The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-02-19 Joint Meeting CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19 , 1980 AT 7 : 30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET I. CALL TO ORDER � , II. INVOCATION - Reverend Reford Nash �, III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing relative to Zoning Application Z80-1 submitted by the City of Grapevine. B. City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing relative to Zoning Application Z80-3 submitted by Robert Hinson, Roy Stewart and Richard Eakins . C. City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing relative to Zoning Application Z80-4 submitted by Gordon Nettleton. D. City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing relative to Zoning Application Z80-5 submitted by the City of Grapevine. "� IV. END OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS �,.,� A. Planning & Zoning Commission to recess to the Civic Center to deliberate the merits of the Zoning cases and to consider other published agenda items . B. City Council to remain in session in the Council Chambers to consider further published agenda items . IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 , V.A.T. C. S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227 , ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1980 AT 4: 00 P.M. CI SEC T RY .�o / CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19 , 1980 AT 8 :00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET V. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES (February 5 , 1980) �_�� ' VI. CITIZENS REQUEST �.,,� VII. PUBLIC HEARING City Council to conduct a Public Hearing relative to an application submitted by Joe Wright to re- locate a house and consider a resolution pertaining thereto. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. City Council to consider an ordinance in relation to the City of Grapevine/City of Colleyville Boundary Contract regarding the disannexation of specific property. IX. NEW BUSINESS A. City Council to consider awarding the bid for the purchase of equipment for use in the Concourse Center. B. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Grapevine Tourist & Convention Bureau � relative to authorizing the City Attorney to draft a contract for services from the Dallas ' Tourist & Convention Bureau. �: � C. City Council to consider a resolution authorizing the City to give notice of intent to withdraw from the Social Security program. D. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to an application to locate a mobile home outside a mobile home park. X. ZONING CASES AND PLATS A. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to Zoning Application Z80-1 (City of Grapevine) and a subsequent ordinance. B. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to Zoning Application Z80-3 (Hinson, Stewart & Eakins) and a subsequent ordinance. � C. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to Zoning Application Z80-4 (Nettleton) and a subsequent ordinance. D. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to Zoning Application Z80-5 (City of Grapevine) and a subsequent ordinance. E. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission pertaining to the final replat of Oak Knolls Lakeview Addition. F. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to � the final plat of Parra Linda, Phase II. XI. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS �� Councilman Mullendore to address the Council relative to the City of Grapevine' s participation in the Regional Transportation System. XII. ADJOURNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 , V.A.T. C . S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227 , ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1980 AT 4: 00 P.M. C I S E TA Y -y� �E._ , �,,A� �� CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19 , 1980 AT 8 : 00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER - 311 MAIN STREET ' V. PUBLIC HEARING Planning & Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing relative to locating a mobile home out- side a mobile home park and make a recommendation to the City Council. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider Zoning Application Z80-1 (City of Grapevine) and make a recommendation to the City Council. B. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider Zoning Application Z80-3 (Hinson, Stewart & Eakins) and make a recommendation to the City Council. C. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider Zoning Application Z80-4 (Nettleton) and make a recommendation to the City Council . D. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider Zoning Application Z80-5 (City of Grapevine) � � and make a recommendation to the City Council . E. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider the "�'"'� final replat of Oak Knolls Lakeview Addition and make a recommendation to the City Council. F. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider the final plat of Parra Linda, Phase II and make a recommendation to the City Council. G. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider the preliminary plat of an area adjacent to Grapevine Industrial Park. H. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider the preliminary plat of Sunny Meadow Estates . VII. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES - (January 29 , 1980 February 7 , 1980) VIII. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSIONS IX. ADJOURNMENT ��_ . IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 , V.A.T.C.S . , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227 , ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE REGULAR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1980 AT 4:00 P.M. CI SE TA Y STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine met in Joint Session on this the 19th day of February, 1980 at 7 :30 P.M. in the Council Chambers , 413 Main Street with the following persons present to-wit : ' William D. Tate Mayor David A. Florence Mayor Pro Tem `�°� Ted R. Ware Councilman C. L. Oliver Councilman Charles Dunn Councilman William Shafer Councilman � Aulton Mullendore Councilman constituting a quorum with the following members of the Planning & Zoning Commission present to-wit: Duane Rogers Chairman Jerry Burgess Vice-Chairman Sharron Spencer Member R. 0. Stewart Member Robert Sands Member Harlen Joyce Member Ron Cook Member constituting a quorum with the following members of the City Staff present to-wit: James L. Hancock City Manager �- Bill Eisen Assistant City Manager / , Rayford Price Acting City Attorney �, , Shirley Armstrong City Secretary CALL TO ORDER Mayor Tate called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The Invocation was delivered by Reverend Reford Nash representing the First Presbyterian Church. WELCOME Mayor Tate welcomed those in attendance and introduced the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission. He then explained the pro- cedure to be followed in relation to the Public Hearings . ZONING APPLICATION Z80-1 The first order of business was for the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing relative to Zoning Application Z80-1 submitted by the City of Grapevine. �.� Mayor Tate declared the Public Hearing open. �, City Manager Jim Hancock gave a brief history noting that upon requests by concerned citizens , the Council had instructed the City Staff to instigate the zoning case being considered. He then reviewed the seven tracts of land being considered for rezoning explaining the present zoning and the proposed requested zoning. I 02/19/80 Mayor Tate advised that during the course of the Public Hearing each tract would be considered separately or in sets of two where compatible. He then asked if there were guests present to speak for or against the zoning of Tract I or II. TRACTS I & II Mr. Richard Bowles addressed the Council and stated that he was an employee of the owner of Tracts One and Two. He advised that he would be opposed to any change in zoning from "C-2" � Community Business District at this time. Mr. Ron Dyer, Creekwood resident, commented that he was opposed �� to "C-2" zoning on Tracts One and Two and would prefer "C-1" Neighborhood Business District to add less traffic congestion. Councilman Dunn asked Mr. Bowles what his intended uses were for Tracts One and Two. He answered that approximately 35 , 000 square feet of the northern half of Tract Two was proposed for commercial usage (convenience store and laundry) and the re- mainder of the property was proposed multi-family uses . Mr. Dennis McGrath, resident of Oak Creek advised the Council that he was opposed to the previously mentioned commercial uses because of the proximity to the high school. Mr. Larry Lightner then addressed the Council and expressed his opposition to a change in zoning from "C-2" to "C-1" on Tracts One and Two. TRACTS III & IV Mayor Tate then asked if there were guests to speak in regard to Tracts Three and Four. � Mr. Lightner, owner of the property in question, advised �� that he preferred the northern two cul-de-sacs of Tract IV to be zoned "R-2" Two-Family Dwelling with the remainder of Tract IV to be rezoned to "R-1" Single Family Dwelling. Gloria Lorio, 2904 Southridge, asked the Council what assurances the public would have that Mr. Lightner would build single family on a portion of Tract IV if it was all zoned "R-2" . The Mayor answered that the Council would address that at the time the ordinance was drafted, explaining that a portion of Tract IV could be zoned single family and a portion zoned for duplex uses . He added that if the entire tract were to be I, rezoned to "R-2" Two-Family, there would be no assurances that ' any single family construction would take place. TRACT V There were no guests to speak in regard to the rezoning of Tract V. TRACT VI Mr. David Spalding, property owner of Twin Creek Cove, addressed � the Council noting that less than two years ago he approached the Council with a plat of Twin Creek Cove designed for duplex purposes which the Council and Planning & Zoning Comm- ission approved. He added that the water and sewer lines had ��` since been installed. Mr. Spalding advised that he would not oppose the zoning of Tract VI to be changed from "R-3" Multi- Family to "R-2" Two-Family, but that any other zon�,ng would create a hardship . 02/19/80 Mayor Tate then asked Mr. Spalding several questions relative to the development of the property as it related to the terrain of the land and the structure design of the proposed duplexes . Mr. Ron Dyer stated that "R-2" or "R-3" Zoning of the Twin Creek Cove addition would be totally inconsistent with the surrounding area and suggested that the Council consider "R-1" Single Family Dwelling. Mr. Dennis Moore, Creekwood resident, asked what restrictions would be imposed if the developer were allowed to widen the creekbed and � noted that his house was adjacent to the property in question. Mayor Tate advised that the intent of the developer was to request a variance from the Board of Zoning Adjustments to move the structures toward the cul-de-sac rather than re-routing the creek. It was also noted that in the event of an application to the Board of Zoning Adjustments , a Public Hearing would be necessary before which neighboring property owners would be notified. Councilmen Dunn and Mullendore asked several questions relative to the flow of the creek in regard to the subdivision and inquired as to the current state of development. Mr. Larry Lightner addressed the Council and requested that the Council consider at least "R-2" Multi-Family Zoning on the property in question, prim�rily because it fronts on a proposed major street. e�` TRACT �3'��• Mr. Ron Dyer addressed the Council and noted that he had no ob- jections in regard to rezoning the Creekwood Subdivision from "R-3" Multi-Family to "R-1" Single Family. He added, in anti- �°'�� cipation of a letter to be read later from Mr. Grantland, that � he would ask the Council to deny Mr. Grantland' s request that five �,� lots in the Creekwood Subdivision be allowed an "R-2" Zoning . The City Secretary then read the following six (6) letters into the record: February 4, 1980 Mr. Jim Hancock City Manager City of Grapevine P.O. Drawer 1547 Grapevine, Texas 76051 Dear Mr. Hancock: It has been brought to my attention that some of the homeowners in the Creekwood Estates Addition are rather upset that their homes were build on land that was zoned multi-family. This letter will serve to notify you of my intent �°~~� to join with any interested parties in getting the lots in Creekwood Estates according to the plat approved December 22, 1976 , and recorded in Volume 388-118 , Page 13 , rezoned to single family zoning with the exception of Lots 1 and 2 , Block l; and Lots 1 , 2 , and 3 , Block 3 of same. If I can be of any assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, B.M. Grantland President 02/19/80 February 15, 1980 City of Grapevine Grapevine, Texas 76051 Attention: Ms . Shirley Armstrong City Secretary Regarding: CREEKWOOD ESTATES ZONING PETITION � (minutes-January 8, 1980) Dear Ms. Armstrong: �� As the owner of record of two tracts of land described in the attached survey and filed (Volume 685 , Page 247) December 13 , 1979 in the Deed of Records of Tarrant County, we are opposed to the City of Grapevine changing the current C-2 zoning designation in our property to any other designation. We would like to have this letter incorporated into the minutes of the next Public Hearing to be held February 19 , 1980. Thank you, Sincerely, Richard Bowles VP-Unitrek Corporation � February 18 , 1980 .� To : City Officials and Members of the � City Council of the City of Grapevine �� This is to advise you as to my feelings regarding the multi-family zoning and construction of apartments along Timberline and the potential problems of such as I see them. As a homeowner in Oak Creek Estates , I 'm extremely concerned with the potential impact of multi-family zoning along Timberline. I feel that increased con- ', struction of apartments in this area will impose upon �, existing homeowners additional tax burdens , decreased ' property values , intensify an already atrocious traffic situation and possibly increase the rate of crime. I do not challenge the right of an individual to dispose of his property or use such property as he sees fit, so long as such disposition and/or use is in the best interests , promotes the general welfare of the citizens of the political body involved, and preserves the values of adjacent properties . In this case, the developer apparently has a substantial investment in the property under dispute and is certainly �► entitled to due consideration. On the other hand, I feel that collectively all of the homeowners in Oak Creek, The Vineyard, and Creekwood also have a tremendous property ��. value investment which could easily diminish along with a style of living that we have grown accustomed if additional apartment construction is permitted. 02/19/80 I feel that during the 1980 decade a tremendous growth trend will be experienced by the Grapevine area. If such proves to be the case, wise and prudent zoning and City planning must be developed to insure that our City does not become a "patchwork" situation. I further feel that the City government, the citizens , and developers alike should take responsible and logical positions in an attempt to make Grapevine an attractive location for both business and residential. With the above in mind, I urge you, the City Council, to consider the appeals of all individual homeowners and �� representatives of homeowners ' associations prior to rendering and further final decisions in the direction of additional apartment construction along Timberline. John T. Eubanks 2893 Canyon February 19 , 1980 To : The City of Grapevine In growing cities that I have observed, I have noted that one of the most effective tools for planned growth, especially in areas where single family residences join multi-family units , is the use of zoning that regulates the number of multi-family units per acres. Such zoning as applied to Grapevine would mean an ex- pansion of the current R-3 zoning to several increments , i. e. : �. , R-3 = four-plexes 5' R-4 = 8 - 16 units per acre �- � R-5 = 16 - 25 units per acre R-6 = 26 - 35 units per acre etc. Such zoning would allow low density multi-family close to primary single family developments yet permit high density in areas that could handle the additional demands placed on city facilities by high density. It is my hope that a plan similar to this or one with the same results be adopted by the City of Grapevine. Sincerely, Lou Hillman Broker 2904 Southridge Drive Grapevine, Texas 76051 �..:� Tuesday, February 19 , 1980 City of Grapevine 413 Main Street Grapevine, Texas 76051 Dear City of Grapevine : As a citizen of Grapevine, I wish to express my concern regarding the zoning plans for the entire city and most particularly the area of Timberline Drive. This would be the zoned areas between Highway 157 and Mustang Drive, platted or unplatted on either side of Timberline. I would wish for a more restrictive zoning. 02/19/80 As a school teacher at Colleyville Elementary, I am concerned about the teacher pupil ratio. The high density currently planned for the multi-family dwellings on Timberline, will overload the existing Elementary school on that street. It is my opinion that the minimum square footage be raised as well as the standards and requirements of construction. I am not opposed to apartments if they ""� are low density and constructed in a manner that is environmentally pleasing as well as structurally sound. However, I do not feel that the area presently * �# zoned R-3 should remain so as there is also a need for more residental, townhouses , duplexes , and condo- miniums , not to mention a buffer zone between R-3 and the present residental section. I don' t want to see Grapevine ruined by indiscriminate planning which may result in property value decreases . In particular, I 'm concerned with the Oakcreek area if Timberline becomes an apartment dumping ground for the city. I feel it is time we look again at the overall master plan for Grapevine. It seems the present city plan, revised in 1974, is outdated with the present growth rate of Grapevine. Sincerely, Gloria Lorio February 18 , 1980 � �Dear Grapevine City Council : It is our opinion that Grapevine needs apartments and lower priced housing facilities to accomodate the rapid growth of our area. However, I feel that it is up to our City Council to plan these areas of apartments in conjunction with the existing homes and businesses . The apartments and proposed building of apartments in the Timberline Road area do not correspond with the existing homes . There is a potential problem with traffic, lowering value of homeowner property and several other problems that have been pointed out to you previously. It is stated in the Master Plan dated 1974-1994 that our area along Timberline Road has been planned as low density residential, 10-20 persons per acre. I honestly feel that the entire area of Grapevine needs to be re-evaluated on the Master Plan as we have grown considerably since it was originated. Grapevine has the potential to become a greater city than it already is , but we must all work together in planning and utilizing the land to its fullest extent. We should not disrupt the existing homes and businesses without first giving it the utmost consideration. b' There are areas of Grapevine that could well accomodate apartments and would perhaps be a much more desired setting for high density living rather than this particular area. I would appreciate your consideration of this problem. Thank you, Dianne Dodson 2823 Canyon 02/19/80 Councilman Dunn commented that some consideration should be given to the fact that there is , at the present time, a large amount of multi-family zoning in the relatively small area of the City where this zoning application is concentrated. There being no further discussion, Member Harlen Joyce made a motion to close the Planning & Zoning Commission' s portion of the Public Hearing. The motion was duly seconded by Vice- �. , Chairman Jerry Burgess and prevailed by the following vote : Ayes : Rogers , Burgess , Stewart, Spencer, Sands , Joyce, & Cook ��.� Nays : None Councilman Dunn then made a motion, seconded by Councilman Oliver that the Council ' s portion of the Public Hearing be closed. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, & Mullendore Nays : None PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING APPLICATION Z80-3 , HINSON, STEWART, EAKINS The next order of business was for the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing relative to Zoning Application Z80-3 submitted by Robert Hinson, Roy Stewart and Richard Eakins . Mayor Tate declared the Public Hearing open. The City Secretary explained that the property in question was approximately 2. 42 acres located on the southeast corner of Highway 114 and West Northwest Highway. She further noted that the property had been subdivided into several tracts of land �"#-� with "C-2" Community Business District Zoning being requested � ; on Tract A, and "I-1" Light Industrial District Zoning being requested on Tracts B and C. A brief history was then given �� advising that under the present zoning of "SP" Specific Use Permit, the new property owners could not be issued a building permit because the existing zoning was issued in relation to a site plan that could no longer be followed since the property has been subdivided. Mr. Robert Hinson, owner of Tract A stated that it was his intent to relocate his present decorating business to the south portion of his tract and to sell the northern portion for commercial development. Mr. Stewart and Mr. Eakins, owners of Tracts B and C respectively advised that they would construct buildings with office fronts and storage/warehouse facilities in the rear of each building. They both noted that they anticipated some outside storage of vehicles. Mr. Bill Waxenburg, associated with the Lutheran Congregation advised that he did not oppose the "C-2" Community Business zoning request, but that he was concerned about an industrial zoning on Tracts B and C. He asked that the Council and P & Z �{°"� consider a Specific Use Permit on those two tracts . Mrs . Tillery, a neighboring property owner, asked several questions regarding the proposed construction. She then ad- vised that she would not oppose the zoning request if a screening fence was provided and if the drainage problems would be accommodated. Councilman Dunn then asked applicants Stewart and Eakins if they would be opposed to a "SP" Specific Use Permit zoning on their tracts . They answered they would not object. 02/19/80 I� There being no further discussion, Member Robert Sands made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Jerry Burgess to close their portion of the Public Hearing. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Rogers , Burgess , Stewart, Spencer, Sands , Joyce & Cook Nays : None Councilman Mullendore then made a motion to close the Council ' s '"�" portion of the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ware and prevailed by the following vote : �,x� Ayes : Tate, Florence,Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, & Mullendore Nays : None PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING APPLICATION Z80-4, NETTLETON The next order of business was for the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing relative to Zoning Application Z80-4 submitted by Gordon Nettleton. Mayor Tate declared the Public Hearing open and called upon the City Secretary to explain the application. She noted that the application was filed by Mr. Gordon Nettleton on behalf of Peach Street Joint Venture. Mrs . Armstrong then advised that the property in question was approximately 0. 5248 acres located at 211 Peach Street and was presently zoned "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District with the requested zoning being "R-3" Multi-Family Dwelling District. Mr. Nettleton addressed the Council and stated that the property on the west side of the tract in question was already zoned ,,,� "R-3" and that the requested zoning was an effort to gain an � additional 200 ' of Multi Family Zoning. Upon questions by the Council, it was noted that both duplexes and apartments �°�+ were proposed for the site. The City Secretary advised that she was in receipt of one petition which was read into the record as follows : February 19 , 1980 We the below signed Property Owners Do Not want the zoning changed on the property descri�ecfiin the Zoning Application Z80-4. Being West 200 feet of Tract (13) , A.F. Leonard Survey. (General Location) 211 W. Peach. We the below signed property owners , own property lying within two hundred feet of the property on which the change is requested. If the zoning is changed on this property we are afraid it will be harmful to our property because of the following reasons : 1. We are afraid it will lower the � value of our property. 2. We feel Peach Street is too �R=�� narrow, too heavily traveled, and in too much need of repair to add more congestion and traffic . 3 . We feel that so many people living so close together will cause extra noise and problems that we don' t want or need. 02/19/80 4. The sewer along Peach is very old and we feel that it will not accommo- date the new apartments . The petition was signed by 10 property owners. There being little discussion, Member Harlen Joyce made a motion �.� to close the Planning & Zoning' s portion of the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Member Robert Sands and prevailed by the following vote: �'� Ayes : Rogers , Burgess , Stewart, Spencer, Sands , Joyce & Cook Nays : None Mayor Pro-Tem Florence then made a motion to close the Council ' s portion of the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Councilman Oliver and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence,Ware,Oliver,Dunn, Shafer, and Mullendore Nays : None PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING APPLICATION Z80-5 , CITY OF GRAPEVINE The next order of business was for the City Council to conduct a Public Hearing relative to Zoning Application 80-5 submitted by the City of Grapevine. The City Secretary explained the location of the property in question and .noted that in 1976 a Specific Use Permit Zoning was obtained on _ the property allowing numerous uses in the Multi- Family category. Upon submission of a duplex plat, by the developer, the City Council instructed the City Staff to submit � � a zoning application to zone the property solely for duplex purposes to conform with the intended use. She then stated that the developer, Mr. Tim Lancaster, was in agreement with �'"` the zoning change. There were no guests present to speak for or against the application. There being little discussion, Vice-Chairman Jerry Burgess made a motion to close the Planning & Zoning Commission' s portion of the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Member Robert Sands and prevailed by the following vote : Ayes : Rogers , Burgess , Stewart, Spencer, Sands , Joyce & Cook Nays : None Councilman Mullendore then made a motion to close the Council ' s portion of the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro-Tem Florence and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Oliver , Dunn, Shafer, & Mullendore Nays : None END OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS �� The Planning and Zoning Commission then recessed to the Civic Center to deliberate the merits of the zoning cases and to consider other published agenda items . Mayor Tate noted that the City Council would take a brief recess and then reconvene in the Council Chambers . Following the recess , Mayor Tate called the meeting back to order with all members of the City Council in attendance. 02/19/80 II MINUTES - February 5 , 1980 The next order of business was consideration of the Minutes of February 5, 1980. Councilman Oliver made a motion to waive the reading of the Minutes and approve them as published. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shafer and prevailed by the following vote: � Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer & Mullendore Nays : None �� ORDINANCE - BOUNDARY, GRAPEVINE/COLLEYVILLE The next order of business was for the City Council to consider an ordinance in relation to the City of Grapevine/City of Colleyville Boundary Contract regarding the disannexation of specific property. City Engineer, Jim Baddaker advised that the City of Grapevine has requested from the City of Colleyville field notes and ordinances in relation to the disannexation/annexation process so that legal descriptions could be verified. He further noted that to date, that information has not been provided. He added that it was the recommendation of the City Staff that the item be tabled until the proper information could be obtained and verif ied. There being little discussion, Councilman Mullendore made a motion that consideration of the ordinance be tabled until the necessary information has been received for review. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ware and prevailed by the following vote: � Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer & Mullendore A� Nays : None � PUBLIC HEARING, JOE WRIGHT, RELOCATION OF HOUSE The next order of business was for the City Council to conduct a Public Hearing relative to an application submitted by Mr. Joe Wright to relocate a house and consider a resolution per- taining thereto. The applicant, Joe Wright explained that it was his desire to relocate a frame house from its present location in the western section of the City to his property on the northeast ' corner of Lipscomb and Forest Street. He added that the house ' would be repainted. The City Secretary advised that she was in receipt of a petition from neighboring property owners which was read into the record as follows : February 16 , 1980 Re: APPLICATION �kHMA80-1 RELOCATION OF A HOUSE We, the property owners around the proposed site of a house relocation by Mr. Joe L. Wright (Lot 7 , '�'�` Block 5 of the W. C. Lucas Addition) , respectfully submit that this matter be postponed until present existing conditions are dealth with. 02/19/80 l. Refer to the enclosed map. The "existing house" , owned by Mr. Wright, is nothing but a burned out shell. It burned over five years ago, and at present is a dangerous eyesore. Many complaints have been lodged with the city which have been ignored by Mr. Wright. 2. Directly east of the proposed site is an abandoned house, also owned by Mr. Wright. This house is boarded up with plywood, making it a dangerous �..� eyesore also. 3. The properties owned by Mr. Wright in the immediate area of the Lucas Addition are poorly kept. The lots are never mowed, providing ample coverage for snakes and wild animals . There are several in- operable vehicles parked on the corner lot. These too are dangerous eyesores . When these matters are dealt with, and when the property owners are allowed to view the house in question, we will be glad to meet and discuss the application. Respectfully, Note: The above petition was signed by six (6) property owners . Mr. Wright was then given an opportunity for rebuttal during which he stated that the burned house had been gutted with the intention of remodeling. He noted that children of the neighbor- �, hood had made their own attempt to remodel the house for him. He added that he had no knowledge of the inoperable vehicles . Mr. l� Wright stated that his son would be living in the relocated house � and it was his hope that the area could be improved by the pre- .sence of his family and the protection of existing property. There being no further discussion, Mayor Pro-Tem Florence made a motion to close the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, & Mullendore Nays : None The City Secretary then read the proposed resolution in regard to the application. Councilman Dunn moved in light of Mr. Wright' s comments , that the resolution be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Oliver and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, & Mullendore Nays : None RESOLUTION N0. 80-13 �,,� A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AUTHORIZING THE RELOCATION OF A HOUSE, PROVIDING FOR A NON-TRANSFERABLE PERMIT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ' 02/19/80 BIDS - CONCOURSE EQUIPMENT The next order of business was for the City Council to consider awarding the bid for the purchase of equipment for use in the Concourse Center. Assistant City Manager , Bill Eisen advised that the bid was „�,,, for the purchase of furniture, china and flatware. He added that although invitations were mailed to prospective bidders , only one bid was received from Watson Food Service Industries , Inc. , in the amount of $24, 666 . He added that it was the ""`� feeling of the City Staff that it was not in the best interest of the City to accept the bid. He then recommended that the City Council reject the bid received and authorize the City Staff to negotiate with area vendors to obtain the items re- quired at the most reasonable price. Mr. Eisen added that it was essential that the items be purchased as quickly as possible to accommodate reservations already made for the center. The City Secretary then read the caption of the proposed resolution. Mayor Pro Tem Florence then made a motion to adopt the resolu- tion to reject the bid of Watson Food Service Industries , Inc. , in the amount of $24, 666 and to authorize the City Staff to negotiate for the items required at the most reasonable price . The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence, Oliver, Ware, Shafer, Dunn, & Mullendore Nays : None � RESOLUTION N0. 80-12 �� A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS REJECTING THE BID RECEIVED RELATIVE TO EQUIPMENT FOR THE CONCOURSE CENTER; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AWARD THE BID ON A NEGOTIATED BASIS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONTRACT - DALLAS TOURIST & CONVENTION BUREAU The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau relative to authorizing the City Attorney to draft a contract for services from the Dallas Tourist and Convention Bureau. Mr. Scott Tarwater, Executive Director of the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau advised that, on behalf of the recommenda- tion of his bureau, they would like to enter into an agreement with the Dallas Tourist and Convention Bureau from March 1 , 1980 to the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 1980. He explained that the purpose of the contract was to allow Dallas to pro- vide for Grapevine, The Airport Marina Hotel , and all other tourist attractions in Grapevine, their computer bank and the listing of over 100 , 000 qualified sales leads pertaining to organizations in need of ineeting and convention sites . He �..�„ further stated that a monthly fee of $2 , 000 would be paid to the Dallas Tourist and Convention Bureau for access to this information. Following numerous questions from the Council , Mr. Tarwater noted that the program would be entered into on an experimental basis to insure that the investment was worthwhile. 02/19/80 Councilman Dunn asked if sufficient records would be kept during the trial period to determine what meetings were generated as a direct result of the service so that some evaluation could be determined as to the value of the program. Mr. Tarwater answered "yes" . Mr. Tarwater then pointed out other advantages to being involved in the project. Following a short discussion, Councilman Mullendore made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Grapevine Tourist � and Convention Bureau and enter into a contract with the Dallas Tourist and Convention Bureau for a trial period of six months at $2000 per month effective March 1 , 1980 . The motion was seconded by Councilman Ware and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Ware, Oliver, Shafer, Mullendore and Dunn Nays : Mayor Pro-Tem Florence RESOLUTION - WITHDRAWAL SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM The next order of business was for the City Council to consider a resolution authorizing the City to give notice of intent to withdraw from the Social Security program. Assistant City Manager Bill Eisen explained that currently, City employees were contributing to two retirement programs. He added that the present law allows cities to withdraw from the system if they give two years notice. He advised that approval of the resolution would keep the options of the City open should the Social Security Act be amended to prevent future withdrawals � , and further advised that this action would not obligate the City to withdraw at the end of two years if the employees at that �,3� time were opposed. He added that near the end of two years , an �_-� in depth study would be made to determine whether or not it would be in the best interest of the City employees to withdraw from the program. A lengthy discussion followed among members of the Council during which concern for the welfare of City employees was ex- pressed. It was the general concensus of the Council that employees be given an opportunity to make the decision and that their best interest be thoroughly researched prior to final withdrawal from the Social Security program. The City Secretary then read the caption of the proposed resolution. Councilman Oliver made a motion that the resolution be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Ware, Florence, Oliver, Shafer, Dunn Nays : Councilman Mullendore � RESOLUTION N0. 80-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS DECLARING THE "'�' CITY' S INTENT TO WITHDRAW FROM PARTICI- PATION IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM; AND DIRECTING THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION AND AN ACCOMPANYING LETTER BE SENT TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. 02/19/80 ' REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM - GRAPEVINE' S PARTICIPATION The next order of business was for Councilman Mullendore to address the Council relative to the City of Grapevine ' s participation in the Regional Transportation System. Councilman Mullendore, who has been actively participating in the planning by the Lone Star Transportation Authority, introduced a resolution requesting that the Lone Star ,.�,, Transportation Authority include in their service plan, accommodations ,both short and long range, for the northeast quadrant of Tarrant County. Following a short discussion among the Council Members , the City Secretary read the caption of the proposed resolution. Councilman Dunn made a motion that the resolution be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shafer and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Dunn, Shafer, Oliver & Mullendore Nays : None RESOLUTION N0. 80-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE GRAPEVINE AREA; DETERMINING BOTH SHORT RANGE AND LONG RANGE REQUESTS , AND PROVIDING THAT A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BE PROVIDED THE LONE STAR TRANS- PORTATION AUTHORITY. MOBILE HOME APPLICATION - PETE PIATAK �"""�! The next order of business was for the City Council to consider �� the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to an application to locate a mobile home outside a mobile home park. City Engineer, Jim Baddaker reported that the Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended denial of the application based upon not wanting to set a precedent toward living in construction authorized structures. The City Attorney advised the Council that when an applica- tion of this type is denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission, there is no action necessary by the Council. ZONING APPLICATION Z80-1 The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to Zoning Application Z80-1. Mayor Tate noted that upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, each tract would be acted upon individually followed by consideration of the respective ordinance. �`"" Tracts I and II rk,� City Engineer, Jim Baddaker reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended, by a vote of five to two, to leave Tracts I and II as presently zoned, "C-2" Community Business District Zoning. 02/19/80 Following a lengthy discussion, based primarily on traffic congestion and surrounding zoning and development, Councilman Mullendore made a motion to designate Tract I a zoning of "R-2" Two-Family Dwelling District. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ware and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, Oliver, & Ware Nays : None �.:� Councilman Oliver then made a motion that Tract II be designated a zoning of "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District. The motion was �N� seconded by Councilman Mullendore and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, Oliver & Ware Nays : None Tract III Mr. Baddaker reported that the Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously voted to recommend "R-2" Zoning on Tract III. Councilman Oliver made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and designate Tract III a zoning of "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, Oliver & Ware Nays : None Tract IV Mr. Baddaker reported that the Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District on �' " the northern two cul-de-sacs and "R-1" Single Family Dwelling �s District on the remainder of the tract. �:,n, Councilman Ware made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and designate a zoning of "R-2" Two Family Dwelling on the northern two cul-de-sacs with a designation of "R-1" on the remainder of the tract. The motion was seconded by Councilman Oliver. Councilman Dunn stated that he preferred the entire tract to be zoned "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District. Councilman Ware' s motion prevailed by the following vote : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Oliver, Shafer and Mullendore Nays : Dunn Tract V It was reported to the Council that the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District. Councilman Mullendore made a motion to accept the recommendation ��° of the Planning & Zoning Commission and designate Tract V a zoning category of "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shafer and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, Oliver & Ware Nays : None 02/19/80 Tract VI City Engineer Jim Baddaker reported that it was the unanimous recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission that Tract VI be designated "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District. The City Secretary advised that an official letter of protest �,,, had been submitted by the property owner stating that he would oppose "R-1" Zoning Category but would not oppose a designation of "R-2" . �:� A lengthy discussion centered around the Council' s ability to control the quality of construction in regard to duplex development. The Council was advised that control could be obtained through the issuance of a Specific Use Permit zoning category. Mayor Tate stated that he felt duplexes on the proposed site would have an awkward appearance if they were not carefully restricted as to height, quality, size and location. He added, however, that with the limited information available at the present time, he did not feel the Council was in a position to impose those restrictions . Councilman Oliver and Mullendore expressed a desire to give Mr. Spalding an opportunity to protect his interests by providing the informtion the Council would need to consider a Specific Use Permit. It was noted that Mr. Spalding could, at a later date, resubmit a zoning application. Councilman Dunn then made a motion that Tract VI be given a zoning designation of "R-I" Single Family Dwelling District. �; There was no second to the motion. � �� Mayor Pro Tem Florence then made a motion that the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission be accepted and that a designation of "R-2" be placed upon Tract VI. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ware and failed by the following vote: Ayes : Florence, Ware and Mullendore Nays : Tate, Oliver, Shafer and Dunn Councilman Dunn suggested a motion to table consideration of the rezoning. A formal motion to that effect was not voiced. Councilman Oliver then made a motion that Tract VI be designated ' a zoning of "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District and that if ' the owenr reapplies within ninety (90) days for "R-2" under specific site plans , that the zoning application filing fee will be waived. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ware and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Oliver, Ware, Shafer, Mullendore, & Dunn Nays : Mayor Pro Tem Florence � Tract VII Mr. Baddaker reported that the Planning & Zoning Commission � � unanimously recommended that the entire subdivision of Creekwood be designated "R-1" Single Family with the exception of lots one and two, block three. It was further noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended unanimously to rezone lots one and two, block three to "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District. 02/19/80 Councilman Oliver made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and designate the Creekwood Subdivision a zoning of "R-1" with the exception of lots one and two , block three which are to be designated "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence, Oliver, Ware, Dunn, Shafer, & Mullendore � a Nays : None �N; .. ORDINANCE, ZONING APPLICATION Z80-1 The City Secretary then read the caption of the proposed ordi- nance in accordance with the aforementioned designations . Councilman Oliver made a motion that the ordinance be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ware and prevailed by the following vote : Ayes : Tate, Florence , Oliver, Ware, Dunn, Shafer, & Mullendore Nays : None ORDINANCE N0. 80-10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0 . 70-10 , THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME BEING ALSO KNOWN AS APPENDIX "A" OF THE CITY CODE OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON TRA.CTS OF LAND DESCRIBED AS BEING LOTS, TR.ACTS , OR PARCELS OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS , BEING � Y PARTS OF THE H. DECKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT ��438 , THE J. R. STEPHENS SURVEY, ABSTRACT i1 � � ��1490, AND THE J. S. BYRD SURVEY, ABSTRACT ��207 , MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A MAP ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" , ORDERING A CHANGE IN THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY AS FOLLOWS: TRACT I FROM "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO "R-2" TWO FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT. TRACT II FROM "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO "R-2" TWO FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT . TRACT III FROM "R-3" MULTI FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "R-2" TWO FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT. TRACT IV FROM "R-3" MULTI FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "R-2" TWO FAMILY DWELLING DYSTRICT ON THE TWO PLATTED CUL-DE-SACS ON THE NORTHERN �° END OF THE SUBJECT TRACT AND FROM "R-3" MULTI FAMILY DWELLING DIS- TRICT TO "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT ON THE REMAINDER OF THE TR.ACT. TRACT V FROM "R-2" TWO FAMILY DWELLING DIS- TRICT TO '"R-1" SINGLE FAMTLY DWELLING DISTRICT. 02/19/80 TRACT VI FROM "R-3" MULTI FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT. TRACT VII FROM "R-3" MULTI FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "R-2" TWO FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT ON LOTS ONE AND �► TWO, BLOCK THREE, CREEKWOOD SUB- DIVISION, AND FROM "R-3" MULTI FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "R-1" ��„,:� SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT ON THE REMAINDER OF THE CREEKWOOD SUBDIVISION. CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE : PROVIDING A CLAUSE RELATING TO SEVERABILITY; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND A ZONING CHANGE AND AMENDMENT THEREIN MADE; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilman Mullendore then thanked the City Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission and citizens for their efforts and concern during the procedure of the multiple zoning case. ZONING APPLICATION Z80-3 , ORDINANCE The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to Zoning Application Z80-3 and a subsequent ordinance re- lating thereto. ""� Mr. Baddaker reported that the Flanning & Zoning Commission „� �� voted four to three to approve the application as submitted. The City Secretary read the caption of the proposed ordinance. Following a lengthy discussion, Councilman Ware made a motion to rezone Tract A to "C-2" Community Business District Zoning and Tracts B and C to "SP" Specific Use Permit District pro- viding for offices and enclosed warehousing, outdoor parking of vehicles in a screened fenced area and further allowing all uses as permitted in the "C-2" Community Business District category. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore & Ware Nays : None ORDINANCE N0. 80-9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 70-10, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME ALSO KNOWN AS APPENDIX "A" OF THE CITY CODE OF GR.APE- "�'"" VINE, TEXAS, GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS BEING A PART OF BLOCK L, OAK KNOLLS LAKEVIEW ADDITION IN �� THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE, ORDERING A CHANGE IN THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY FROM "SP" SPECIFIC USE PERMIT DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF INDOOOR AND OUTDOOR WAREHOUSING AND INSIDE ASSEMBLY, INCLUDING ALL USES AS PERMITTED UNDER THE "C-2" COMNNNITY BUSINESS DIS- TRICT ZONING, FURTHER PROVIDING FOR A 02/19/80 SIX FOOT SCREENING FENCE ALONG THE MOST EASTERLY BOUNDARY, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO THE AMEND- MENT ORDINANCE; TO THE FOLLOWING: TRACT A TO "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING CATEGORY. TRACT B & C TO "SP" SPECIFIC USE PER- �. :- MIT DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR OFFICES AND ENCLOSED WARE- HOUSING, PROVIDING FOR OUT- DOOR PARKING OF VEHICLES IN A SCREENED FENCE AREA AND FURTHER ALLOWING ALL USES � PERMITTED IN THE "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT CATEGORY. CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A CLAUSE RELATING TO SEVERABILITY DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS , MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND A ZONING CHANGE AND AMENDMENT THEREIN MADE; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ZONING APPLICATION Z80-4, ORDINANCE The next order of business was for the City Council to consider ,�: .,, the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative � to Zoning Application Z80-4 and a subsequent ordinance relating � � thereto. ��:,� Mr. Baddaker advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the application as submitted with the condition that two large trees be saved. The City Secretary read the caption of the proposed ordinance. Following a lengthy discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Florence made a motion that the ordinance be adopted, The motion was seconded by Councilman Mullendore and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Oliver, Ware, Shafer, & Mullendore Nays : Councilman Dunn ORDINANCE N0. 80-7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 70-10 THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME BEING ALSO KNOWN AS APPENDIX "A" OF THE CITY CODE OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS BEING A LOT, TRACT, OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS , BEING A PART OF THE A. F. LEONARD SURVEY, ABSTRACT N0. 946 , IN THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE , TEXAS , MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; ORDERING A CHANGE IN THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "R-3" MULTI FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRE- 02/19/80 �I SERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ' ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A CLAUSE RELATING TO SEVERABILITY; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS , MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DE- MAND A ZONING CHANGE AND AMENDMENT THEREIN MADE; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ZONING APPLICATION Z80-5 , ORDINANCE � The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission re- lative to Zoning Application Z80-5 (City of Grapevine) and a subsequent ordinance relating thereto . Mr. Baddaker reported that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended unanimous approval of "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District as requested. The City Secretary read the caption of the proposed ordinance. Councilman Ware made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and adopt the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mullendore and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer & Mullendore Nays : None ORDINANCE N0. 80-8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 70-10, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME BEING ALSO �"' KNOWN AS APPENDIX "A" OF THE CITY CODE OF ��O GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS BEING A LOT, TRACT, OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING TRACT ONE, BLOCK FOUR, RIDGECREST ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS , MORE FUL�Y AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; ORDERING A CHANGE IN THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY FROM "SP" SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR MULTI FAMILY, TWO FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS; TO "R-2" TWO FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A CLAUSE RELATING TO SEVERABILITY; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND A ZONING CHANGE AND AMENDMENT THEREIN MADE; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. PLAT - OAK KNOLLS LAKEVIEW ADDITION '"'� The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission per- � ��*' taining to the final replat of Oak Knolls Lakeview Addition. Mr. Baddaker reported that the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the replat as submitted. He then provided the Council with copies of the replat and reviewed its contents . 02/19/80 Following a short discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Florence made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and approve the replat of Oak Knolls Lakeview Addition as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Ware and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Florence, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Ware, & Mullendore ��..r Nays : None FINAL PLAT - PARRA LINDA, PHASE II ��. . The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to the final plat of Parra Linda, Phase II. It was reported that the Planning & Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the plat as submitted. Mr. Baddaker provided the Council with copies of the plat and reviewed its contents . There being little discussion, Councilman Ware made a motion to approve the final plat of Parra Linda, Phase II as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed as follows : Ayes : Florence, Oliver, Dunn, Ware, Mullendore, & Shafer Nays : None Abstain: Mayor Tate ADJOURNMENT . ,�r� There being no further business to come before the Council , Councilman Dunn made a motion to adjourn. The motion was °?/ , seconded by Councilman Mullendore and prevailed by the �� following vote : Ayes : Tate, Florence, Oliver, Dunn, Ware, Mullendore & Shafer Nays : None PASSED & APPROVED ON THIS THE�day o , 1980. ..a... .��-�� MAYOR ATTEST: � C � _ .. � . - _ ' - ' II ---- L?-X�'.�.'ll • ' � "K-1" � STh�I.F, Ft�•;I:LY "F2-2" �� Z��J-f-'��•�TLY �:�� __ _ _ ___ � "R-3" I�I�� A;uLTI F'LE-F�=•1I LY �- � � �� /� ` ] { `". .Jtjl�� 11! _�tl �� LV✓�.l:�j.`1Ji�.:lJ�� '�A$N� H'vly. 171. ,J�ri; �" . , , ;� . � 1 f f 1 f i Y ...... C � Y" :iY� __-�"__—_ � �•� . .. 1._r.L�.J .r: ,,, � F' .1:,':::�I132 _ ; - ----- � /;3'''''.:'. ' '�F C-2� �i . _ . Ct�•�i•` )'VI��r' F7>>> J�� 1 ", , ' -:� , �� , ., � � .1_�r��': r I:� .rt'.��1 i , ...: • 1 � � / �t: 1' 3 I ..�_ � �, 1,�, ��L—I" �� t�il�r'�) Ii�:��J:,i'i'.r�'�,T� �� -,� 1 ��T ., . ._ � . ' ��t. � : ! '.% �___ - �^� l li ' '`fl II' ti � � 1 T - _ _ `" v/ / T / � /� J�1��.S,1�J II �� 11 '� I- I I � I 1 l l.}: �,'� � � �li � Ii .i _ �� . �� ' 1� �.: _-� t 1 �`, � - -�- i� �i i'i��.l � li�:�;� �i�-2" ._�� !�';I�V�' Zl�!.1�.�;il�t�I,�T� i �-. § � � � �i� � '��I: I' '�� - - � �'�i g' I I i � I I � ' ; �� tt 7 �� , t� i �, � �' � �I t.�� ri�.�_,, . �::�-s�� s;_ ._ . — ,�I i.' �� '� � � , a , ( �c,-, �_.� ,.n, ,,�� I ; , �II I . _. . � . i ' __ „S��„ �' . - - T� � '� Sc .' �ti'll. L. , F'r.��•'., � „ � A.'" rl'1"c;C�. h� }- � I _ . ..- , - � r'_'_��t. 1T r�Ltl�'� i�� r'.''.� t � '. �� Ill �t �i-- ti , , _ i�,L � �j 1Lc. _l_ � � i �jli ��'I�Ii�'� �L) �� i ��Ist�_�. I) L)`��., r �� .��. �F � �� t _��I �� i i��,l i i�l�� . � / � . ..I __ cLf � �' � s _ I i �' i., i,I � . ... . - . . ; � � � / ` , -., v � . �! fa � i '�I �� il�il Y 7 � , ' : i r, Z-� � Z : . • I � I i�I f I I�'I I —__ ____ . .. .. _. .—____ ._ __._ . . _.__ _. t s :_ , � '� � 'i � �� f � � �� I � �� e�� f l I ' � I `.h ,., _ � ) -� '1 j .I I �c�' � � =i i'� � �'i' i i I`1 � : , , t J� , . I , ' -'- �z ' ; [°, �5�� ' , , s T � - r� ' h �,�_, j . .r ZZ� � L 1 � �C� �t; _ Z'C1E' CO1 0_� U`;E��. i � � i i� � ' Zr. �;c� . ! � ` � " ' ' ' . _ � ir ��C'� � � i � li ` ( �.1� � � � � � � i � ;E� `�'_ (z7 C1C) S] C�Ilif] Cd�� i IT � � ZU � _ �_ _ _ � I ;1� 1, 1: � ��,a, E �l � �� _�.-+ i i ��,� i � �;I � �� n� }i�r. ttian to sc - "�; ' ; , � � i ,, � j � . , � � � ; i i , : i _ � l «�"'� � �-i ,� � �-' ��!� sie 7, 4, � �z� t�.�� VZrl_C71_i:� �Zc1C ��, �°"°" 1 ,�� -F� (..I._I, ' �_[ .i 1 t I � � t ' -'�_4 1 �'- _.x_ � �'� i =� � � ��1�.> � l_071. r��'- -�-t � , ; , , , 1 ��i �-_ -��I ��"I I �_.I ! . I.� 1�`15151I'�� 1. , I � � , � i` 1 / `f I I I` i i '� I i_� i � r � � � , . _ � � ,!�.I'➢� � � _ , � �' � �� - li j,�� '�:I. f ' � I } �_� �, - � � �F I ',' � ,_ r " '� , � , � � t,� i � � _� � ( { � r' � � i i,l,( � � t i i ,�`I � i L,i� . - � /, I , .I � � ��i I _, i �,, - - � - I I 1 i_�i� l t 1.� i i_�,� i I �� -„ � �14I1_`� � -� _. _ �/I I - ISj 1 I 1�� I � 1 1 � I� �{ l5 ' �5 _ .rl- � y �� '� .l„:I , t 1 ' . 1 = _ ' �6� \_J�= � �.i 1.. _ � ' . _ � � �� i �'` 1 ��` � . , � ,i 1 i T�I I t 1 � I I I>� I � � � �J� � � � � � '�-�, �z i � ��'i � I`I�� I � I �i: I �I�I i I�1 f��i ' . � ,`_ V � � - � � � � � � � , , x � Z � c , � � ( � � � ��' ' , � �_� ,� �:'.�- �'i ` `l�f. c1 C_�'__ w�' : � .% 1�i I i i -i 1 i -�, i i � _ . . .' r ' '-i� ` i -i. I.i�. zIi � � - - � � �i UZ � � ',��_`a �' �_ � f ( I�1 I I� t j I � `i � '�� t : ! I ' } � �Ii�� I�lI� ��—_ �� I�i I f + ( i i � � �i`i'i � �'.��',� 14 y __ � K ..�_ _ �, � ' � / / �t`I�' ` .r � � �.T 1 � 1 _ �z - -- ___. R ' / J ` � � ��3 � �� I 1 iS'3 �� s i� �"� � � �� .. :- � � � � _�� '�' �� c ��_ { , r _P � -" � :::f �Il�i� �i�!,' Ilii��i�� i'�III �i�i�i_I ,� �� "�. . � � �� S�: �� .� ( t �.� .. [ .�..�._._,d . . ..x w' .[� t�}i . � � ��i ��; � �. I I�I � �� ill /� � �� / ' V � � �� 'I I i I � � �� I�� ;IIII ljll IIIII ( �� , � .i � . l; i , I il�i I i " � � � � � �` T �.a�� o� �o � �t I�.�� , � � I� �i I . ,��i�� '� � l � f� � \ . � � � I : � 1�_ � �i i ,ii �ii � 7. �� Clt �. � �� til � � . j�� E � I � t�_ I� �— � '�__ �� ;� �I� ( ' I�� I t � . �/ '`. •�1 i _ .; � ._ l � � � • i/ � s\ j ¢ � i �� .��I .� ,��' I i� l � � -- � il�i�l��i� � '�� - _� -�� 1_-� _'�� C� �� - � _��'� _�_t-�� . �'� �� . I, ��1� I�;.� _�. /� �� _�-� � , -� ,'; � ;�, ` - - _� - �` � ;. _ � � � i � '� �' �� ! � t �� _ ��l 't �� t ';� I � I�� I .,1` IJ r. \ -�.�\ ) 1 ',l �� 7� . '�iy y}y �.� . (. .�''� � ��j�l �� r�' 'i ,� ) '_i . ; � � � --1 . . _. . . .. ... .. . .. ' . j�1��, / i �' ;�� i r'. � � !�� ' r/ }'�� ' - �' I` � �^� - .;,- • � _ � 1 ' �I ��, ��, . ,� � i . .,� -t ( � f ��fi � ?�� Il ��'I i" �� S , � � ( �, � , i�� '� I i - '`'� , . ��'• , � � , + ''7�� T �� ,i i;�'� ��I�!i�l - ��" I�. • 1 `1 � •. �� .' � i � - ') ' ' ;II!!�`='� i.lil�+ ' _ _ _ �'r' �1��I�� ; � \ - _ --� I � I I � Tz�ac� V1:.-I: • `. � � - i . . � � . EXHIBIT "B " �� PRESENT ZONING & REQUESTED ZONING `� " TRACT 1 - From "C-2" Co�nunity Business District Zoning to "C-1" Neighborhood Business District, or in the alternative any higher zoning that is • more restrictive by use or restrictions . TRACT 2 - From "C-2" Cor�lmunity Business District Zoning to "C-1" t�Teighborhood Business District Zoning, or in the alternative any higher zoning that is more restrictive by use or restrictions . TRACT 3 - From "R-3" Tiulti-Family Ihaelling District to "R-2" 1�,To Family Ihaelling District or in the alternative •any higher zoning that is more restrictive by use or restrictions . TRACT 4 - From "R-3" Multi-Family Dwelling District to "R-2" Tcao Family Ihaelling District or in the alternative any higher zoning that is more restrictive by use or restrictions . -_ _ . . ��.- TR.ACT S - From "R-2" 'I�ao Family Dwelling District to a "R-1" Single Farnily Dwelling District. 3. ""� TRACT 6 - From "R-3" Multi-Family D�velling District to -- "R-2" T�ao Family Dwelling District or in the alternative any higher zoning that is more restrictive by use or restrictions . TRACT 7 - From "R-3" Tiulti-Family Dwelling District to "R-1" Single Family Th�elling District or "R-2" Ttao-Family I?�Telling District, or in the alter- native any higher zoning that is more restrict- ive by use or restrictions. NOTE: THE REQUESTED ZONING HAS BEEN WORDED IN SUCH A ._ „ ,� N`1ANNER TO ALLOW THE PLANNING & ZONING COr�iISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TOTAL FLEXIBILITY IN MAKING THEIR DECISIONS. ��