Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-08-03 Joint Meeting� � � ; CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS ' e SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING � TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 19'76 AT 7:30 P.M. � COUNCIL CHI�►MBERS - 413 MAIN ST. l � I . CALL TO ORDER � Y II . INVOCATION: Councilman Florence p III . PUBLIC HEARING � t The City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to > hold a Public Hearing for the p�rpose of considering � f the rezoning of Tract 1, Block 4, Ridgecrest Addition � f rom "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District to "R-3" g ' Multi-family Dwelling District or any higher residential � � district that is more restrictive by use or restrictions, fr including "R-2" Two Family Dwelling District, and in # the alternative a Specific Use Permit District for ; Multi-Family Uses or any higher residential districts. € Applicants: Drs. Minnie Lee & Edgar L. Lancaster. ; Application # Z76-13. ; IV. END OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING � ( A. City Council to remain in session to consider further agenda items . B. Planning & Zoning Commission to recess to the Conference ; Room to consider further business . � ; � � � � � � 4 � � � � g � � s � � � 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 JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING AND ; ZONINCi CONIl�IISSION AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS � THE 30TH DAY OF JULY , 1976 AT 4:30 P.M. j � CITY SECRET � � � � �. � � �' � � � � [:. �' � � � � P: � � P S k fi CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, AUc�UST 3, 1976 AT 8:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHA,MBERS - 413 MAIN ST. V. PUBLIC HEARING City Council to consider relocating a 12�x36� prefabricated structure to Tract 50 of the A. R. Leonard Survey (South- west corner of Wildwood & Ruth Wall) . Applicatir�n submitted by the Church of the Mirad. � �. VI . CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES (July 20, 1976) f VII . NEW BUSINESS � � � A. Consideration and evaluation of the petitions submitted = by Bill Shirley persuant to Article � of the City � Charter requesting the Council to pass a resolution or � to call an election, � ; B. City Council to consider and award the bid for two � pick-ups for the Utility and Animal Control Departments. ` C. City Council to consider the approval of the tax roll ; as recommended by the Board of Equalization in the � amount of $102, 157,694.00 � ; � � D. City Council to consider the recommendation of the � Planning and Zoning Commission concerning Zoning ` Change Z76-13. k VIII . OLD BUSINESS � � A. Personnel Committee Chdirman, Charles Dunn, to make a report in reference to the proposed salaries on 1977 Budget. `� � IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION � � A. City Council to recess to the Conference Room to discuss � the purchase of real estate persuant to Article 6252-17, � Section (f) , Texas Civil Statutes . B. City Council to return to the Council Chamber and take g any necessary action concerning the purchase of real � estate. i ( E � f IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 V.A.T.C.S, AS AMENDED BY � CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, ; THE SPECIRL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WAS �, PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 30TH OF JULY, 1976 AT 4:30 P.M. �' g; � � , . � � "s CITY SECR R � t � s t � d � � �. ( KF� 3 E � ) 2 � � i � CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS � a SPECIAL PL'ANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ; TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1976 AT 8:00 P.M. 3 CONFERENCE ROOM - 413 MAIN ST. s S V. CONSIDERATION OR THE MINUTES OF JULY 27, 1976. � � VI . OLD BUSINESS Planning and Zoning Commission to consider Zoning Application Z76-13 and make a recommendation to the x � Council. � i VII . ADJOURNMENT i i � # � �+ Yk E � # V J IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 V.A.T.C.S. , AS AMENDED BY CHA.PTER 227, ACTS OR THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR � ' SESSION, THE SPECIAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ; , AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 30TH DAY OR ; JULY, 1976 AT 4:30 P.M. � x K Y f CITY SECRET r � � � � ,,. � , f z � � ; � � ;: � � � x � � z �. ¢ E � � 4 �: � � g'. S t � t �y Y,: �' �g d$ t � � 4 STATE OF TEXRS � COUNTY OF TARRANT � CITY OF GRAPEVINE X The City Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission met in joint and regular session at 7:40 P.M. on this the 3rd day of August, 1976 with the following members present to-wit: William D. Tate Mayor �: Doil Dalton Mayor Pro Tem Charles Gideon Counci,�man David Florence Councilman Larry Oliver Councilman Charles Dunn Councilman Willis Pirkle Councilman constituting a quorum with Ted Ware Chairman Mike Davis Member Harlen Joyce Member Joe Kennedy Member constituting a quorum with Cato Jones and Bill Crabtree absent, with F'loy T. Ezell City Manager Jim Hancock Ass ' t. City Manager Shirley Armstrong City Secretary John Boyle City Attorney Mayor Tate called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Councilman Florence. ; The first order of business tivas for the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to hold a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering the rezoning Of Tract 1, Block 4, Ridgecrest Addition from "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District to "R-3" Multi-family Dwelling District or any higher residential district that is more restrictive by use or restrictions, including "R-2" Two , Family Dwelling District, and in the alternative a Specific Use Permit District for Multi-Family Uses or any higher resi- dential districts . Applicants: Drs. Minnie Lee & Edgar L. Lancaster. Application # Z76-13 Mayor Tate declared open the Public Hearing and introduced the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He then intro- duced Mr. R. V. Trammel to make a presentation on behalf of Drs . Lancaster. Mr. Trammel iamilarized members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council with the location of the ' property in question. He stated that the property directly to the west of the tract being discussed was already zoned "�Z�;3" , Multi-family Dwelling District. He added that his clients felt it would be in their best interest, as well as that of the prospective property owners , to zone the property "R-3" so that property of the same zoning would be face to face. Mayor Tate then stated that questions were in order from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Member Harlen Joyce asked Mr. Trammel if the applicants would object to the"R-�" zoning being restricted to single story construction. Mr. Trammel . answered that he felt such a restriction would defeat the purpose of the"R-3" 2oning . Mr. Joyce then stated that he felt multi-story structures would be detrimentai to the property owners to the edst of the tract being discussed. Mr. Trammel , commented that he felt that it was best to split zoning back to back as opposed to a single family dwelling facing a multi- family structure. Nir. Trammel further explained that the applicants plan to build a six foot brick screening fence to separate the two tracts . Mr. Trammel stated that it was his feeling that a restriction of single story structure would limit the use of the land and defeat the purpose of multi- family zoning , which is to gain better land use of property. Member Mike Davis asked how many units were planned for the property. D4r. Trammel acknowledged that the applicants were not making any proposals at this time. Mayor Tate stated that questions were in order f rom the Council. Councilman Dunn .;, asked if the "R-3" zoning to the west began immediately across the street from the property being discussed for rezoning. Mr. Trammel answered yes. Councilman F'lorence asked Mr. Trammel if the owners of the adjacent tract had any immediate plans for that property. Mr. Trammel answered that he did not have that information. There being no further questions from the Council, Mayor Tate asked if there were any guests present who wished to speak for or against the zoning application. Mr. Ronny Cook; 403 Bluebonnet stated that he objected to so many "R-3" zonings being permitted in close proximity to residential areas. Mr. Cook stated that he would not want to build a residential structure on a lot that backed up to "R-3" zoning. Mr. Trammel asnwered that his clients were asking to change the zoning now, so that prospective buyers of those lots would be aware of the "R-3" zoning adjacent to the lots. Mr. Gerald Gregg, 508 Bluebonnet expressed concern that if the Council approved the requested zoning, that they might in the future approve the same zoning for the property to the rear of his lot. Mr. Gregg then commented that he felt approval of the requested zoning would decrease the value of his property. Mr. Trammel answered that in light of the quality of the subdivisions developed by the Lancasters, the owners of the present lots should realize that the same trend would be continued, throughout the development. Councilman Dunn asked Mr. Gregg if(considering the fact that the property to the west was already zoned "R-3" ) it would make that much difference in the value of his property if apartments were started on the west side of the street rather than on the east side of the street. Mr. Gregg answered that the closer proximity, he felt, would not enhance the value of his property. Mr. Bill Boswell; 3628 Grandview Drive , stated that he was not in favor of apart- ments being permitted in any residential area. The City Secre- tary stated that she had not received any letters or petitions in regard to the zoning request. There being no further dis- cussion, Member Joe Kennedy made a motion to close the Planning & Zoning Commission 's portion of the Public Hearing . The motion was seconded by Member Harlen Joyce and prevailed by the follow- ing vote: Ayes: Ware, Davis, Joyce and Kennedy Nays: None Absent: Crabtree and Jones Councilman Dunn then made a motion to close the Council �s portion of the Public Hearing. His motion was seconded by Councilman Pirkle and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle & Dunn Nays: None p Mayor Tate announced that the Planning & Zoning Commission would reconvene in the Conference Room to consider zoning application Z76-13 and further agenda items . He stated that the Council would remain in se5sion �n the Counci_1 Chamhers to discuss further business . � $ � _ � � i 3 � ! �[ ( S � � The next item w�s for the City Council to consi.der relocating � a 12 �x36 ' prefabricated structu.rP tc� Tract 50 of the A. F. : I_eonard Survey (Southwest corner of Wildwood & Ruth ��;all) s Applica�ion submitted by the Church of the Mirad. ° � t � Mayor Tate thPn introduced Dr. Wilkinson to make a presenta- ; tion on behalf of the Church of Mirad. Dr. Wilkinson stated � that he and his wif.e were the founders of an institute called � Mirad. He furthe.r explained that the reason for the applica- �. � tion was that tk�e church was requiring a temporary location y for a campus that is intended to be established within the � confines of the City of Grapevi.ne. He explained that the � purchase of thirty to fifty acres of land will be needed for a permanent location for the proposed campus. He explained � that in the interim they are using a church chapel and � school building, which is the structure in question. I)r. � Wilkinson explained that the building has been inspected by i the city building inspecto.r. H� then provided the Council � with colored pictures of the building in question. The o � City Manager pointed out the temporary location of the � structure to the Council and members of the assembly. : Councilman Florence asked whey the building inspection r � repart showed no plumbing required. Dr. Wilkinson commented f that plumbing was available in the adjacent dwelling. Mayor ; Tate asked the City Attorney what the present status of the � City Ordinances were in regard to temporary permits . Mr. � Boyle answered that the zoning ordinance did not apply to a building such as the one in question. Mayor Tate then � asked if the mobile home ordinance would apply. The City � Attorney answered that it did not on the basis that the build- � ing being considered was a prefabricated home. Mayor Tate ; then asked the City Attorney under what ordinance did the ; structure in question apply. The City Attorney acknowledged � that the building would come under the moving of buildings ,�. into or within the city limits of Grapevine. He further g stated that the Ordinance provided that a Public Hearing be � held and that property owners within 200 feet be notified. � He added that the council first ascertains that the building � does not comply with all the city ordinances and then make � a judgement decision as to whether or not that structure g (In relation to the surrounding property) would do any � damage or deterioratiorfto the building. He added that in � the event the council decides the building meets all of E the necessary requirements , they can then grant the permit r upon such conditions , requirements , or restrictions which ` the City Council shall determine. Mayor Tate asked the � City Attorney if it was his opinion that the Council could place a time limit on the perrr�it. The City Attorney answer ed £ yes, but added that he suggested an instrument be prepared ? so that everyone could acknowledge that it was on a temporary i basis. Mayor Tate then asked the building inspector if the ° building could be seen f rom the road. Mr. Joe Lipscomb, e � building inspector, answered that the building was readily � visible from the road. Councilman Dunn asked Dr. Wilkinson � how often his church met. Dr. Wilkinson answered that they � would like to have no limitation on meetings and continued ` � to say that the building would be used for various activities such as weddings , funerals , church services , etc. Council- � man Dunn then asked Dr. Wilkinson how many people were in- x volved in the actual meetings. Dr. Wilkinson answered that � there would be between thirty and fifty people attending � services . He further stated that the building would accomo- � date approximately sixty-five people. Councilman Pirkle � asked Dr. Wilkinson if he would have any objections to = limiting the permit to one year. Dr. Wilkinson answered � that if it would serve any useful purpose to the Council he � � i � � � € � � � � i � � t 4 8 � would have no objections . Co�.zncilman nunn a5?;<,�? i.f the Churcl� of Mir_ad antici.pated buying land and permanently locating in Grapevine. Dr. Wilkinson answered yes . Councilman Florence asked the building inspector if the building in question met with all the applicable city code provisions. Mr. Lipscomb answer_ed yes . The City Secretary reported that the property being leased by Dr. Wilkinson is owned by a group of inen chaired by Mr. T. M. Chapman and represented by Robert Taylor, �� realtor. She further stated that the owners received notices concerning the application and had not responded in opposition. Mayor Tate asked if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application. An un- identified member of the staff of the Church of Mirad commented that she would appreciate the council voting in favor of the application. Councilman Pirkle made a motion that the applica- tion be granted for twelve months. The motion cvas seconded by Councilman Florence. Dr. Wilkinson 's wife, Dr. Losie Wilkinson, asked what would happen if their permanent facility was not ready at the end of one year. Mayor Tate answered that the applicants would, at the end of a year, have to apply for another permit allowing the Council an opportunity to ,determine the status of the situation at that time. Council- man Gideon commented that he saw no reason for limiting the permit specifically to one year if it would create a hardship on the applicants . Mayor Tate answered that he felt it would create an even greater hardship if the application was denied and that it was his feeling that one year was a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Aulton Mullendore, Grapevine resident, asked Dr. Wilkinson what was the meaning of the word Mirad and what did the institute teach. Dr. Wilkinson then briefly ex- plained the beliefs and teachings of the Church of the Mirad. There being no further discussion, Mayor Tate reminded the Council that a motion had been made and seconded to grant the ` permit for a period of one year. The motion prevailed by the following vote: AYES: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Pirkle, Dalton & Dunn Nays : None The next order of business was f�r the City Council to consider the minutes of the meeting of July 20, 1976. Councilman Oliver made a mot�on to approve the minutes as published. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gideon and prevailed by the follow- ing vote: Ayes : Tate, Gideon, Florence , C�liver, Pirkle, Dalton & Dunn Nays: None The next order of business was consider.ation and evaluation of the petitions submitted by Bill Shirley pursuant to Article , Seven of the City Charter requesting the Council to pass a resolution or to call an election. Mayor Tate asked the City Attorney to advise the Council of his legal opinion in regard to the petitions. The City Attorney stated that on July 26, 1976 a petition was submitted by Mr. Bill Shirley pursuant to the initiative sections o£ the City Charter. He explained that this section set out the procedure by which the citizens could petition the City Council to pass resolutions or ordinances , or in the alternative to call an election on the proposed legislation. He further stated that on July 26, 1976 a petition was submitted with 442 signatures requesting the City Council to pass a resolution to reinstate former police chief, James Lilly to his position and also to pass an appellet procedural (personnel procedure) for Mr. Lilly in the event he was sub- sequently hired and released again. The City Attorney further advised that the City Charter required, under the initiative � � � � � � section, tYiat the petition contain a number of voters equal to forty per cent of those who cast their ballots in the �: last regular municipal election, or 250 qualified voters, whichever is greater. He explained that in the last general election 818 votes were cast, consequently forty percent of that would be 328 qualified voters are required to sign the petition. He further stated that another petition was sub- Y mitted the following day (July 27, 1976) that contained 134 ` signatures. He continued to advise that the City Secretary had submitted to the Council, a detailed analysis by compar- ing the signatures to the voter registration list and also the various requirements found in Article Six and Seven of the City Charter. He acknowledged that in the first peti- tion, (witYi a total of 442 signatures) 247 of the signatures were not listed as registered voters and 30 were not ; Grapevine residents. He continued to say that another 26 signatures were disqualified for other reasons such as not ? giving a resident address , signatures not being legible, ` and the signature not dated, all of which are required d according to Article 6.OL of the City Charter. The City Attorney further stated that Section 6.03 of the City Charter sets out the form of the verii'ication and there was an in- dication that those circulating the petition, who have to "_. verify the signatures, are supposed to sign that petition. � He acknowledged that many of the petitioners did not sign that specific petition, although they had signed others. He advised thdt that particular reason for disqualification would not be used in the analysis of the petitions even though it could be brought into question. He then reported ' that the first petition with 442 signatures had 139 qualified voters signing. The City Attorney further stated that the second petition would be considered separately because it was submitted on another day, and because all of the criteria � on time, and the number of voters , have to be considered as � ' edch petition is submitted. He reported thdt of the 134 � signatures , 49 quaiified, 72 were not registered voters , ; � were not Grapevine residents, dnd lU were disqualified for : not showing residence addresses, signatures not being ` legible, and not dating the signature. He further commented � that if the two petitions were to be combined, there would ; be a total of 188 qualifi�d voters, which would still fall ; short of the 328 qualifying signatures needed under the 40% rule. He therefore stated, that it was his opinion that the petitions taken separately, or combined, do not satisfy i ! the Charter requirements of 40� of the qualif ied voters. He added that it was his further opinion that the resolution, � _ as submitted, does not amount to, and does not constitute ; a legislative act and would not be covered by the initiative ; procedure. He stated that a matter that called for the $ hiring of an individual, specifically named, and also adoption of a personnel policy relative only to that in- z dividual, would not be legislative in nature. The City Attorney further advised that the Council, in this type of situation, whether it is on a proposed amendment to the � charter, or a proposed resolution, or ordinance, is � governed strictly by legislative type acts and not ad- ministrative or executive acts . He acknowledged that the proposal, in his judgement, would fall in either the administrative or executive acts and would not be the proper i. subject of an initiative and also would not qualify on that � basis. He advised the Council that it was his legal opinion that the petitions do not qualify because they do not have ' the required number of qualifying signatures and because the subject matter is not open and not the proper subject matter for an initiative. The Mayor then asked the City Attorney, based upon that analysis , what action would be required by the Council. The City Attorney advised that if the Council '° was in agreement with his analysis , it would be their � position to acknowledge receipt of the petiton , and find that it does not qualify, by a vote of the Council. Mayor Tate then asked if Mr. Shirley was present in the assembly. He was not in attendance. Mr. Bill Boswell, 3628 Grandview, Grapevine asked if he would be allowed to speak on behalf of Mr. Shirley. The Mayor answered yes. Mr. Boswell stated that a great deal of backgroiznd work had gone into the pre- paration of the petitions. He expressed disappointment in the analysis and legal opinion that was given in reference ��. to the petitions . He furthe r stated that the citizens of Grapevine would be done a great injustice if the Council agreed with the opinion of the City Attorney. Mayor Tate commented that �he petition had been filed by > Mr. Shirley as an initiative petition and it was interpreted, under the provisions of the City Charter, on that basis . The Mayor expressed disillusionment with the Citizens Committee which in his understanding had been organized to promote fair and honest government. He asked Mr. Boswell wher.e the members of the Citizens Committee were when they were needed to help work for improvement and development to build the City o� Grapevine to be what its citizens wanted it to be. Mayor Tate then expressed a willingness to meet and cooperate with members of the Citizens Committee at any time, for any constructive purpose, in the administration of the City of Grapevine. Councilman Dunn stated that if NTr. Shirley had done as much research as indicated, and if the matter was of as vital im- portance as indicated, he would have made it a point to find out what the proper procedure and form of a petition was , and would have made sure the people ' s names that appeared on the petition qualified. He further stated that a great deal of the City Staff and the Council 's time , as well as a substan- . tial amount of money had been spent in relation to the peti- tion. Councilman Dunn stated that if the committee being discussed was in effect a "Citizen � s Committee" , he did not understand why citizens of G r_apevine who were interested in attending the meetings were refused admittance. Mayor Tate commented that he felt if the committee was sincerely trying to show the Council what the feelings of the community were, they would have also recorded those people who refused to sign the petition and who supported the actions of the Council. Councilman Oliver commented that he, as well as other members of the Council , appreciated concerned citizens and would be willing to talk with Mr. Soswell or other members of his committee in a constructive manner. Mr. Mike Davis , Grapevine citizen, commented that he hoped the Citizens Committee would begin doing something construc- tive for the betterment of a growing community. He reminded members of the assembly that the election polls were an opportune place to take care of differences of opinion. There were no other members of the assembly who asked per- mission to speak. Mayor Tate stated that consideration of the petition was in order f rom the Council. Councilman Florence made a motion that the Council rule, or find, that the subject petition did not qualify as an inititiative petition under the City Charter, and that the Council not pass any form of resolu- tion or ordinance relating to the petition, and that no election be called in regard to the petition. Mayor Tate asked the City Attorney if Councilman Florence �s motion was in proper order. The City Attorney answered yes. The motion was then sec�nded by Councilman Oliver and prevailed by the following vote : Ayes: Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle & Dunn Nays: None � � � � �; � ; � The next order of business was for the City Council to consider � and award the bid for two pick-ups for the Utility and Animal Control Departments . The City Manager_ explained to the council that two bids had been received; one from Payton-Wright Ford and one from Huffines , Inc. See "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Ezell acknowledged that the City Staff recommended that , lov� bidder, Payton Wright Ford be awarded the bid in the amount of $7036.00. The City Manager further commentecl that the two pi.ck-ups had been budgeted for this year and that the monies cvas available in the replacement fund. There was little discussion and Councilman Dalton made a motion F to accept the recommendation of the City Staff and purchase ' the two ford six cylinder pick-ups from Payton-Wright Ford ¢ Company at a price of $7036.00. The motion was seconded by Councilman Gicieon and prevailed by the followinc� vote: ` Ayes : Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Daltan, Pirkle and Dunn ` Nays : None Mayor Tate announced that the Counci.l would reconvene follotiving a short recess . ` � The Council reconvened in the Council Chambers at 9:45 P.M. ' with all members present. The next order of business was for. the City Council to consider the approval of the tax roll as recommended by the Board of Equalization in the amount of $102, 157,694.00. The City Manager explained that the Equalization Board met on July 27, 1976 as �` advertised. He further stated that members of that board re- } viewed the tax roll and recommended to the Council that the 3 amount of_ $102,157,694 of assessed valuation be accepted. There being no discussion, Councilman Dalton made a motion ' that the Council approve the tax roll in the amount of $102,157,694 as recommended by the Board of Equalization. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pirkle and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Gideon, Florence, Oliver, Pirkle, Dalton and Dunn Nays: None The next order of business �vas for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planninc� and Zoning Commission concern- ; inq Zoning Change Z76-13. The City Secretary stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the "SP" Specific Use Permit District, including uses permitted in "R-3" ; Multi-family dwelling district, restricted to single story and separated from adjoining "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District to the East by a six foot screening fence. She further reported ; that the vote of the Planning & Zoning Commission was three in favor of the motion and one against. The City Secretary then stated that the Planning & 7_oning Commission needed to clarify as to whether or not "R-1" and "R-2" would also be restricted to single story construction. Member Mike Davis stated that the only restriction was on "R-3" Zoning. The City Secretary then ? read the caption of_ the proposed ordinance. Councilman Oliver asked Member Mike Uavis if the Planning & 7_oning Commission intended to allow two story duplexes. Mr. Davis answered that the intention of the Planning & `Loning Commission was to limit �` apartments and duplexes to single story, but that single family units under "R-1" could be two-story. Councilman Oliver pointed out that the proposed ordinance did not make that distinction. The �lssistant City Manager commented that the proposed ordinance could be modified to clarify the matter. Councilman Dalton asked how receptive the applicant would be to the recommended type of zoning. Mr. Trammel commented that his clients dicinot want the restricted type of zoning. He further stated that he � could not understand the reason for limiting "R-2" and "R-3" to single story when "R-1" could be two-story. Mayor Tate replied ' that apartment dwellings would constitute a larger number of tenants to view the back yards of the abutting property owne rs. The.re being no further discussion, Councilman Pirkle made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and adopt the ordinance relating to zoning application Z76-13. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn. Mayor Tate asked the City Secretary if the ordinance stood amended. The City Secretary answered yes . The motion prevailed by the follocv- ing vote: -� Ayes : Tate, Gideon , Florence, Olive.r, Dalton, Pirkle and Dunn Nays: None nRDINANCE NO. 76-24 !�N ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 70-10, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS , S1�ME BEING ALSO KNOWN AS TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS GREINTING A ZONING CHI�NGE ON A TRACT OF I�1ND DFSCRIBFD AS BEING TRACT ONF, BLOCK FOUR, RIDGECREST ADDITION, LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN TARRI�NT COUNTY, TEXAS , MORE FULLY IaND 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 "SP" SPECIFIC USE PEFZMIT DISTRICT IN- CLUDING ALL USES PERMITTED IN "R-3" MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT; PROVIDING TF-�,FiC ANY BUILDING OR PORTION T�-IEREOF, WHICH IS DF_SIGNED, BUILT, RENTED, LEASED, OR LET TO BE OCCUPIED AS TWO OR MORE DLJELLING UNITS OR APARTMEN'1'S , OR �^JHICH IS OCCUPIED AS A HOME OR RESIDENCE OF TWO OR MORE FAMILIES SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO SINGLE STORY CONSTKUCTION; PROVIDING F'OR A SIX FOOT SCREENING FENCE AI..ONG THE COMMON LINE BETi,+1EEN TRACT 1 , AND LOTS 1-9, ALL OF BLOCK 4, RIDGECREST ADDITION; �ORRCCTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESFRVING ALL OTHEK POKTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A CLAUSE RELAT- ING TO SEVERASILITY; DETERMINING THAT THE PUSLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELRARE DEMAND A ZONING CHANGF, AND AMENDMENT THEREIN MADE; PROVID- zNG A PENALTY; AND' 'DECLARING AN EMEI�GENCY. The next order of business was for the Personnel Committee Chairman,: Charles Dunn, to make a report in ref_erence to the proposed salaries on 1977 Budget. Councilman Dunn reported that the Personnel Committee held a meeting on Thursday, July 29, 1976 and discussed the cost of personnel services as they related to the 1977 budget and also the purposes of a merit system as well as the cost of living . Councilman Dunn stated that the Personnel Committee made the follow�ng recommendations: l. The starting salary for all maintenance personnel shall be increased f rom $525.00 per month to $600.00 per month and the salary classification plan be ad- justed accordinglv. 2. That a definite distinction be mac-?e betvaeen "merit" increases and "cost-of-living" increases . That the City Council shall exanine the cost-of-living index as released by the Department of Labor once each year pri.�r to adoption of the budget. That each employee be given a review at six znanth intervals to examine i� that employee merits an increase be- cause of improvement of job quality. These reviews shall come in the months of February and August. Emphasis are to be placed on the fact that no raise except cost-of-living is automatic or across-the-board. � � � k t � , € 3 f fi � Y _3. That no cost-of-living increase be given for the � FY 1977 because most employees receivecl an across- the-borad raise last October and again the follow- ing April . This .resulting in a savings of approxi- mately $26,500 over_ the previous recommended amount. Nlayor Tate commented that he was concerned as to how to attract qualified personnel in some departments . He added � that he had raised a question about base salary and also � � as to whether or not some employees could afford all of ; the benefits of other employees . Mayor Tate then ask�d �.f the benefi.ts that had been discussed in the past (insurance , ; etc. ) were mandatory for all employees . The City ?�lanager ' explained that the city paid for employee hospitalization ; insurance and the employee had an option as to whether or r.ot to include dependants , and if so, the charge for de- i pend.ants was paid by the employee. He futher explained that the city pays a rate of $360 per year, per employee, for hospitalization and life insi.z.rance. € I�layor Tate aslced the City Manager to explain what the city ; provided in the way of retirement. He explained that the � City was now in the Social Secur_ity program as well as Texas ; Municipal Retirement System. Mayor Tate comm�nted that it did not make sense to him to require an employee, who is � just starting and may not be tivith the city a long period of � time, to put money in a retirement system when he needs the : money for his family. The City Manager stated that since � Grapevine is a member of Texas Municipal Retirement System it may not be required to also pay Social Security. Niayor Tate stated that it seemed the take home pay was very small ; after all the benefits �vere talcen out, and that he felt thi_s would eliminate a large area of work force. The Mayor then ` suggested that the City Staff study further the retirement � systems and make some suggestions for a solution. He stated ; that no action would be taken at the present time, but � commented that employee benefits would be discussed further c�uring budget workshops. e . � The next item was for the City Council to recess to the ` ; Conference Room to discuss the purchase of real estate f � persuant to Article 6252-17, Section (f) , Texas Civil Statutes. � The Council recessed at 10:00 P.M. � The City Council returned to the Council Chambers at 10:25 4 S P.N1. There being no further action to come before the Council, t Councilman Pirkle made a motion to adjourn the meeting. His ' - motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and all present voted aye. f � ; PASSBD AND t'�PPROVED this the �/� d of ,���� 1976. � �'; „ ...� '� ..----�-� � ; �Lii ��/' I Mayor �- ATTEST: i Cit Sec ta � ; � • � � EXHIBIT• "A" � � �. "�.id ta� vl.�::t�_cn cn �rucks . kl.l bid rr:e�t °pecific=ticns . :� Paytcn-',iri,~rit 1 iTnit 6 Cyl . �351� .00 2 Un.its �.7036 .00 1 Unit $ Cyl . �3631 .20 2 �r,its � 7262.40 I=u.f1'121