Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-03 Regular Meeting CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 3 , 1975, AT 7: 30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCATION to be given by Councilman Dunn III. CITIZENS REQUESTS AND/OR MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS & DISCUSSIONS A. IV. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES (May 27) V. OLD BUSINESS: A. City Council to consider zoning application Z-73-14, Love- Henry and Associates requesting a "Planned Development" on a tract of land adjacent to the Manor Oaks Addition; presently zoned "R-1" . The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval. This item has been postponed from November 6, 1973, at the request of the applicant to allow the architect and planner sufficient time to restudy the site. Property owners within 200 feet have been notified of this meeting. B. City Council to consider an ordinance amending Title 8, Chapter 2 , Section 6 of the City Code relating to posts and signs on public sidewalks. C. City Council to consider a zoning application (Z-75-8) made by E. S. Blythe, secretary of the Hawn Foundation, Inc. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from "R-l" to "PD" Planned Development District on a tract of land in the G. G. Starr & E. Cox Surveys, generally described as being on the west side of F. M. 157 south of Big Bear Creek. The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval. D. City Council to consider a zoning application (Z-75-9) made by A. F. Jones . The applicant is requesting a zoning change from "R-l" to "C-2" Community Business District on a tract of land described as being 4.43 acres of land out of the Joel L. Hallum Survey, Abstract 722 of the City of Grapevine, Texas. The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval. E. City Council to consider a zoning application (Z-75-10) made by Maurice Pirkle. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from "R-l" to "C-2" Community Business District or in the alternative a more restrictive zoning on a tract of land described as being Lots 9 and 10 of the William Dooley Survey, Abstract No. 422 located at the southwest corner of W. Nash and S. Main Streets. The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval. F. City Council to consider the planned uses for the General Revenue Sharing Money, entitlement period 6 (July 1, 1975 June 30, 1976) in the amount of $97, 340.00. G. a VI. NEW BUSINESS: A. City Council to consider an ordinance setting forth the terms, conditions, procedures , and guidelines for establishing utility rates to be charged customers in the City of Grapevine. B. City Council to consider an ordinance making it unlawful to detain any book, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, manuscript or other property of the City Library. C. City Council to consider a resolution declaring no parking for fifty feet along the front of the Grapevine Opry. D. City Council to consider an ordinance amending Title 7, Section 9, Chapter 3 of the City Code to require an applica- tion for water, sewer and refuse service and the requirement of a cost deposit or bond. g E. City Council to consider the appointment of members to the Equalization Board. F. City Council to consider bids received for the City' s insurance; general liability, automobile, volunteer fire, and worker' s compensation insurance. G. I l I i i IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A. T. C. S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61 LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 1975, AT 1: 30 P.M. CI Y SECRETARY STATE OF TEXAS X COUNTY OF TARRANT X CITY OF GRAPEVINE X The City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas, convened in regular meeting at 7:45 P.M. , on this the 3rd day of June , 1975, with the following members present, to-wit: William Tate Mayor Thelma Conine Councilwoman Doil Dalton Councilman Bob Murphy Councilman Charles Dunn Councilman C. L. Oliver Councilman Willis Pirkle Councilman constituting a quorum, with Floy Ezell City Manager Jim Hancock Asst. City Manager Kenneth Pritt City Secretary John Boyle City Attorney Mayor Tate called the meeting to order. The Invocation was given by Councilman Dunn. Mayor Tate stated that the first order of business was to consider zoning application Z-73-14, Love-Henry and Associates requesting a "Planned Development" on a tract of land adjacent to the Manor Oaks Addition; presently zoned "R-1" . The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval. This item has been postponed from November 6, 1973, at the request of the applicant to allow the architect and planner sufficient time to restudy the site. Property owners within 200 feet have been notified of this meeting. Mayor Tate asked for the Lhe ity Secretary to give the Council an account of the procedings before Planning & Zoning Commission. The Asst. City Manager explained that no minutes of those procedures were ever recorded by the previous City Secretary. The Asst. City Manager posted a copy of the "PD" as it was presented at the previous public hearing. Mayor Tate then inquired about who was to make the presentation for the applicant. Mr. Kenneth McWaters came forward and stated his name. Mayor Tate then stated that this would not be a rehearing of any previous hearings but that a summary of that hearing would be in order so as to inform the new members on the Council and the audience as well. Mr. McWaters stated that his firm did not represent the applicant at any previous hearing but that his firm had produced a modified plan of the one that was posted by the Asst. City Manager. Mayor Tate asked the City Attorney what should be done about this modified plan since the previous plan had not been adopted by the City Council. The City Attorney explained that it was his understanding that a plan was to be presented that was substantially different from the one presented at the previous hearing. He further stated that he felt the hearing should be re-advertised and a public hearing held because of the difference in the plans. He also stated that the Council had other alternatives: send it back to the Planning & Zoning Commission to be reheard, also the Council had the _X Lability to hear the presentation and make a decision on it. The Asst. City Manager stated that this meeting was advertised in the paper and notice was sent to the 200 feet property owners but that reference was not made to a public hearing. The Mayor then inquired of the City Attorney if a public hearing could be held on the grounds of this advertising. The City Attorney stated that a public hearing could be held on this date or it could be set up for a joint public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. McWaters stated that the requests for zoning were the same but the location and style of buildings on the site had been changed. Mayor Tate then asked for Mr. McWaters to show the Council what the changes were before the Council voted to hold a public hearing or send it back to the Planning & Zoning Commission. 15 While Mr. McWaters prepared his site plans and other visual aids, Mayor Tate inquired if the Council could go ahead and have their portion of the Public Hearing and then determine later if they wanted to send it back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their hearing. The City Attorney stated that this would be one possibility. Mayor Tate then declared open the public hearing on zoning application Z-73-14 and stated that Mr. McWaters would be allowed to make a full presentation and then any members of the audience could speak or ask any questions. Mr. McWaters presented a revised site plan for the property and stated that the zoning requests were still the same - commercial at the intersection of Northwest Highway and Park Boulevard x and multi-family on the northern portion of the property. Mr. McWaters then described the surrounding property and uses. He then stated that the object of this particular "PD" was to provide a useful, commercial, organized, planned center that would eliminate the pitfalls of strip ' zoning and spot zoning. He further stated that limited access from Northwest Highway and controlled access from Park Boulevard would be available. Mr. McWaters then explained the type of parking which would be located to the rear of the apartments. He further explained that a proposed garden-type office complex would be constructed to adjoin the property on the east. A 35 foot "no improvements" area would be provided for the benefit of those property owners on the east. Also, no doors or exits would be located on the east side of these commercial buildings with the exception of those required by fire codes. w No construction over one story would be allowed within 200 feet of the east property line. He explained that buildings were turned at an angle to provide maximum open space, and leave the creek in its existing form with addition of pertinent public works. The retail portion of the "PD" would be completed in three phases within three years. Mr. McWaters stated that he had a letter of intent from two retailers wanting to R locate in this complex. Parkc'�rig would be at each individual unit (store) ; rather than a massive parking lot. Questions were now in order from the City Council: Mayor Tate inquired if Mr. McWaters had any drawings that showed the g configuration of the buildings other than what was before the Council. Mr. McWaters produced a scaled drawing showing the retail buildings size and design. He further explained that each building could have from one to four tenants - depending upon the square footage desired by each. Councilman Oliver inquired as to what was located next to Manor Way in the original application. Mr. McWaters stated that a ` large mall-type building and large parking lot were next to Manor Way. p Councilman Oliver then inquired about what would be done with any litter that flows down the creek. Mr. McWaters stated that the general 4 maintenance and upkeep of the mall would include the picking up of litter. Councilman Dunn inquired about the number of buildings that would be constructed in Phase I. Mr. McWaters referred to a site plan showing the first three buildings to be built -during the first 12 months. Mr. Dunn then inquired if the developers would be willing to widen the existing creek so as to hold a larger volume of water during flooding. Mr. McWaters stated that the bottom channel of the creek would be aligned so that the creek wouldn' t flood due to the fact that it couldn' t flow properly but that widening the creek would be a public works program. He further stated that he had no control over the water after it leaves his property line. Councilman Murphy inquired about the possibility of getting the City Engineers involved in studying this proposal and how it would effect water volume and flow on f' the property and further points east along the creek. Mayor Tate stated that a traffic study would also be needed to aid in the consid- eration of this application. Mayor Tate then inquired if the "PD" was only being requested to cover a portion of the property or if some mialti-family was also being requested. -Mr. McWaters explained that z multi."famihy, aoning.:was: also._being.:requested. Mayor Tate then inquired if there was any reason that single family dwellings could be built in the area where R-3 was being requested. Mr. McWaters stated that the developers had planned to have three classifications of housing: C-2, apartment townhouses, and some detached single family. He further stated that he was asking for a higher use than R-1 on the entire tract. G d x 16 3 Mayor Tate stated that there was a very nice addition on the east and that there was a lot of concerned property owners that felt this development would effect the value of their property. He further stated that he felt it was an admission of commercial zoning not being condusive to single family dwellings if the applicant was not willing to zone any single family next to the commercial zoning. Mayor Tate then stated that there was too much commercial zoning in this "PD" and before he would vote for it there would have to be more single family. Questions or comments were now in order from the audience: The Council recognized Mr. W. Floyd Deacon of 105 Cross Creek Drive. 1 Mr. Deacon stated that he was representing the Manor Oaks residents. Mr. Deacon then passed out a packet to the City Council. Mr. Deacon made reference to a petition that had been signed and filed during the last hearing on this application. He further stated that some of the property owners had changed since the last hearing, one being a new resident that had built a fine new home on Business 114 proving that this area is very condusive to single family development. He then stated that they(property owners) object to the proposed zoning as made by Mr. McWaters. This is sixteen homeowners and one lot owner that 2 object because they feel that the Ntalue_,.of their property would decrease maybe as much as 50 percent. He then stated that the zoning of this property has been R-1 down through the years and none of the property owners would have built homes there if they thought that a shopping center would be located next to them. He further stated that this land was very desirable for residential zoning and that it was needed because this is one of the last areas left where a residential section could be located. He then discussed the location of the property and stated that it was desirable for R-1 because of its nearness to the Airport. He then stated that he felt the City of Grapevine would still grow without this "Planned Development" ; he felt that it was a good plan but was it actually located where it would best serve the economic needs of the City. He then pointed out several office buildings that were vacant and stated that he felt an econimic impact study should be made to determine the feasibility of this development in this area. Mr. Deacon then stated that the residents were very concerned about the environmental impact on water, litter, and traffic that would be a result of granting this zoning. The water problem would definately increase if the area would be paved. He then pointed out several businesses in the area that had problems with litter. The traffic situation was discussed by Mr. Deacon. He then stated that the proposal was not complete. He then stated that these residents liked Mr. McWaters ' proposal but that it was just in the wrong location and that there would be better times for this type of development. Mr. M. G. Spencer stated that he was the person who had just built the new home on Business 114. He questioned the fact if the Planning & Zoning Commission hadsstudied the water problem in this area. He then stated that he recommended that the application go back before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Tom McAfferty made several points that he felt was of vital importance: 1. the area is condusive to single family development and should not be condemned because it borders on two major thoroughfares. 2. the development would increase traffic if the zoning were approved. 3. the water problem would increase. 4. the "green area" would not be green in the winter, providing very little screening. 5. what will eventually be built there if the zoning is approved, is not necessarily what was called for in the P.D. Mr. Stafford Page pointed out that there were several areas located throughout the metroplex where shopping centers adjoined residential property and the persons never moved not did the value of their property 17 devaluate. He then stated that he was for the application. Mrs. Tom McAfferty stated that she was against the proposed zoning and offered reasons for it that she felt it was very relevant to women: they want to insure the quiet, peaceful atmosphere that they now enjoy. She then stated that the restaurant that had been proposed ± was very offensive to her because of the business hours and the odors that are a product of a restaurant. Further questions from the Council were now in order: Councilman Dunn inquired about the values of the property in this area. Councilman Dunn then inquired if the residents of this area would be willing to submit to the Council what they paid for their property due to amount of conversation held on property values. Mr. Deacon explained that the residents would be willing to disclose this information. He stated that the lots that he bought in 1965 had tripled in value. Mr. Deacon then explained a parggraph from the handout that he provided to the Council. He stated that he felt the applicant bought the property at a residential rate with the intention z' of having it rezoned to a higher use, sell the property at a higher price because of its higher use, and make a large profit. There was then a short discussion of lot sizes and prices in that addition. Councilman Dalton stated that he was not in favor of taking any action and he then made a motion to close the public hearing and table any action until a later date. Councilman Pirkle seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle Noes: None Mayor Tate declared the public hearing on Z-73-14 closed. Mayor Tate then declared a recess. Mayor Tate called the meeting to order with all members present. The first order of business was to consider an ordinance amending Title 8, Chapter 2, Section 6 of the City Code relating to posts and signs on public sidewalks. The City Secretary read the caption of the ordinance and stated that insurance in the amount� of $100,000 had been placed in the ordinance and that this insurance would not cost more than $50 per year. Councilman Murphy stated that his position on this subject was still the same. Councilman Dunn stated that he was more concerned about merchandise being placed on the sidewalks. The City Manager F explained that portion of the ordinance detailing the placing of merchandise on public sidewalks. Councilman Dalton then made a motion to pass the ordinance on an emergency basis. Councilwoman Conine seconded the motion and .the motion prevailed by the following 'Vote: Ayes: Tate, Dalton, Dunn, Conine, Oliver Noes: Murphy, Pirkle ORDINANCE NO. 75-18 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GRAPEVINE CITY CODE TITLE 8, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 8-2-6-iENTITLED AWNINGS BY AMENDING SAID SECTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE OBTAINING OF A PERMIT AND ' LICENSE TO ERECT POSTS IN THE CITY SIDEWALKS; PROVIDING CERTAIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS; PROVIDING AN INDEMNITY BOND; PROVIDING FOR A PROHIBITION AGAINST PLACING ARTICLES ON THE SIDEWALK AND ALLOWING CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCAFFOLDING ON SIDEWALKS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING i k' A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. _ s The next .order of business was for the City Council tonconsider a 4 zoning application (Z-75-8) made by E. S. Blythel secretary of the s Hawn Foundation .Inc. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from "R-1" to "PD" Planned Development District on a tract of land in the G. _G. Starr &.-E. Cox Surveys, generally described as being on the west side of F. M. 157 south of Big Bear Creek. The Planning K E � r 1 18 3 & Zoning Commission recommended approval. There was little discussion that followed and Councilman Murphy made a motion to accept the recommen- dations of the Planning & Zoning Commission and approve zoning application Z-75-8. Councilman Dunn seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle I Noes: Tate The City Council instructed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance adopting this zoning. The next order of business was for the City Council to consider a zoning application Z-75-9 made by A. F. Jones. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from "R-l" to " C-2" Community Business District on a ftract of land described as being 4.43 acres of land out of the Joel L. Hallum Survey, Abstract 722 of the City of Grapevine, Texas. The Planning s & Zoning Commission recommended approval. The City Secretary read the ` caption of an ordinance that had been prepared; and gave a brief description of the condition of the existing building on the property. There was little discussion and Councilman Dalton made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and approve zoning application Z-75-9 and pass the ordinance as read on an emergency basis. Councilman Pirkle seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle Noes : None ORDINANCE NO. 75-19 f AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 70-10, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME BEING i ALSO KNOWN AS TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS: BEING 4.43 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE JOEL L. HALLUM SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 722 IN THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TARRANT COUNTY, k . TEXAS, MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIE ORDINANCE; ORDERING A CHANGE IN THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY TO "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT; CORRECTING THE OFFICLAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND A ZONING CHANGE AND AMENDMENT HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The next order of business was for the City Council to consider a zoning application Z-75-10 made by Maurice Pirkle. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from "R-1" to "C-2" Community Business District or in the alternative a more restrictive zoning on a tract of land described as being Lots 9 and 10 of the William Dooley Survey, Abstract No. 422 located at the southwest corner of W. Nash and S. Main Streets. The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval. The City Secretary read the caption of a proposed ordinance. There was little discussion and Councilman Pirkle made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and pass the ordinance as read on an emergency basis. Councilman Oliver seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle Noes: None ORDINANCE NO. 75-20 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 70-10, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME BEING ALSO KNOWN AS TITLE 10 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS: BEING LOTS 9 AND 10, WILLIAM DOOLEY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 422 IN THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; ORDERING A CHANGE IN THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY TO r: 4 "C-2" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT; CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND A ZONING CHANGE AND AMENDMENT HEREIN MADE; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the planned uses for the General Revenue Sharing Money, entitlement period 6 (4uly 1, 1975-June 30, 1976) in the amount of $97, 340.00. The City Manager gave a brief history and stated that he recommended that the entire amount be used to construct a pump station to draw raw water from Lake Grapevine. He further stated that the use for this money can be changed in the future should a higher priority arise. There was little discussion and Councilman Oliver made a motion to accept the recommendation of the City Manager. Councilman x' Pirkle seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes : Tate, Conine, Dalton, . Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle Noes: None y { The next order of business was for the City Council to consider amending Title 7, Chapter 3, Section 9 of the City Code to require an application s for water, sewer and refuse service and the requirementsof a cost deposit or bond. The City Secretary read the caption of the ordinance and the 3 City Attorney gave a brief history explaining the intent of the ordinance. He stated that under the present ordinance, the person applying for water and sewer services is required to put up a deposit in the amount of one and one-half times the minimum rate for each of the particular services. The new ordinance requires a cash deposit or bash bond in the amount of one and one-half times the average monthly bill for the services, to be determined by the City Water Department. The bond or cash deposit s could be teanalyzed periodically to insure that the amount was indeed one and one-hAlf times the average monthly bill. There was little discussion and Councilman Murphy made a motion to pass the ordinance as read. Councilman Oliver seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle Noes : None ORDINANCE NO. 75-21 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, AMENDING TITLE 7 OF CITY CODE, BEING THE HEALTH AND SANITATION TITLE, BY REPEALING SECTION 9, RELATING TO APPLICATION FOR WATER, SEWER AND REFUSE SERVICE AND THE REQUIREMENT OF A COST DEPOSIT OR BOND; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING' AN EMERGENCY. t The next order of business was for the City Council to consider bids received for the City' s insurance; general liability, automobile, volunteer fire, and workman' s compensation. The City Secretary read the tabulation of bids and stated that he recommended that Part "A" t insurance be awarded to Box Insurance Agency in the sum of $12,866.00 with an anticipated discount of $542.00; and that Part "B" insurance be awarded to Yancey Insurance Agency in the amount of $66, 588.00 with a total anticipated dividend of $8, 853.00. The City Secretary then stated that these firms would be agents of record for a three year period. The City Secretary then recommended that the Workman' s Compensation insurance be awarded on the sliding scale dividend because he felt the City could save more money than going with guaranteed dividend. Following is a tabulation of the bids: TABULATION - PART "A" NAME PROPERTY LIABILITY EMPLOYEE VOL. FIRE TOTAL TOTAL INSURANCE INSURANCE BONDS ACCIDENT "A" ANTICIPATED DIVIDEND "A" BOX 1,884.00 10,007.00 493.00 482.00 12,866.00 542.00 Hartford Same Same Hartford Casualty Accident & Ind. YANCEY 1, 948.00 12:p832.00 481.00 363. 75 15,824.75 1, 803.00 Common- Internat' 1 U. S. U. S. Wealth Insurance Fire Fire Lloyd' s Insur. Insur. PIERCE- 2, 336.00 12, 685.00 491.00 567.00 16,079.00 1, 795.00 HORTON Automobile American & Royal Saint ? Ins. Co. Foreign Ind. Co. Paul TABULATION - PART "B" NAME Worker' s Compensation TOTAL ANTICIPATED DIVIDEND "B" BOX *22, 196.00 NONE Hartford Accident & Ind. YANCEY 66, 588.00 8,853.00 a Internat' l Insurance PIERCE-HORTON No Bid No Bid s$ 3 * Bid for only One Year - Not bid as specified. There was little discussion and Councilman Dunn made a motion to accept the recommendations of the City Secretary. Councilman Pirkle seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Dalton, Dunn, Murphy, Oliver, Pirkle Noes: None The next order of business was for the City Council to consider an ordinance making unlawful to detain any book, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, manuscript or other property of the City Library. The City Secretary read the caption to the ordinance. The City Attorney gave a brief history. There was little discussion and Councilman Pirkle made a motion to approve the ordinance on an emergency basis. Council- woman Conine seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle Noes: None I i ORDINANCE NO 75-22 AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO DETAIN ANY BOOK, r NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE, PAMPHLET, MANUSCRIPT OR OTHER PROPERTY OF THE CITY LIBRARY FOR THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER NOTICE IN WRITING TO RETURN SAME, GIVEN AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME WHICH BY THE RULES OF THE CITY LIBRARY SUCH PROPERTY MAY BE KEPT; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING { AN EMERGENCY. The next order of business was for the City Council to consider an ordinance declaring no parking for fifty feet along the front of the Grapevine Opry. The City Secretary read the caption of the ordinance. The City Manager gave a brief histoy. There was littld discussion and { Councilman Pirkle made a motion to approve the ordinance as read on an ` 3 emergency basis. Councilman Dalton seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote : Ayes : Tate, Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle Noes: None t ORDINANCE NO. 75-23 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4, OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING IN SPECIFIC DESIGNATED s LOCATIONS ON THE WEST SIDE OF MAIN STREET; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. ' F The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the appointment of members to the Equalization Board. The City Secretary , read a list of names that was recommended by the Tax Assessor-Collector to serve on the Equalization Board. These persons were as follows: Aulton D. Mullendore Thomas W. Taylor Riney Jordan t alternates: 4- Richard Eakins Donald Kaker There was little discussion and Councilman Pirkle made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Tax Assessor;;Collector and appoint those persons to the Equalization Board. Councilman Dunn seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle ' Noes: None e k The next order of business was to consider the minutes of the May 29th meeting. Councilman Oliver made a motion to waive the reading of the b minutes and approve them as presented. Councilman Dunn seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Dalton, Murphy, Dunn, Oliver, Pirkle Noes: None The City Manager announced that the official ceremony for the Bi- Centennial would be held on June 16 at the Fire Station at 6:00 P.M. , at which time, the official Bi-Centennial flag will be presented to the City. g There being no further business, Councilman Pirkle made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilman Oliver, and all present voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. j rn S ;0 rtf O ro N A W O (24 a a < N z � �C U W U) cn W �+ U) p E-i �C E-+ H w � U