Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-02-28Regular Meeting Euless City Council February 28, 1978 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Euless City Council was called to order at 8 :00 p.m., i n the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall by Mayor Pro Tem W i I I ie Mae McCormick. Other members present were Messrs. Raymond Ozebek, Charles Hunt, Glenn Walker, and Robert Pippin. (Absent was Mayor Harold Samuels.) Also present were City Manager W, M. Sustaire, City Secretary Della Houy, City Attorney James Cribbs, City Engineer B i l l Flowers, and Assistant City Manager John Lynch, IV. VISITORS V i s i t o r s i n attendence were Messrs. B i l l Pasteur, W. G, Ragley, Rick Barnes, and Mrs. Myrtle Hall. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Councilman Glenn Walker. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated February 14, 1978, were approved as wri'tten. CONSIDER SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 538 AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO.347 Mr. Ozebek moved to approve second and f i n a l reading of Ordinance No. 538 amending Zoning Ordinance No. 347, except for Section 7 -1002 - Specific Use Schedule (New Items) - items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as stated in the original first reading. Mr. Walker seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Ozebek, Walker, Hunt, Pippin, and Mayor Pro Tem McCormick Nays: None Mayor Pro Tem McCormick declared the motion carried. (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, February 28, 1978) II. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS 10 SIGN ORDINANCE Mayor Pro Tem McCormick opened the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the City's sign ordinance and recognized Mr. Rick Barnes, Director of Planning and Development. M r . Barnes stated t h a t the amendments w i l l be presented in two (2) phases, Phase I for immediate action to provide a work- able ordinance, one which puts a sign in scale with it's surroundings, especially in the commercial district, and wi l l also allow the City to remove dangerous and unsafe signs that are no longer in use. He stated that in Phase II, they would take a comprehensive TOOK at all areas of the sign ordinance and develop a workable ordinance tor advertising in the City. Mr. Barnes reviewed the proposed ordinance for the Council. Mr. Hunt inquired if these changes are in the best interest ot the City? Mr. Barnes stated yes, that 95 %of the applications tor sign permits are tor general business signs and this is the area the City has the least efficiency. Mr. Barnes reviewed the general provisions and definitions ot the proposed ordinance. Mr. Pippin inquired if the definition of obsolete signs is a sufficient legal guideline to declare a sign obsolete. Mr. Cribbs stated it could create a burden on the C ity to prove the sign is obsolete and serves no bonafide purpose. Mr. Sustaire stated he recommends the Council defer the proposed amendments to the City Attorney for his review. Mr. Hunt inquired if anything has been included in the amendments that would be more restrictive with the posting of electioneering signs? Mr. Barnes stated that signs of that nature are covered in a separate ordinance and will be handled as in the past. Mayor Pro Tem McCormick inquired if there were any other proponents; there being none, she inquired if there were any opponents; there being none, she declared the public hearing closed. (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Euless City-.Council, February 28, 1978) Mayor Pro Tem McCormick stated the Council w i l l defer the proposed amendments to the sign ordinance to the City Attorney for his review. PUBLIC HEARING - ASSESSMENT HEARING ON PHASE III, NORTH MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS. FROM HARWOOD ROAD TO ROYAL OAKS ESTATES Mayor Pro Tem McCormick opened the p u b l i c hearing on Phase 111, North Main Street Improvements, from Harwood Road to Royal Oaks Estates. Mr. Cribbs stated this is a public hear- ing that is required by State Statute, at which the Council wi I I consider any evidence, testimony, or statement from any interested property owner with regard to the proposed assessment, which has been adopted and furnished to the property owners, indicating what the City proposes to assess on the im- provements to North Main Street. He further stated the front foot proposed assessment is eighteen dollars and sixty cents ($18.60) for residential property and thirty -seven dollars and twenty cents ($37.20) for commercial property. He stated the Council w i l l hear any evidence of enhancement of value to the property, receive any questions as to the validity to that par- ticularly proposed assessment, give any interested person an opportunity to make his remarks, and then close the public hearing and the Council decide; pursuant to the schedule that has been posted, and award the contract tor the improvements to North Main Street. Mr. Flowers stated that this project is Phase II I, North Main Street Improvements, from Harwood Road approximately 1500 feet t o the Thomes Animal Clinic. He stated the street w i l l be sixty - one (61) feet, face to face of- curb, five lanes of trattic with the center lane being a turning lane. He stated they received bids on this project and the low bid was $99,999.63, by Texas Bitulithic Company, and with the other costs of design, administratisn, inspection, legal and right -of -way purchase the total cost of the project is $149,126.95, that the only item is that is estimated is the inspection fee and this has been estimated, at 6% of the base bid price. He stated that taking the total cost and dividing the number of front. feet, the..cost is $52.70 a front foot or $105.00 a linear foot. He stated the amount that can be assessed to the property owners is 100% of curb and gutter and 90% of a l l other costs, and the Council could assess up to $47.68 a front foot. He stated however, the tentative assessment roll has been prepared in accordance with Resolution No. 424 at $18.60 per front foot for residential property and $37.20 per front foot for commercial property. He stated the total amount to be borne by the City is $47,928.44, and the total assessment to abutting property owners is $101,198.51, and these figures do not reflect the proposed credits. Mr. Flowers stated that on Phase II, the total cost of the project was $55.65 per front foot vs. $52.70 per front (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, February 28, 1978) foot for Phase 111, and the reason for the difference being that Phase 11 did have some drainage facilities in it and in Phase 111 they will salvage some curb and gutter on the west side of the street. Mr. Lynch stated the main task is to discuss a I I of the benefits to the property - the enhancement to the property, the value of improvements to the property in accordance with the maximum limits that were discussed, which is 100% of curb and gutter and 90% of the remaining costs. Mr. Lynch stated that some of the items that need to be considered, as far as enhancement or benefits to the property are safety, a limited maintainence type surface, providing adequate drainage, providing erosion control, providing access to the property, enhancing the aesthetic value of the property, and increasing the value of the property. Mr. Lynch stated that City of Euless Ordinance No. 1147 provides a certain street width for certain zoning. Mr. Lynch stated residential zoning requires a thirty - one (31) foot back to back street width, and a street abutting commercial property is required to be a minimum of forty -nine (49) feet wide, but that a sixty -seven (67) foot width could be required at the developers expense. He stated this particular street has been on the Euless Master Plan as a thoroughfare street for a number of years, and it would therefore be logical to consider enhancement to the widest street called for by the applicable zoning category. Mr. Lynch stated that the original pro- posal was to assess 25% to abutting residential property and 50% to the abutting commercial property, with the City paying 50% of the residentially zoned property and 0% ocf the commercial zoned property. He stated the maxi - rn.rn legal assessment the City can collect is $47.68 per front foot for commercial property and $23.84 per front foot for residential property for a thirty -one (31) foot street, with certain recommended credits. He further stated that the staff is recommending the same assessment rate that was assessed on Phase II, since Phase III bid came in with relatively similar bid prices. He stated the proposed assessment is $18.60 per front foot for residential property and $37.20 per front foot for commercial property, well below the legal assessment values. Mayor Pro Tem McCormick inquired if there were any other proponents; there being none, she inquired if there were any opponents. Mr. Bill Pasteur stated he is pleased t o be a part of these street improvements and i t w i l l enhance the value of h i s property and it w i l l be a safer street and better for the City; however, he doesn't know if they can raise the value of the property anymore than it has been raised in the past, due to the revaluation of the property by the tax o f f i c e . M r . Pasteur i n q u i r e d when the work order w i l l be issued for this project and what is the anticipated days for completion. Mr. Flowers stated that the work order will be issued as soon as contracts are executed, approximately within the i o3 (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, February. 28, -1978) next two (2) weeks and the contractor bid 150 Calender days for completion. Mr. Pasteur inquired of the City Attorney when the assessment would be levied, when the interest would begin and the amount of interest, and the terms of the assessment? Mr. Cribbs stated that the assessment would be due and payable when the project has been accepted by the City and a notice sent to the property owners that the assessment is due and payable. He further stated that if the property owner chooses to pay the assessment out i n installments, the i nterest would accrue at 8% after th i rty days from completion and acceptance by the City. He stated the assessment can be paid in five (5) installments, the first installment being due and payable on the first day of the month following the expiration of thirty (30) days from the completion and acceptance of the improvements by the City of Euless. Mr. Pasteur inquired the number -of feet in the project? Mr. Flowers stated approximately 1500 feet on the east side of North Main with a total footage of 2,829.79 feet for the project. Mr. Pasteur stated that he is the only commercial property owner in Phase 1 1 1 and their assessment is proposed at $37.20 a front foot. He stated this is a common thoroughfare for the common good of all the citizens of Euless, and it is not mandatory that the citizens along this route have a sixty -one (61) foot street for their own particular use, but he is in favor of a sixty -one (61) foot street. He stated a resi- dential street can be thirty -one (31) feet wide and a commercial street cal be forty -nine (49) feet wide, and this pis an increase of 55% in the width of the street, and a corresponding cost. He stated the commercial assess? ment i s 100 %oyer the cost of the residential assessment. He further stated that the assessment on his property is approximately $50,000, and if you take the bid price, his company is paying approximately 50% of the cost of the street; ;;if you take the design cost, inspection fees, etc., their portion would be 42 %; and if you include the purchase of right -of -way, - their cost would be 35% of the cost of the street. He stated if the property owners on the west side of the street were paying 42% assessment and they. were paying 42% assessment, that would leave 16% being paid by the general citizenry. He stated this is the question that he raises for the Council's consideration as to the cost of this particular street. Mr. W. G. Ragley stated that he lives in Royal Oaks Estates and these street improvements affect him and inquired if sidewalks are included from Harwood Road to Trailwood Drive. M r . Flowers stated the sidewalks w i l l be from Ash Lane to Trailwood Drive. IC `s (Page Six, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, Gebruary 28, 1978) Mr. Ragley inquired why sidewalks aren't installed from Harwood Road to Trailwood Drive as there are children on the street and he strongly recommends the City include sidewalks in the improve- ments. Mr. Flowers stated sidewalks could be added. Mr. Sustaire stated that as the property is developed, the City ordinance requires that sidewalks be'installed and the developer w i l l be required to install these sidewalks. Mr. Sustaire stated the City does not have the funds to build sidewalks at this time. Mr. Lynch stated there is another com- mercial piece of property in Phase III which is owned by Dr. Thomes. Mr. Hunt stated that if the Council does proceed w i t h the approval of the assessment ordinance, he w i l l abstain because he is a partial owner of some property effected by the improvements. ORDINANCE NO. 540 CLOSING THE PUBLIC 'HEARING AND SETTING AN ASSESSMENT RATE Mr. Ozebek moved to adopt Ordinance No. 540 closing the public hearing and levying an assessment for Phase III of the North Main Street Project, and the assessment rate of eighteen dollars and sixty cents (18.60) per front foot be charged for residential property and thirty -seven dollars and twenty cents (37.20) per front foot be charged for commercial property, as provided in the ordinance with the rate of interest and conditions of default, and an emergency be declared under Article 2, Section 11, of the Charter of the City of Euless, and this ordinance be approved on first and final reading. Mr. Pippin seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Ozebek, Pippin, Walker, and Mrs. McCormick Nays: None Abstain: Mr. Hunt motion carried. Mayor Pro Tem McCormick declared the Iv. CONSIDER CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TARRANT COUNTY AND CITY OF EULESS FIRE DEPARTMENT Mr. Sustai -re stated this is the same (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, February 28, 1978) contract agreement that Euless has had with Tarrant County for a number of years, that we provide the county residents within the boundary limits of Euless with fire protection, and is a continued mutual aide agreement with the cities adjacent to Euless and he recommends continuation of the contract. Mr. Pippin moved to concur with the recommendation of the City Manager and approve the contract agreement between Tarrant County and City of Euless Fire Department. Mr.. Walker seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Pippin, Walker, Hunt, Ozebe k, and Mayor Pro Tem McCormick Nays: None Mayor Pro Tem McCormick declared the motion carried. V. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Mr. Cribbs stated that the Triangle Club and Zim lawsuits are set for sometime in March, but he will keep the Council adv ised CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT VI., No.rth Main Street Improvements Mr. Flowers stated that he had a pre - construction conference on February 1st with the contractor of Section II and Section I I I o f the North Main Street Project and they went over a l l the items and also gave the contractor the work order to begin construction on Section 11, to begin February 6th. He stated the contractor said that it would be March 15th before he could get his material and begin work without tearing up the streets and having the street in that condition until his materials arrive. Mr. Flowers stated that the contractor wants to install a box culvert before he begins on the construction of the street. Mr. Flowers stated that the contractor has requested a change order to allow him to begin work on March 15th and he has discussed this with the City staff and it is his recommendation to'allow this extension. After discussion it was the consensus of the Council for Mr. Flowers to advise the contractor .that the Council has taken the request under the advisement and w i l l make a decision before the end of the 180 days. (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council., February 28, 1978) Mr. Flowers stated Texas Power and Light Company has started moving some of their poles, but they assured him that they wi l l have them completely moved this next week. VII. CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 539 - AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS Mr. John Lynch presented slides and charts on the amendments to the subdivision Rules and Regulations concerning drainage facilities and reviewed the amendments. Mr. Pippin inquired if it would be feasible for the City to review each major drainage area in the City and determine which type of channel should be installed based upon the guide- lines of the ordinance. Mr. Lynch stated in order to do so you must have certain information, but the City does not have a Drainage Master Plan at this time, which is what would be required to make a decision as Mr. Pippin suggested. Discussion followed on drainage studies for the City. Mr. Pippin moved to approve Ordinance No. 539 amending the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as presented on f i r s t reading of ordinance;? Mr. Hunt seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Pippin, Hunt, Walker, Ozebek, and Mayor Pro Tem McCormick Nays: None motion carried. Mayor Pro Tem McCormick declared the VIII, AWARD CONTRACT ON PHASE III . NORTH MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Hunt moved to award the contract for Phase III, North Main Street Improvements to Texas B i t u l i t h i c Company, in the amount of $99,999.63. Mr. Walker seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, February 28, 1978) Ayes: Messrs. Hunt, Walker, Pippin, Ozebek, and Mayor pro Tern McCormick Nays: None Mayor Pro Tem McCormick declared the motion carried. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. APPROVED: /s/ Harold D. Samuels Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Della Houy City Secretary