Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-10-25 Joint Meeting 9 CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1977 AT 7: 30 P.M. ry COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET I. CALL TO ORDER ti II. INVOCATION - Commission Member Dr. Jerry Burgess III. PUBLIC HEARING A. The City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to hold a public hearing on Zoning Application Z77-28 submitted by W.P. Esslinger and C.H. Rowbotham. IV. END OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING A. Planning & Zoning Commission to reconvene in the Conference Room to consider further business. 3 B. The City Council to remain in session in the Council Chambers to consider further published agenda items . i I I 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 MEET- ING WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, a 1977 AT 3: 30 P.M. CITE_ SEC T RY S 3 S g 3 4 3 g� }7 pk (1 i P CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1977 AT 8:00 P. M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN V. CITIZENS REQUEST AND/OR MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS VI. PUBLIC HEARING City Council to hold a Public Hearing on a proposed street improvement program and assessment of abutting property owners on the west side of Park Boulevard from North- west Highway to Dove Road and the east side of Park Boulevard for 2256 feet north from the Northwest Highway right-of-way line. City Council to also consider an ordinance closing the hearing and levying assessments for part of the cost of improving the above mentioned portions of Park Blvd. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. City Council to consider and award the bid { for the purchase of city police cars . i B. City Council to consider the recommendation of 1 the Planning & Zoning Commission concerning Zoning Application Z77-28 and an ordinance I relating thereto. C. City Council to hear the recommendation of } the Planning & Zoning Commission and consider the preliminary plat of Creekwood West. 8 i D. City Council to hear the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and consider a plat revision of Lots 24R and 25R, Lake Forest Addition. 4 VIII. ADJOURNMENT t IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C.S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1977 AT 3:30 P.M. N SHIPLEY STRONG i `p 1 I CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1977 AT 8:00 P. M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Council to recess to the Conference Room to discuss pending litigation pursuant to Article 6252-17, Section 2, Subsection (e) , Texas Civil Statutes . i City Council to reconvene in the Council Chambers and take any necessary action relative to pending litigation. X. ADJOURNMENT i The emergency item was placed on the City Council agenda as immediate action is necessary to insure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Grapevine, Texas . i i "= IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T. C.S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1977 AT 9:30 A.M. { J City )Se c tary 4 ti t f 4 k I t i i ,I i CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS i i AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING _ TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1977 AT 8:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM - 413 MAIN V. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider Zoning Application Z77-28 submitted by Mr. W.P. Esslinger and Mr. C.H. Rowbotham and make a recommendation to the Council. B. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider the preliminary plat of Creekwood West and make a recommendation to the Council. C. Planning & Zoning Commission to consider a plat revision of Lots 24R and 25R, Lake Forest Addition and make a recommendation to the Council. VII. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSIONS i i VIII. ADJOURNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T. C.S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, I ! THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1977 AT 3: 30 P.M. y 1 :f ! s � 3 SHIRL Y STRONG CITY S TARY i I t z { S 1 { E 0 Y I y �i STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT j CITY OF GRAPEVINE The City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission met in joint session at 7:30 P.M. on this the 25th day of October, 1977 with the following members present to-wit: Doil Dalton Mayor Pro-tem David Florence Councilman Larry Oliver Councilman Willis Pirkle Councilman Charles Dunn Councilman constituting a quorum with Mayor William D. Tate and Councilman Charles Gideon absent, with Planning & Zoning Commission members : Ted Ware Chairman Joe Kennedy Member Harlen Joyce Member Dr. Jerry Burgess Member Bob Stewart Member constituting a quorum with Member Bill Crabtree absent, with James L. Hancock Acting City Manager John Boyle, Jr. City Attorney Shirley Armstrong City Secretary Mayor Pro-tem Doil Dalton called the meeting to order. The Invocation was delivered by Commission Member Dr. Jerry Burgess . The first order of business was for the City Council and Planner ing and Zoning Commission to hold a public hearing on Zoning Application Z77-28 submitted by W. P. Esslinger & C. H. Rowbotham. Mayor Pro-tem Dalton declared open the public hearing and introduced the applicant, Mr. Rowbotham. The applicant requested, since two councilman and his business partner were not in attendance, that consideration of his applica- tion be postponed until a later date. Commission Member Joe Kennedy made a motion to recess the public hearing until November 1, 1977. The motion was seconded by Member Dr. Jerry Burgess and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Ware, Burgess , Kennedy, Joyce and Stewart. Nays : None Absent: Crabtree Councilman Oliver then made a motion to postpone the public hear- ing until November 1, 1977. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pirkle and prevailed by the following vote: ; s Ayes : Dalton, Florence, Oliver, Pirkle & Dunn Nays: None Absent: Mayor Tate & Councilman Gideon The Planning & Zoning Commission then reconvened in the Conference Room to consider further business. The City Council called a recess at 7:45 and reconvened at 8:00 P.M. with all members present with the exception of Mayor Bill Tate and Councilman Charles Gideon. The first order of business was for the City Council to hold a public hearing on a proposed street improvement program and assessment of abutting property owners on the west side of Park Boulevard from Northwest Highway to Dove Road, and the east side of Park Boulevard for 2256 feet north from the North- west Highway right-of-way line. City Council to also consider an ordinance closing the hearing and levying assessments for part of the cost of improving the above mentioned portions of Park Blvd. Mayor Pro-tem Dalton declared open the Public Hearing. The Acting City Manager gave a brief history of the proposed improvement procedures, advised the Council and guests of the exact location of the improvements, explained in detail the nature of the proposed construction, and explained the method of apportionment of costs . Opinion testimony was received, relative to special benefits , from the City Manager Jim Hancock and the City Tax Assessor Collector, Cecil Burks , that they were familiar with the market value of property in Tarrant County and specifically in the cities of Grapevine and Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas; that they were familiar with the project and the proposed assessments and that in their opinion the proposed improvements , specifically the curb and gutter enhanced the value of the abutting property and in excess of the proposed assessment. The City Secretary then advised that Notice of the Public Hearing had been published and mailed to abutting property owners as required by law. Mayor Pro-tem Dalton then asked if there were guests present who wished to speak for or against the project. Mr. Henry Forney, representing College Street Church of Christ asked how openings onto abutting property would be handled. Acting City Manager Jim Hancock explained that the driveways could be coordinated between the contractor and landowner through contact with the City Staff. 'r Mr. Joe Wolf, property owner at the corner of Park Boulevard `F and Northwest Hwy. stated that since his property was in the City of Southlake and since he did not obtain water or sewer service from the City of Grapevine or Southlake , that he did not feel the curb and gutter along Park Boulevard would benefit him in any way. Mr. Glen Sod, Attorney from Corsicana, Texas representing Mr. John Simmons then asked permission to question Mr. Burks, City Tax Assessor Collector. He asked that since Mr. Burks had testified that the market value of the abutting property would be increased more than $3.65 per foot by the proposed improve- ments , did he include in his estimation of the increased value, the value of the street, and if the street itself was what would increase the value of the abutting property? Mr. Burks answered that the improved street itself would enhance the value of the property more than the cost of the assessment. He added that a combination of the curb and street would enhance the value of the abutting property. r r Mayor Pro-tem Dalton stated that there was no street worth very much without a curb and gutter because of a deterioration factor and that he felt it took a combination of both to improve value. 3 s g s Mr. Sod then asked Mr. Burks if he felt that the existing street improved the value of the property when it was initially con- structed. Mr. Burks answered yes, because there was previously no street to begin with. Mr. Sod asked if the existing street had a curb, would it have greater increased the value of abutt- ing property? Mr. Burks answered that he felt it would have. Mr. Sod asked why? Mr. Burks answered that it was functional, and added to drainage capabilities of the property. Mr. Sod asked if the curb helped the house that faced the street? Mr. Burks answered that would be debatable as far as residences were concerned. Mr. Sod then asked if the curb helped houses that back up to the street? Mr. Burks answered that it was his opinion that any houses that backed up to a street of that nature would be somewhat penalized. Mr. Sod then stated that lending institutions would not loan money on homes that faced a major thoroughfare such as was planned for Park Boulevard and that affected the value of the property downward. Mr. Sod stated that he disagreed that putting a curb and gutter on the street would enhance property values but would rather decrease the value because of the problem of lending institu- tions dealing with homes that front onto the street. He further stated that because of this factor, all houses that were planned along that street in the future would back up to the street. Mr. Sod continued to say that Mr. Simmons had donated the property that is now Park Boulevard. He further commented that he felt the purpose of the street had never been to benefit the adjoining property owners , but to provide a better flow of traffic thru the city. He added that he questioned the fairness of a situation where the city approached a man, asked him to make a donation to the city, and then asked him to pay some $10,000 to the city to build the street. He added that at the time the requests for the donation were made, representation was made that indicated "the city" was going to build the road. He further added that now the city had received money from the government to pay a portion of the cost, and intended to get the remainder of necessary funds from the property owners. Mr. Sod continued to say that at the time the property was donated, Mr. Ezell, (City Manager at the time) had promised that the city would pay for Mr. Simmons ' fence, a promise that was never carried out. Mr. Sod then informed the Council that Mr. Simmons had sold his property, but that because of certain circumstances, was forced to take the land back. He further stated that it was his advise to Mr. Simmons that he had the option to take back that portion of the property that he had donated to the city because it was the same set of circumstances that allowed him to take back the other property. Mayor Pro tem Dalton stated that it was his opinion that a good thoroughfare from one side of the city to the other would al- ways enhance the value of the abutting property. He reminded those present that the city was incurring the cost of the storm drainages and engineering. Mr. Sod stated that he did not disagree that the street enhanced the value of the abutting property, but that he did not feel the addition of a curb and gutter increased the value of the abutt- ing property by $3.65 a square foot was questionable. He added that he felt citizens of Grapevine whose property did not abutt Park Blvd. would also benefit from the proposed improvements, but that they were not participating in the cost of the project. K f s ti Mayor Pro tem Dalton stated that every property owner in the City of Grapevine had paid for their curb and gutter one way or another, and that many paid for 1/2 of the street as well. He added that all citizens benefit from the use of streets that at one time were paid for, or donated by, the adjoining property owners. There was then a short council discussion relative to the zoning and platting of neighboring property. h Councilman Pirkle asked Mr. Hancock if he was aware of any signed agreements between the city and property owners when the land N was dedicated. Mr. Hancock answered that he was not aware of any written agreements , but added that he personally was not involved in soliciting the dedications or in the discussions that Mr. Sod k had previously made reference to. He added that it was his con- sensus that property owners in that particular area stimulated the interest in the project and pursued the dedications . Mayor Pro tem Dalton asked the City Secretary if she had received any letters or petitions that need to be read into the record. She answered yes and read the following letter: October 11, 1977 t Mr. Bill Tate Mayor City of Grapevine P.O. Box 307 Grapevine, Texas 76051 E Dear Mr. Tate: '# I received the attached notice dated October 7, 1977 z concerning the proposed assessment of $3.65 per lineal foot `€ for curb and gutter on Park Blvd. s Back when we were asked to dedicate land on Park Blvd, we gave it freely and without hesitation. We feel that we have already paid our share of this street improvement by dedicating the land. Had we gone the condemnation route and made the city buy the land, we would have had more than adequate funds to pay the $3.65 per lineal foot. The investors who own this property are not trying to make a profit - they are simply trying to recover the money they have already put into this property. Two months ago 38% of them walked away from their investment. When I bill them for this assessment , we will see some more walking away. I will not be at the public hearing because I have lost interest in anything ever happening in the Grapevine area except things like this that require additional expenditures. Thank you, s /s/ Coralus Fulfer, Asst. to the President { Mel Hobratsch President }:. cf Enclosure cc Shirley Armstrong City Secretary Mayor Pro tem Dalton then asked if there were other persons present in the audience who wished to make a statement. There were none. 3 i 7 Councilman Dunn then made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pirkle and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Dalton, Florence, Oliver, Dunn and Pirkle Nays: None Absent: Mayor Tate and Charles Gideon The City Secretary then read the caption of the proposed ordinance. Councilman Pirkle made a motion to adopt the ordinance . The motion was seconded by Councilman Florence and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Dalton, Florence, Oliver, Pirkle and Dunn Nays: None E Absent: Mayor Tate and Charles Gideon The next order of business was for the City Council to consider and award the bid for the purchase of city police cars. The Acting City Manager stated that because of a technicality on specifications he Would ask the Council to table consideration of the item to allow him an opportunity to further study the bids received. Councilman Dunn made a motion to table consideration of the police car bids until November 1, 1977. The motion was seconded by Councilman Oliver and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Dalton, Florence, Pirkle, Dunn and Oliver Nays : None Absent: Mayor Tate and Councilman Gideon i The next order of business was for the City Council to hear the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and consider the preliminary plat of Creekwood West. Building Inspector Joe Lipscomb reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the pre- liminary plat of Creekwood West. After a lengthy discussion, Councilm an' Florence made a motion to approve the preliminary plat of Creekwood West with the under- standing that the street names be modified on the final plat. The motion was seconded by Councilman Oliver. There was then a lengthy discussion relative to the dedication of property in the flood plain area south of the proposed addi- tion, for a major thoroughfare and a park facility. No action was taken relative to this discussion. Mayor Pro tem Dalton then called for a vote in regard to the motion previously made. It prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Dalton, Florence, Oliver, Dunn and Pirkle Nays: None Absent: Mayor Tate and Councilman Gideon The next order of business was for the City Council to hear the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and consider a plat revision of Lots 24R and 25R, Lake Forest Addition. Mr. Lipscomb reported that the Council and Planning & Zoning Commission had approved a similar plat several months ago, but that there were some surveying errors on the previous plat. He added that the plat submitted had been reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commision and that they recommended approval by a unanimous vote. 1 3 k } There was little discussion. Councilman Oliver made a motion to approve the plat revision of Lots 24R and 25R, Lake Forest Addition. The motion was seconded by Councilman Florence and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Dalton, Florence, Oliver, Dunn and Pirkle Nays: None Absent: Mayor Tate and Councilman Gideon The next order of business was for the City Council to recess to the Conference Room to discuss pending litigation pursuant ; ' to Article 6252-17, Section 2, Subsection (E) , Texas Civil Statutes. The Council reconvened in the Council Chambers, with no action being taken relative to pending litigation. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilman Dunn made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pirkle and all present voted aye. x A PASSED AND APPROVED on this the �( day of , 1977. MAYOR �— ATTEST: ti City S cret y E a� s 4 99� i �q 3 ti y k i Y S 7 3 y 9 } ;3 { d