated he felt if this zoning was approved it would set a trend for the north end of the city. Councilman Brady stated he was in the opinion that the city needed to continue to develop. Councilman Brady stated it was apparent to him that the economic situations are such that they really were talking about some pretty expensive properties if the city stuck to something more than 1,400 square feet. Councilman Brady stated he recognized the validity of Councilman Freeman's suggestion about the possibility if this zoning was approved. Councilman Wood stated he would like to make some comments on ~1rs. Simmons' statements, some of whi ch had been answered by Councilman Brady. Councilman Wood stated the policy on sewer was quite clear. The city had a major sewer out-fall line which this system would bring on line probably for the first time since it had been lying in the ground. Councilman Wood stated he was not convinced that the city had a big drainage problem to the south of the property in question because there was a natural drainage system that the water was being put into. Councilman Wood stated that if the Council tried to limit the growth of the city or say there was no more room, that would be like asking Mr. Barfield to just pay his taxes and leave the city alone. Councilman Wood stated the Council did not have the right to tell people they could not come to North Richland Hills and build. Councilman Wood stated he was beginning to feel the same as Councilman Freemar., but in this case he thought it would behoove the Council to probably approve this particular zoning. Councilman Wood stated he would encourage the Council to draw a line in the near future. Councilman Wood stated that in this particular case he heard nothing that would not help the city but to grow in the right direction. Councilman Freeman stated he would like to respond to two things; the first one would be to Mr. Brady's economical conditions of the nation. Councilman Freeman stated he had been on the Council for three terms and that each zoning he had seen less than 9,000 square feet; the reason for downgrading the house size had been the economic conditions and the cost of housing. Councilman Freeman stated he felt strongly that what the Council was looking at tonight was the direction the city would be going in. Mayor Faram asked what time frame would be the starting and completion of the residential portion of the project. Councilman Brady stated Mr. Barfield had indicated he would have a house on the ground in 12 to 18 months. Mayor Faram stated the problem he found sometime zoning so far in advance was that you faced the problem of land use change. Mayor Faram stated he had tried for sometime to get the Council to come up with some type of idea that after a period of time if no action was taken on the lands that had been zoned then it should revert back to an original type zoning. Councilman Wood asked Mr. Barfield if he would agree to a termination date if the development did not materialize. Mr. Barfield stated he had no objections to the time limit. After further discussion, Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady to amend the motion to state the planning engineering and construction would begin within three years on homes of this clãssification. Amended motion carried 5-1; Councilmen Kenna, Wood, Hubbard, Brady and Freeman voting for; Councilwoman Groves voting against. Mayor Faram called for a vote on the original motion as amended. Motion carried by a vote of 4-2; Councilmen Wood, Brady, Kenna, and Hubbard voting for; Councilman Freeman and Councilwoman Groves voting against. September 15, 1980 Page 9 September 15, 1980 Page 10 9. Public hearing for PZ 80-22. (Held in conjunction with PZ 80-21) 10. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve Ordinance No. 842, with the stipulation the ordinance be changed to state "rezoned from agriculture to 1 oca 1 reta i 1 . II CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 80-22 APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 842 11. Public hearing for PZ 80-23. (Held in conjunction with PZ 80-21) Motion carried 5-1; Councilmen Kenna, Wood, Hubbard, Freeman and Brady voting for; Councilwoman Groves voting against. 12. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to approve PZ 80-23, Ordinance No. 843. Motion carried 5-1; Councilmen Kenna, Wood, Hubbard, Freeman and Brady voting for; Councilwoman Groves voting against. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 80-23 APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 843 13. Mayor Faram opened the public hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak in favor of this request to please come forward. Mr. John Barfield, developer, appeared before the Council . PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL HEARING - PZ 80-25, REQUEST OF JOHN BARFIELD TO REZONE A PORTION OF TRACT 2, ABSTRACT 1150 FROM AGRICULTURE TO IF-8-1400 Mr. Barfield stated this property was located to the north of the railroad tracks, east of Precinct Line Road and south of Amundson Road. Mr. Barfield stated that at this time the property was designed industrial. Mr. Barfield stated he had appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission and they denied the request for IF-8-1400. Mr. Barfield stated he talked with some of the people who lived in that area and it was their desire that houses be built rather than industrial. Mr. Barfield stated this property had also been discussed in the meeting with some of the Council members and city staff and he had agreed if the IF-8-1400 zoning request was approved he would mix the lot sizes. Mr. Barfield stated he felt the best use of the property would be residential. Mayor Faram stated he had heard some indication that Hurst wanted to undertake the improvement of Precinct Line Road. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if this had been discussed with him. Mr. Barfield stated it had not been discussed with him. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he would consider donating the necessary right-of-way for Precinct Line Road. Mr. Barfield stated he would dedicate the necessary right- of-way. Mr. Bill Ratliff, 9224 Amundson Road appeared before the Council. Mr. Ratliff stated he would like to speak in favor of this request. Mr. Ratliff stated his home was located directly across the street from this property. Mr. Ratliff stated he had presented the City Secretary with a petition signed by all but two of the property owners that have their homes facing this property. Mayor Faram stated this was an appeal hearing and would require all of the Council members present to vote affirmative. Mayor Faram stated he should have offered the applicant an opportunity to postpone untill all Council members were present. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Barfield if he would like to postpone action on this request until the entire Council was present. Mr. Barfield stated he would prefer to postpone until all Council members were present. Mayor Faram recessed the public hearing for the purpose of getting Council consideration for a postponement. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to postpone PZ 80-25 until October 13, 1980. Motion carried 5-0. 14. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to postpone items 14, 15, and 16, until October 13, 1980. Motion carried 6-0. 15. Postponed September 15, 1980 Page 11 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 80-25 POSTPONED PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL HEARING PZ 80-26, REQUEST OF JOHN BARFIELD TO REZONE A PORTION OF TRACT 2, ABSTRACT 1150, FROM AGRICULTURE TO LOCAL RETAIL POSTPONED 16. Postponed 17. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilwoman Groves, to approve Ordinance No. 844. Motion carried 6-0. 18. City Attorney McEntire stated that Lone Star Gas Company had filed an application with the city in April 1980. The city suspended the application and the period of time for suspension was up at the end of September. Mr. McEntire stated Lone Star put the rate into effect under bond after August 31, 1980. Mr. McEntire stated the increase would be approximately 5.5% to 6.6% on a monthly bill. Mayor Faram stated he had a request from Mr. Hick of Lone Star Gas Company to speak on this item. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Hicks if he needed to say something further. Mr. Hicks stated he concurred with the ordinance. Councilman Hubbard moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to approve Ordinance No. 845. Councilman Kenna stated he assumed Mr. McEntire was recommending the Council approve the ordinance. Mr. McEntire stated he recommended approval. Motion to approve carried 5-1; Councilmen Wood, Kenna, Freeman, Brady and Hubbard voting for; Councilwoman Groves voting against. City Attorney McEntire advised the Mayor he had another meeting to attend and needed to leave the meeting. Mayor Faram stated there was an ordinance on the agenda he felt the City Attorney would need to be present for. Mayor Faram asked for a motion to move item 22 to this point of the meeting. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to move item 22 to this point of the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. September 15, 1980 Page 12 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR PZ 80-26 POSTPOtJED CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 844 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE FOR REGULATING THE RATE AND CHARGES FOR LONE STAR GAS COMPANY ORDINANCE NO. 845 APPROV ED September 15, 1980 Page 13 / 22. Mr. Ron McKinney, Police Department, appeared before CONSIDERATION OF the Council. ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE Mr. McKinney stated the current Animal Control Ordinance POSTPONED No. 465, was extremly out-dated for a city the size of North Richland Hills. Mr. McKinney stated the new proposed Animal Control Ordinance had several main points that were very much needed to give the Police Department an effective tool and a legal basis to provide the service to the community that must be provided. The new ordinance provides a legal basis for the Animal Control Officer to pick up stray cats that have not been administered a rabies vaccination. The current ordinance does not speak to cats. Mr. McKinney stated that in talking with the Animal Control Officer cats were one of the main problems in the city. Mr. McKinney stated the new ordinance also established a maximum number of dogs and/or cats that each owner may have in their possession at one time. The ordinance establishes impoundment and recovery fees for impounded dogs and cats. The new ordinance requires that the owner of an impounded dog or cat show proof of vaccination before the animal will be released. The new ordinance provides for the recovery of estrays and establishes the fees for impoundment. Mr. McKinney stated the proposed ordinance provides a legal basis for the destroying of injured or diseased animals when the recovery of the diseased or injured animal was in serious doubt. Mr. McKinney stated the Animal Control Officer was certified through Texas A&M to recognize serious injury or diseased animals. Mr. McKinney stated the proposed ordinance established the maximum number of dogs and/or cats one owner could have in their possession. Mr. McKinney stated the limit was three dogs of four months of age plus one litter, or three cats four months of age plus one litter.or a combination of five dogs and/or cats. Mr. McKinney stated he felt if there was a problem the neighbors would complain. When there was a complaint the Animal Control Officer would investigate. This ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to approve Ordinance No. 846. Mr. Ray Roberts appeared before the Council. Mr. Roberts stated he concurred wi th Mr. t1cKi nney and the ordi nance except for one point, that being the number of dogs. Mr. Robert's stated a blanket number of dogs would be in violation of his rights. Mr. Roberts stated three dogs could be a nuisance if not handled properly. Mr. Roberts stated he felt that maybe the size of the lot, for instance, he lived in Smithfield and thought that some of his neighbors had cattle and horses and he thought the lot size should be taken into consideration. Mr. Roberts stated he had lived in North Richland Hills for seventeen years and now he did comply with the proposed ordinance because he only had three dogs. Mr. Roberts stated he had not had any' complaints from anyone in sev~ftt~~n years. September 15, 1980 Page 14 Mr. Roberts stated he respectfully asked that the ordinance be enforced, but not discriminate against those people that were responsible dog owners. Mr. William O'Conner appeared before the Council. Mr. O'Conner stated he was present at the February meeting when this ordinance was previously discussed. Mr. O'Conner stated he agreed with most of the conditions of the ordinance. Mr. O'Conner stated he was appalled with the fact that something is going to be done about stray cats. Mr. O'Conner stated that in his neighborhood stray cats was a serious problem. Mr. O'Conner stated the impounding and proof of rabies he totally agreed with. The destroying of dogs that were injured beyond the capability of recovery he agreed with. tire O'Conner stated he agreed with the method of enforcement up to one point and he felt like this law automatically defined a person that had three dogs or more a nuisance. Mr. O'Conner stated he did not agree with the three dog limit, he felt it was unfair. Mrs. Raux appeared before the Council. Mrs. Roux stated she felt this ordinance penalized the law abiding citizens. It takes into account that anyone with more than three dogs was irresponsible. Mrs. Roux stated she had five dogs. Mrs. Roux stated that every time she bought a dog she seriously considered if she could afford it. Mrs. Raux stated you did not step into several dogs lightly, but there had been many people who stepped into one dog lightly. t1rs. Roux stated the city had an adequate ordinance now and felt that if these ordinances were truly taken into consideration and the fines were heavy against the people that let their animals stray then it would be taken more seriously; people would not tend to let their dogs out. Mrs. Roux stated that if the city did not have an ordinance on cats, then write one for cats. Mrs. Raux stated there was no need to write a new ordinance when there was one in existence that would work. Mr. Jim Cato, 6729 Corona, appeared before the Council. Mr. Cato stated he spoke against the ordinance because it was bad legislation. Mr. Cato stated the city had an animal control ordinance, Chapter 4 in the City Code that covers horses, cows, goats and etc. Mr. Cato stated the present ordinance established a leash law, there was a provision against animals running at large. Mr. Cato stated it required rabies vaccination and spoke to the penalty on barking dogs; unsanitary or objectable premises and impoundment. t1r. Cato stated this proposed ordinance will not do several things he had heard discussed tonight. Mr. Cato stated that it would not take a single dog off the streets that the existing ordinance would not. Mr. Cato stated he could not see that the proposed ordinance would take a single cat off the streets. The proposed ordinance would not make owners keep their pets quiet. that was not addressed in the proposed ordinance at all but was in the present ordinance. Mr. Cato stated the proposed ordinance would not help against the fight of rabies, since vaccination was already required. Mr. Cato stated the confinement or quarantine of suspect of a rabies animal was not defined in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Cato stated some of the things in the new ordinance would do was require all rabies vaccinations to be administered by a license veterinarian. Mr. Cato stated that would prohibit most of the people, or mostly farm community people or those that had several animals from using the availabl.e vacine kit that was state certified. Mr. Cato stated the proposed ordinance would prohibit ownership of personal dogs trained for the protection of personal property, while dogs guarding commercial property were allowed. Mr. Cato stated it would reduce the time the pet owner had to get his pet from the pound. Mr. Cato stated the proposed ordinance would cause owners of more than three dogs or cats, regardless of how they were kept, to dispose of additional pets or attempt to rezone their home to commercial in order to obtain a kennel license. Mr. Cato stated the big question in his mind was it really the number of dogs that was the issue or was it the barking, running loose dogs that were objectional. Mr. Cato stated this ordinance was oppressive and harassing. Mr. Cato stated he thought the proposed ordinance was bad legislation and requested the Council to deny its passage. Mr. McKinney stated there were provisions in the proposed ordinance to allow citizens to have more than the five combination of dogs and cats by obtaining a kennel permit with an annual fee of $5.00. Mr. McKinney stated they were not trying to single out people by trying to get this ordinance passed. Mr. t1cKinney stated the problem that existed in the city necessitated the ordinance. Councilman Hubbard stated some people had the impression that three dogs was the maximum. Councilman Hubbard stated as he understood Article 3, Section 1, you could have five cats or five dogs, but could not have more than five total. Mr. McKinney stated he maintained that five and zero was not a combination. Mr. McKinney stated the first part of the ordinance states three dogs and one litter or three cats and one litter. This tells you how many you can have. Mr. McKinney stated a person could have five without anymore than three of either. Councilman Hubbard stated that Article 2, Section 1, stated "animals owned or harbored in violation of this ordinance or any other ordinance or law of the State of Texas shall be taken into custody by an animal control officer or other designated official and impounded. A suitable animal shelter shall be provided by the impounding agency for the purpose of boarding and caring for any animal impounded under the provisions of this ordinance. II Councilman Hubbard asked where in this city was that animal shelter located. September 15, 1980 Page 15 Mr. McKinney stated it had to be a suitable animal shelter and did not have to be in the city. Councilman Hubbard asked what animal shelter the city used. Mr. McKinney stated the city used the Humane Society in Fort ~Jorth. Councilman Hubbard stated Article 2, Section 6, stated in part, "any unspaded female dog or cat in the stage of estrus shall be confined during such period of time in a house, building, or secure enclosure. II Councilman Hubbard asked how this section could be enforced, you could not confine cats. Mr. McKinney stated if a cat was out and not confined, then it would be in violation of the ordinance. Councilman Hubbard asked Mr. McKinney if he would be receptive to Article 3, Section 1, defining a kennel and a $5.00 permit to read it would be unlawful for anyone to keep or be issued a permit for a kennel within 100 feet of another residence or occupied building. Mr. McKinney stated that as Article 3, Section 1, read now it would restrict to some degree the citizens rights that now have more than five dogs or cats. Mr. McKinney stated he would suggest that Tarrant County's guidelines be taken in regard to the requirements of a kennel and adopt them and amend the ordinance to accept Tarrant County's requirements. Councilman Hubbard stated he could not see where anything would be gained, everyone would just get a kennel license. Mr. McKinney stated if a problem existed, by a permit being issued, then the Chief of Police had the right to inspect the premises because it did have a permit whereas before the city would not have that right. Councilman Brady stated that Mr. Cato's comments were that the city had an ordinance that was adequate, if that was true why wasn't the present ordinance effective. Mr. McKinney stated the current ordinance did not provide a defination of terms which left a lot to be desired in interpreting each section of the ordinance. Mr. McKinney stated that the current ordinance did not speak towards cats. The current ordinance required that quarantine be fourteen days and it was ten days. Mr. McKinney stated the current ordinance did not define vicious animals. The proposed ordi nance defi nes vi ci ous animals. t1r. McKi nney stated the proposed ordinance provides for the tampering of equipment or traps that were put out by the animal control officer. Mr. McKinney stated the current ordinance did not provide for the injured or diseased animals to be destroyed. Mr. McKinney stated the present ordinance did not require that cats be vaccinated, but the proposed ordinance did which September 15, 1980 Page 16 was State law. Mr. McKinney stated there were several points in the proposed ordinance that needed to be acted upon. City Attorney McEntire stated the way he understood it, the provisions primarily opposed to were those that limit the number of dogs. Mr. McEntire stated he ~lOul d be happy to work with the citi zens and Mr. t·1cKi nney to try and come up with something that would be workable. Councilman Wood stated that Article 3, last line, Section 2, had the word trainers. Councilman Wood asked if the word trainers would be substituted to keep a person from getting involved in the zoning ordinance. Mr. McEntire stated that with the help of the citizens he would re-work the ordinance and bring it back to the Council. Councilwoman Groves asked what would be done about the dogs running at large. Mr. McKinney stated if there was a problem with a dog running at large it would be impounded. Councilwoman Groves asked if all dogs were required to have rabies shots. Mr. McKinney replied yes. Councilman Kenna asked how long after the ordinance was passed before everyone had to comply. Mr. McEntire stated ten days after publication. Councilman Kenna stated he would like to commend Mr. McKinney and anyone else that worked on the proposed ordinance. Councilman Kenna stated he felt the real problem had been brought to light and agreed with the people present tonight that you could not penalize the people who were animal fanciers and take care of them for the ones running loose in the street. Councilman Kenna stated he would like to recommend not approving this ordinance as it now stands. Councilman Freeman stated he would like to have the ordinance revised. Councilman Freeman stated the main problem seemed to be the number of dogs one could have. Councilman Freeman stated he felt the ordinance could be improved so that most everyone could live with it. September 15, 1980 Page 17 Mayor Faram stated he would suggest the ordinance be postponed until the October 13th meeting and instruct the City Attorney to get a workable ordinance. Councilman Kenna moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to postpone the ordinance until October 13, 1980, and instruct the City Attorney to construct a workable ordinance. Motion carried 6-0. 19. This item was heard after item 6. 20. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve Ordinance No. 947. Motion carried 6-0. 21. Councilman Hubbard movect, seconded by Councilman Kenna, to accept the alternate bid of FCM Apparatus Corporation in the amount of $107,352.00 for two fire trucks, contingent on assurance of receipt of Revenue Sharing. Motion carried 6-0. 22. This item was heard after item 18. 23. Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to approve payment to Joe R. Starks Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $41,736.74. Motion carried 6-0. September 15, 1980 Page 18 CONS I DERATION OF ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTI ON OF RIVIERA DRIVE APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. 847 CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR FIRE APPARATUS APPROVED CONSIDERATION OF FINAL PAYMENT FOR BURSEY ROAD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PAYABLE TO: JOE R. STARKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUrn OF $41,736.74 APPROVED 24. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of September 15, 1980. ADJOURNMENT _/\~ ~fft~ayor ATTEST: