HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-28MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
0E THE
EULESS CITY COUNCIL.
MAY 281 1985
CALL TO ORDER
1985 -101
A regular meeting of the Euless City Council was called to order at 8:20 • .m.,
Tuesday, May 28, in the Council Chambers of the Euless Municipal Building, by
Mayor Harold D. Samuels. Councilmembers present were Mayor Pro -Tern Glenn
Walker, Bob Eden, Carolyn Park, and Robert. Pippin. Councilman Ron Stern:fels
was absent.
Staff Members Present
W.M.Susta...re, City Manager James Cribbs, City Attorney
Tom Hart, Assistant City Manager Jean Wilson, Deputy City Secretary
Jaynes Knight, City Engineer & Director of Public Works
Jim McKanna, Project Engineer
Visitors
David M. Ryan
Ron Addison
Gerald Hartman
Margaret Byrnes
Paul. Bergfield
Pauline Grimes
Tom Priest
Debra Morrison
Ron Morris
Vera Johnson
Ron Brown
Bryan Allen Brooks
Gerald McDonald
Dean Conlin
and other interested parties.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Councilman Robert Pippin.
1985 -102
Euless City Counci.1. Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Page Two
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 1: PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING CASE NO. 85 -10
Mayor Samuels explained the public hearing process and opened the public
hearing for Zoning Case No. 85 -10, for a change of zoning on Lot 7, Block 1,
Wilshire 'Village Square, a total of 4 acres of land, from C-2 to C -2 w/sp for
new and used car sales, located south and adjacent to S,H. 183 east and
adjacent. to Wilshire Drive, and north and adjacent to Wilshire Village Square.
Mr. Ron Addison was present representing Mr, William Garrison, He stated that
this property would be used for a used Porsche dealership, He also stated that
the buildings on the property would not be removed but modified and used in
the business. He went on to say that the green houses on the property would
be relocated and that they were looking at. January of 198 for completing the
used car sales lot and opening it for business.
Mr. Pippin moved to approve Zoning Case No. 85 -10 in accordance with the
recommendations -of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Walker seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Pippin, Walker, Eden, and Mrs. Park
Nays: `one
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM. 2: PUBLIC HEAR.%NG
City Attorney James Erib'bs, explained to the Council and the audience the
assessment process and the notice that had been sent to the property owners
along North Main Street. He stated that there were only five property owners
that would be assessed since the developers along North Main had escrowed
monies for the improvement of North Main Street during the time they were
developing that area.
Mr. Gerald Hartman, Inter.f.irst Bank, representing Mr. and Mrs. W. W.
McCormick, raised questions concerning the bridge costs, and the possibility
of the Council giving credit toward the assessment., for the property Mr. and
Mrs. McCormick had given the City.
Messrs. Tony Scalise, Ron Vanway, and Gerald McDonald spoke concerning the
assessments to those property owners whose developers had escrowed monies when
the property was developed,
It was brought out that the property owners whose developers had escrowed
monies for would not be assessed for any additional monies.
Mr. Hagood of Hagood and Associates presented a report titled "Valuation
Analysis, Eight Separate Parcels, North Main Street Widening Project, Euless,
Texas," to the Council. Mayor Samuels asked that a portion of the analysiF
be made a part of the minutes (Exhibit A).
1985-103
Euless City Council Regular Meeting; - May 28, 1985 - Page Three
Mr. Bill Pasteur, of 8i11 Pasteur. Real Estate, stated that the property along
North Main Street would he both enhanced and of greater value after the
reconstruction of North Mai:: Street was complete,
Mayor Samuels asked if there were any additional proponents for the assess-
ments of North Main Street. There being none, he asked if there were any
opponents to the assessments of North Main Street.. There being noise, he asked
if there were any further questions or discussion from the Council or the
Audience. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF 8iD AWARD AND RECOMMENDATION ON NORTH MAIN STREET
IMPROVEMENT _ --
Mr. Walker moved to accept the low bid of Austin Road for improvements
to North Main Street, said bid being $1,658,401.90 for an asphalt road,
and $1,826,984.79 for a concrete road.
M_•. Pippin seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Walker, Pippin, Eden, and Mrs. Park
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 841
Mr. Walker moved to declare an emergency and approve on first reading
Ordinance Nn. 841, concluding the Public Hearing on street assessments on
North Main Street and levying an assessment.
Mr. Pippin seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. 'Walker, Pippin, Eden and Mrs. Park
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM CONSIDERATION OF CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Walker moved to call a public hearing on .dune 2.5, 1985, for Zoning Case
85-14, a request of Terra Development, Inc . , for a change of zoning on Tract
A (known as Tracts 3, 3A1, 3A2, 4 and 5, S. Tucker Survey, c
A- ].512)). . containing ,
35.6193 acres of land fro3r: CUD (Community Unit Development) at 8 units per
acre, located east of Fuller-Wiser Road, south and west of proposed S. H. 360
and north of Mid- Cities Boulevard and Tract 8 (known as Tracts 3 and 4, S.
Tucker Survey, Abstract 151 �), containing 46.7062 acres of land, from CUE:
(Community Unit Development) at. 16 .units per acre to CUD (Community Unit
Development) at 22 units per acre, .located north and east of proposed S.H. 360,
and south and west of D/FW Airport property.
Mr. Eden seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Walker, Eden, Pippin and Mrs. Park
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried,
1985 -104
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 2 €8, 1985 - Page Four
ITEM 5A: CONSIDERATION OF CREDIT FOR DONATED LAND ON NORTH MAIN STREET
ASSESSMENTS
Mr. Eden moved to discuss the topic of credit for donated land on N. Main Street
• at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Mr. Walker seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Pippin and Mrs. Park
Nays: None
(City Secretary's Note: Mr. Walker was out of the room during the vote on this
motion.)
Mayes Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 6: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE
Mr. Pippin moved to approve First reading of an ordinance vacating a portion
of Huntington Drive, a public street in the City of Euless, a request of Shell
Oil Company.
Mr. Eden seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Pippin, Eden, Walker, and Mrs. Park
Nays: N o n e
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 7: CONSIDERATION OF PLATTING NO. P -85 -17
Mr. Pippin moved to approve Platting No. P- 85 -17, combined preliminary and
final plat of Huie Addition - Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, containing
5,28 acres of land, located south of S.H. 183, north of Alexander. Lane, east
of Dickey Drive and west and adjacent to Fort Worth city limits in accordance
with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Walker seconded the motion.
Ay.e_s: Messrs. Pippin, Walker, Eden, and Mrs. Park
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 8: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE
Mr. Eden moved to approve first reading of an ordinance vacating a utility,
easement in the City of Euless, Texas, being 0.03 acre of land situated in the
A.J. €Hitt Survey, Abstract No. 709, a request of Shell Oil Company.
Mrs. Park seconded the motion.
Ayes: Mr. Eden, Mrs. Park, Messrs. Pippin and 'Walker
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
1985-105
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Page Five
ITEM 9: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE
Mr. Eden moved to approve first reading of an ordinance vacating a utility
easement in the City of Euless. Texas, being Tract B -R -A block 2, Oak Crest
Estates, A request of Shell Oil Company.
Mrs. Park seconded the motion.
Ayes: Mr. Eden, Mrs. Park, Messrs. Pippin and Walker
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carr?.ed.
ITEM 10: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE
Mr. Eden moved to approve first reading of are ordinance vacating a utility
easement in the City of Euless, Texas, being in the A. J, Huitt Survey, abstract
No. 709, a request of Shell Oil Company.
Mrs. Park seconded the motion.
Ayes: Mr. Eden, Mrs. Park, Messrs. Pippin and ; ^ialker.
Nays: None
Manor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 11: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE
€ir. Eden moved to approve first reading of an ordinance vacating a utility
easement in the City of Euless, Texas, being Tract B -R -A Block 2 Oak Crest
Estates, a request of Shell Oil Company.
Mrs. Park seconded the motion.
Ayes: Mr. Eden, Mrs. Park, Messrs. Walker and Pippin
Nays: None
Manor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 12: CONSIDERATION OF PLAT EXTENTION REQUESTED BY R. L. MUHLEISEN OF MCR
INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Ron Morrison was present representing Mr. Muhleisen. He asked that if the
Council approved this plat extention, would the City Manager's Office write
a letter stating the City Council concurred with and approved the proposed
plans?
Mr. Eden moved to approve the plat extention for 60 days and that the letter
be written as requested.
Mr. Pippin seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Pippin, Walker, and Mrs. Park
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
1985 -106
Euless City Council Regular Meeting -- May 28; 1985 - age Six.
ITEM 13: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 85-598
Mr. Walker moved to approve Resolution No. 85 -598, determining the necessity
for and or :er.i.n�g the improvement. of a portion of Harwood Road, providing tha'
a portion of the cost be assessed against the abutting property and its owners—
Mr. Pippin seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Walker, Pippin, Eden, and Mrs. Park
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 14: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 85-599
Mr. Walker moved to approve Resolution No 85 -599, determining the necessity
for ordering the improvement of a portion of t^;est:par way and Marlene Drive;
providing that a portion of the cost be assessed against the abutting property
and its owners.
Mr. Pippin seconded the motion.
Ayes: Walker, Pippin, Eden, and Mrs. Park
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 15: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTOION NO 85 -600
Mr. Walker moved to approve Resolution No. 85-600, determining the necessity
and ordering the improvement of a portion of Baze Road; providing that a
portion of the cost be assessed against the abutt:ino property and its owners.
Mr. Pippin seconded the motion.
Ayes: Messrs. Walker, Pippin, Eden, and M.rs. Park
Nays: None
Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried.
ITEM 16: CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney ;lames Cribbs stated he had nothing to report.
ITEM 17: CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
City Engineer James Knight stated he had nothing to report.
1985-107
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Page Seven
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:00 p.m.
APPROVED:
<7,La.,0/
Harold D. Samuels, Mf:yer
Jean: tf lsnn, Deputy City Secretary
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1985-108
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - My 28, 1985 - Exhibit '!A"
P < .
r
•
/ ,
1
Jc
f
, . •
r.--- 3--. t • r',.; .7. . T.t.
1-7•-%
L'i k Li
• .-
1985 -,1';9
Euless City Council Regular Meting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 1
The shape and dimensions of subject Parcel No. 1 are illustrated
on the foregoing Plot Plan. Of the 20 acres contained in this
tract, approximately l6 acres is within the flood plain of Little
Bear Creek according to City of Euless Engineers. The four acres
situated outside of this flood plain are located in the southerly
and southeasterly portion of the tract with the only access to
North Main Street provided by the 25' strip along the southerly
property line.
The remaining 418.3' of frontage is located substantially below
the grade of the North Main Street bridge across Bear Creek and
this portion of the subject property has no access from the
.street. Additionally 220' of the frontage lying across the chan-
nel of Little Bear Creek is the west boundary of a 44,000 square
foot drainage easement acquired by the City of Euless in con-
nection with the North Main improvement project.
The entire tract is zoned "R -1" Single - family residential under
the ordinances of the City of Euless. This zoning classification
is common to properties adjoining subject Parcel 1 on the north
and east and located in the Trailwood Addition west across North
Main Street. The propertv adjoining on the north is now improved
with a residential condominium townhouse project.
It is our opinion that if vacant and unimproved the highest and
best use for the approximate four acres of land above the flood
plain of Little Bear Creek would be for a small single -- family
residential subdivision of exclusive homes accessed .from Main
Street by a private drive along the southerly property line. The
highest and best use for the remaining 16 acres lying within the
flood plain of Little Bear Creek would be for recreational pur-
poses in conjunction with the residential development of the
adjoining high land or as a public park facility.
Based on an analysis of the foregoing sales it is our opinion
that, before imposition of the North Main Street improvement
project, the 20 acres contained in subject Parcel No. 1, con-
sidered as vacant and unimproved, had a market value as of
May 15, 1985, of:
ji THREE HUNDRED THIRTY -ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS---$331,500.
This value is pro -rated $60,000 per acre to the four .acres, more,
or less, of high land, $6,000 per acre to 15 acres lying within
the flood plain of Little Bear Creek and $1,500 per acre as the
contributory value of the approximate one acre of land lying
within the channel of the creek and encumbered by the drainage
easement.
The proposed North Main improvement project provides for the
extension of the bridge over Little Bear Creek approximately 80'
1985 -1I[]
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 1 (continued)
to the north and the installation of e 5' wide concrete sidewalk
from the bridge northward approximately 1i5' to a point in the
westward extension of the subject's north property line, This
sidewalk will be approximately 40' west of the subject's west
property line and the east right-of-way line of North Main Street
and substantially above the grade of the subject property at this
location.
This project will have no effect on the existing 25' access to the
subject highland located in the extreme southwest corner of the
subject site. It will not improve the access to or development
potential of the property. Therefore, the indicated market .value'
of the subject property, after completion of the proposed improve-
ment project and under market conditions existing as of
May 15, 1985 remains unchanged or:
THREE HUNDRED THIRTY -ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS----$331,000.
The proposed assessment applicable to subject Parcel No. 1 is
$16,336.60 based on 196 front feet contained in the project at a
rate of $83.35 per front foot. Since there appears to be no
benefits attributable to subject Parcel No. 1 as a result of the -
North fain improvement project, it is our ,pinion that this
proposed assessment is totally unjustified.
2 ,.s
Euless Ci.ty IThunci1 Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit, "A"
r, r rr0
PO r7
Q.
1,1•1\01. t.:
CiTY r)p-
1
N.
11:
1-211/4„..„
1\ i
4
/
fl
-4
24
1985 -1..2
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit ''A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 2
As illustrated on the foregoing Piot Plan, subject Parcel No. 2 is
a highly irregular shaped 70,245 square foot tract of land which
is encumbered by a 37,390.9 square foot drainage easement. As
shown on the foregoing Photographs, parcel No. 2 is moderately to
heavily wooded with native trees. The bed of Little Bear Creek is
at an average elevation of 508' above sea level across this tract.
The bridge over the creek adjacent to this parcel is at an approx-
imate elevation of 529'.
While the natural channel of Little Bear Creek contains perpetual
flowage during normal periods, the entire subject parcel lies
within the flood plain of Little Bear Creek. There is no reason-
able access from North Main Street to Parcel No. 2 and the pro-
1 perty is effectively divided by the drainage easement into several
small tracts.
1 Parcel No. 2 is zoned "R -1" Residential under the ordinances of
the City of Euless. The propertys adjoining the subject on the
south and west are improved with ,middle income masonry dwellings
situated on large lots above the flood plain of Little Bear Creek.
The adjoining property on the north (subject Parcel No. 3) is
improved with a smaller frame residence with only the building.
site above the flood plain of Little Bear Creek.
It is our opinion that the only use for the approximate 32,854
square feet of subject Parcel No. 2 (.7542 acres) not encumbered
by the drainage easement is to provide access for adjoining pro-
perty owners to Little Bear Creek. The owners adjoining the
subject property on the north and west already have this access.
Considering this very limited utility and market, it is our
opinion that the .7542 acres lying outside of the drainage. ease -
ment has a unit value of no more than $500 per acre and that the
land lying within the drainage easement (37,390.9 square feet) has
no contributory value. This then results in an indicated market
value for subject Parcel No. 2 before imposition of the North Main
improvement project and as of -May 15, 1985 of:
FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS $400.
The North Main Improvement Project will extend the bridge over
Little Bear Creek approximately 80' to the north. A 5' wide
concrete sidewalk will be constructed from the north end of the
bridge approximately 120' to a point in the eastward extension of
the subject's north property line. Upon completion of this
improvement project, there will be no change in the access to or
,1 development potential of subject parcel No. 2.
1
1985-113
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 2 (continued)
It is therefore our opinion that the market value of the subject
property after imposition of the improvement project and as of May
15, 1985 would remain unchanged or: •
FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS $400.
The proposed assessment for parcel No. 2 is $16,336.60 based on
196 front feet and an assessment rate of $83.35 per front foot.
It is evident, in our opinion, that this assessment is totally
unjustified.
2b
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Euless City
Council
\
.,- 5:70 S!".',F•7:
Regular Meeting
E
C.)
\
• /,7093.'-'
p--.5.?,$ 4
4r6 • kt:,:r
44)
M a
28,
1985-114
1985 Exhibit
i4
L4 A,(7.C.:.1 Clt, 7
a. •
D. r Z-1.) R ,
CiTy
:
WZ•n• F4 :* --r!) z C,
E t. ., •
,'•;! L.L ••-4
•
LL)
PLOT PLOT PLAN
29
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1985 -115
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A,r
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO 3
As illustrated on the foregoing Plot Plan, Parcel No. 3 is basic-
ally triangular in shape and upon completion of the proposed
Improvement project will have 539.8' of frontage along the west
side of North Main Street. This property is presently improved
with a small frame single - family dwelling. This dwelling is
located on a site which appears to have been created with fill to
an elevation on the approximate grade of North Main Street. It is
estimated this building site contains approximately 20,000 square
feet and is adequate in size for only a single dwelling.
The remainder of the site is moderately to heavily wooded and
within the flood plain of Little Bear Creek. The creek channel
extends through the southwesterly portion of the property.
The property is zoned R -1 Single- family Residential under the
ordinances of the city of Euless. The property adjoining on the
south (Parcel No. ) is also zoned single - family residential but
is within the flood plain'of Little Bear Creek. The property
adjoining on the west is loceted partially across Little Bear
Creek from the subject, is zoned C -1 commercial and is also
totally within the flood plain of Little Sear Creek.
As a part of the North Main Improvement Project, the City of
Euless has acquired a 570 square foot drainage easement _located
near the north tip of the subject property. The imposition of
this easement has also created 100X damage to the segerated north
tip of the property which, according to city engineers,- contains
an estimated 800 square feet. Consequently the 1,370 square feet
of the northern tip of the subject property are considered to have
no utility and no contributory value resulting in a remaining area
of 65, 712 square feet, more or less of which approximately 45, 712
square feet are within the flood plain of Little Bear Creek.
Based on a unit value of $1.00 per square foot for the 20,000
square feet considered to be above the flood plain of Little Bear
Creek and $6,000 per acre for the 45,712 square feet (1.0494
acres) lying within the flood plain, it is our opinion that sub-
ject Parcel No. 3 had a market value before imposition of the
North Main Street Improvement Project and as of May 15, 1985 of:
TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND T PFE HUNDRED DOLLARS $26,300.
The North Main Improvement Project includes the construction of
concrete curbs and gutters and a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along
the entire west line of North Main Street adjacent to the subject
property. It also' includes the installation of a concrete median
which, in our opinion, impedes access to the property from north-
bound traffic on North Main Street and access to the northbound
lane from the subject property.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1985 --11.6
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 3 (continued)
The existing dwelling and available building site on the subject
property is currently served with a semi circular. drive. The
median cut available to the subject property is located a few feet
north of the north curb cut serving the subject but is oriented to
the curb cut serving the Village in the Green residential condo -
minium complex .located east across Main Street from the subject.
In order for northbound traffic to enter the subject property, it
must make an almost full U -turn through the center median without
the protection provided by a left turn lane. In order to leave
the subject to go north on Main Street traffic .must illegally
cross southbound traffic at an acute angle. The median is not
sufficiently wide for a car to stop or poise before entering the
northbound lanes.
We feel that the arrangement of this median in front of the sub -
ject property would create a hazardous situation particularly
during rush hour traffic. This median precludes any probability
of Parcel No. 2 being rezoned for commercial use and, in our
opinion, would tend to limit its marketability if vacant and
unimproved and as zoned for a single - family dwelling site.
Consequently, it is our opinion that the market value of subject
Parcel 3 after imposition of the North Main Street Improvement
Project and as March 1.5, 1985 remains unchanged or:
TWENTY -SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS $26,300.
The proposed assessment of $44,992.33 based on 539.8 front feet at
a unit price of .$83.35 per front foot is, in our opinion, totally
unjustified. Also, there is a strong possibility that the value
of Parcel 3 could be reduced because of the location of the
proposed median cut relative to the driveway across to the
subject.
33
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
198.5-117
Euless Cit'y' Council Regular Meeting - May 28 , 1985 - Exhibit "A"
K10 Lr14 IAN NI
E
E A
VIk,\--
_
ACT
'.5- o
rs:.1,"7 c„ , I 2.
C - •
PLOTt '
01 A
3 4
.1985 -118
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1.985 -- Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 4
As illustrated on the foregoing Plot Plan, subject Parcel No. 4 is
an irregular shaped 7.561 acre tract (329,357.16 square feet),
more or less, located at the southeast corner of the intersection
of North Main Street and Cheek- Sparger Road (Mid Cities Blvd.).
The most northerly 50' of this tract is contained in 50' Texas
Power and Light electrical •transmission easement. The most north-
erly 66' of the tract, including the electrical easement, is
within the proposed future right -of -way of Cheek - Sparger Road.
As proposed, Cheek- Sparger Road at this Location will be a divided
boulevard. The future westbound lane is currently in place, is .
used as a two -lane, two -way street, and provides access along the
entire north line of Parcel 4. The south or eastbound lane will
be completed when warranted by local traffic demand.
This future 66' wide right-of-way contains an estimated 42,441
square feet leaving a net developable area in Parcel 4 of approx-
imately 286,916 square feet. Under the provisions of Community
Unit Development Ordi_b.a t . 6D.x. ;...Ear.ge.i..^._.f_.i_ zoned for Mule .<t;'ly
development°' iTnt_to exceed 12 units per acre. i ris zoning clas-
sification would currently permit the area within the electrical,
transmission easement to be used for access, parking, open space,
or landscaping in conjunction with the development of the site.
Based on an estimated usable area of 286,916 square feet and
considered as vacant and unimproved, subject Parcel No. 4 could be
developed with 79 apartment units or, more desirably, condominium
townhouse dwellings.
Sales 4 and 18 through 25 in the foregoing Market Data section of
this report are of recent transactions within the immediate neigh-
borhood of land zoned for a wide range of residential uses. Con -
sidering the location and development potential of the subject
property and based on an analysis of these residential sales, it
is our opinion that the 329,357 square feet contained in Parcel
No, 4, considered as vacant and available to be placed to its
highest and best use, had a unit value of approximately $3.75 per
square foot and a market value as of May 15, 1985 of:
ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY -FIVE THOUSAND OOL.LARS - - -$1 , 235, 000.
The North Main Improvement Project includes the construction of
concrete curbs and gutters and a 5' concrete sidewalk along the
entire west line of the subject property. Additionally it will •
include the construction of a center median -park in North Main
Street which will completely eliminate direct access to and from
the subject property for southbound traffic on North Main Street.
To enter the subject property, southbound traffic will have to
turn left onto Cheek- .Sparger Road and then right into the subject
property or will have to make a U -turn at the median cut serving
Abbey Street (immediately south of the subject property) and
return to the subject northbound.
3'°'
1
1
1
1
1985 -119
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 -Y Exhibit. "A„
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND 'VALUATION - PARCEL NQ. 4 (continued)
Southbound traffic departing the subject will most probably have
to exit westbound on Cheek- Sparger Road and turn left onto North
Main Street. This, of course, assumes an adequate median cut
properly located when Cheek- Sparger Road is expanded to a divided
four -lane thoroughfare.
The subject property is located at what will become, within the
foreseeable future, a major intersection in north Euless. The
property east of North Main Street immediately adjacent to subject
Parcel No. 4 is already developed to middle - income apartments and
condominium townhouses. Upper middle income single- family dwel-
linys are located a short distance east of the subject. The
property west across North Main Street is presently vacant but is.
zoned for future commercial development which could include com-
munity shopping facilities, commercial offices, professional
buildings, etc.
Considering the subject's location, it is our opinion that after
the imposition of the proposed North Main Improvement Project and
as of May 15, 1985, it will have a unit value of $4.O0 per square
foot (based on 329,357 square feet of gross area) and a market
value of:
ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
[ $1,317,500 ]
When the value before the imposition of the improvement project of
$1,235,000 is deducted from the value after the imposition of the
improvement project of $1,317,500, the resulting benefit derived
from this project is shown to be $82,500.
The proposed assessment of $41,821.22 based on 422.65 front feet
at a unit rate of $98.95 per front foot appears, in our opinion,
to be justified.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1985-120
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit 1'iA"
C'LEL ti'
•77"?. th±
I kl t. 4-1
-4
k
rr
7
0.665
v-7-
PLOT PLAN
..,,.........„. 1 ,,,,i
.-^----ii
39
1985 -121
Euless City Council. Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 -- Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND 'VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 5
As illustrated on the Foregoing Plot Plan, subject Parcel No. 5 is
a highly irregular triangular shaped tract of ground located at
the southwest intersection of North Main Street and the proposed
route of Cheek-- Sparoer Road, It is bounded on the southwest by
the proposed future channel of Little Bear Creek. Access to North
Main Street is available along the most northerly 603.91' of its
east property line. The remaining east line adjoins subject -
Parcel Nc. 3.
According the owner's agent, Mr. Bill Stoibero of IIA, Inc., and
confirmed by the Euless City Engineer, the entire 9.665 acres in
Parcel 5 is within the flood plain of Little Bear Creek. Mr.
Stolbero further stated that they had obtained current estimates
of $.45 to 1,50 per square foot to provide adequate fill to raise
the site above flood elevation.
According toy Euless city officials, there is not Creek currently a
timetable for either Lha nnL,. li zing Little Bear or con-
structing Cheek- .Sparger Road.. As proposed, Cheek-Sparger Road
will be a four- -.cane divided boulevard extending from F.M. 157 on
the west eastward through the northern limits of Euless to S.H.
360. From North Main Street eastward to. .S.H. 360 two to four
lanes of Cheek- Sparger Road have been completed.
The entire subject property is currently zoned C-1 Commercial
under the ordinances of the City of Euless. Property adjoining
on the west and southwest is also in the flood plain 'of Little
Bear Creek and it is zoned PO (open space) . An 18. ,3558' acre tract
;Parcel No. 6, adjoining the subject on the north and extending
northward to Bear Creek Dri ve is zoned C-2 Commercial, Properties
along the east side of North Main Street from Little Bear Creek
northward are currently improved with middle to upper-middle in-
come apartments or condominium townhouses.
In our opinion the highest and best use for the subject site is to
hold for future commercial development, We were unable to locate
any recent Sales within Tarrant County of small acreage com-
mercially zoned tracts which were totally within an existing flood
Plain but, like the subject property, could be filled and
developed at a reasonable expense. Based on an analysis of com-
mercial land sales in the area and considering such factors as the
subject's location, cost to fill, current and future development
potential, it is our opinion that the 431,007 square feet, more or
less, contai
1985 -122
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A„
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 5 (continued)
The North Main Improvement Project provides for the construction
of concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalk along the west side of
North Main Street adjacent to the subject property's east line.
As completed, North Main Street will be a divided four -lane
thoroughfare with left hand turn lanes provided at its inter-
section with Cheek- Sparger. Road. A median cut in front of the
subject property and south of Cheek - Sparger Road will permit
adequate access for the subject property from both the north and
southbound lanes of North Main Street.
it is our opinion that after imposition of the North Main Street
improvement Project, the 421,007 square feet contained in the
subject property, considered as vacant and available to be placed
to its highest and best use, had a unit value of $4.00 per square
foot and a market value as of May 15, 1985 of:
ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED EIGHT -FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS----$1,684,000.
The difference between the•va}ue after the imposition of the
improvement project of $1,684,000 and the value before the im-
position of these improvements of $1,473,500 is $210,500.
The proposed assessment of $66,019,44 is based on 603.91 front
feet at a unit price of $109.32 per front foot. It would appear,
in our opinion, that this assessment is justified.
1
1985-123
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A"
A
1
1
1
1
1
P1RCEL 6
cct r, idXT
r
t; V I F.--.tqj'Ir , F
-ry t.
1
1985 -,.24
Euless City- Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A,'
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 6
As illustrated on the foregoing Plot Plan, subject Parcel No. 6 is
an irregular rectangular shaped tract of ground located at the
southwest corner of the intersection of Bear Creek Drive and North
Main Street. It fronts 844.79' along the south line of Bear Creek
Drive and approximately 847.6' along the west line of improved
North Main Street. Its south line is the approximate center line
of proposed Cheek - Sparger Road. It contains 18.355 acre or
799,579 square feet of .land, more or less.
This entire parcel has full access from both Bear Creek Drive and
North Main Street. All public utili
1985-125
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 26, 1985 -- Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 6 (continued)
The North Main Improvement Project will result in widening North
Main to an 80' right -of -Way with 62' of pavement, and installing
concrete curbs and gutters and a 5° concrete walk along the entire
West side of the street adjacent to the subject's east property
line. Parcel 6 will have full access to both north and southbound
traffic along its entire Main Street frontage. The improved North
Main Street will substantially enhance the future ingress and
egress to Parcel 6 from North Main Street.
It is our opinion that after imposition of the North Main Street
Improvement Project, the 799,579 square feet contained in Parcel 6
considered as vacant and unimproved, Would have a unit value of
approximately $6.50 per square foot and a market value as of
May 15, 1985 of:
FIVE MILLION ONE HUNDRED NINETY - -SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS-$5,197,000.
When the value before imposition of the improvement project of
$4,797,000 is deducted from the value indicated after imposition
of the improvement project of $5,197,000, the resulting value
created by the improvement project is estimated to be $400,000.
The proposed assessMent of $101,362.60 based on 927.21 front feet
at a unit rate of $109.32 per front foot is, in our opinion, fully
justified.
1
1
49
1
1
1
1985-12.6
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - 'lay 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A"
•
1
NC 5,E ,F-fc.-Lo
12 iTh
) L
1N-L7:5)1
A •74 3 4 P E r 7
0 u c-)
L,13.1
C.t-ri OF Et/LE Al."-
1,1 (.1 ,i`•
2LOT PLAN
csj
50
1
1985 -127
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Cxhibit. "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 7
As illustrated on the foregoing Plot Plan, subject Parcel No. 7 is
a rectangular shaped interior site containing 34,571.52 square
feet, more or less, fronting 169.21' on the west side of North
Main Street approximately 350' south of its intersection with
Glade Road, The property is presently improved with a single -
family masonry dwelling which has been converted to commercial
use. All public utilities are available and extended into the
property.
Parcel 6 is zoned G -2 Community Business under the ordinances of
the City ty ot" Euless. This is the most permissive zoning clas-
sification permitting virtually any type of retail or office use.
Considered as vacant and unimproved, its highest and best use
would be for a wide variety of retail outlets, fast food
facilities, commercial or professional offices, or community
facilities. It is our opinion that the 34,571.52 square feet,
more or less, of land area contained in Parcel 7 before imposition
of the North Main Street Improvement Project had a unit value of
approximately 15.25 per square foot and a market value as of
May 15, 1985 of:
TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS $216,000.
Upori completion of the improvement project, North Main Street will
be widened to an 80' right -of -way with 62' of pavement, concrete
curbs and gutters and a 5' concrete sidewalk installed along the
entire west side of Main Street adjacent to the subject property's
east line. Subject Parcel 7 will continue to have full-but sub -
stantially improved access to and from North Main Street along its
entire frontage.
Upon completion of these improvements it is our opinion that the
1 34,571.52 square feet of land, more or less, contained in Parcel 7
and considered as vacant and unimproved will have a unit value of
approximately $7.00 per square foot and a market value as of
May 15, 1985 of:
TWO HUNDRED FORTY -TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS $242,000.
1 When the value indicated for the subject site before imposition of
the North Main Improvement Project of $216,000 is deducted from
the value indicated after imposition of the improvements of
$242.000, the estimated value resulting from the improvement pro-
ject is shown to be $26,000.
The proposed assessment applicable to Parcel No. 7 is $18,498.04
based on 169.21 front feet and a unit price -of $109.32 per front
foot. It is our opinion that this assessment is totally
justified.
5 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1985-128
Euless City Council Regular Meeting - May 28, 1985 - Exhibit "A"
LE
=
Aril, 54,
Q
L
47 11.1
A, 1, I 'f; A C. fa TACT
eDr
r 'F) U„ A, C. 5, 50
Cr' nr EULE.
NT- COO r f
PLOT PLAN
NE(
T-'0 Di
4
d
0
P:1!
r'
1 54
1985 -129
11 Euless City Council Regular 'Feting - May 28, 1985 - Exh..bit. "A"
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 8
As illustrated on the foregoing Plot Plan, subject Parcel No. 8 is
a rectangular shaped tract of land fronting 105.17' on the west
side of North Main Street approximately 250' south of Glade Road.
This -is a relatively narrow tract of land having a depth of appro-
ximately 471.94' and containing an estimated 49,633.9" square
feet. The depth to frontage ratio is 4.49:1 which would substan-
tially limit its development potential except in Conjunction with
an adjoining property.
The property adjoining the subject on the north is under common
ownership and is now improved with a neighborhood .shopping center
keyed by • a 7 -11 convenience store. Parcel No. 8 will be Phase II
of this development.
The subject tract is zoned C -1 Neighborhood Business District
under the ordinances of the City of Euless. Property adj
Euless City Cnunr.i 1 Regular Meeting May 28, 1985 -- Exhibitl eA" -13u
PROPERTY ANALYSIS AND VALUATION - PARCEL NO. 8 (continued)
When the value before the imposition of the improvement project of
$248,000 is deducted from the value after the imposition of the
improvement project of $273,000, the estimated increase in value
resulting from this improvement project is shown to be $25,000.
The proposed assessment applicable to Parcel 8 is $11,497./8 based
on 105.i7 front feet and a unit price of $109.32 per front foot.
We feel that this assessment is totally justified.
58
INFORMATION NOTATION:
The following 16 pages are verbatim testimony heard at
the
pubic or for the North Main Street Assessment
project, he,"Id on May 28, 1995.
Portions of the testimony are inaudibl.e, ad r some
instances the section o± the tape is indicated for
LO convenience of persons who wish to listen to thef.
tape. Example: (Tape Side 4/2).
Tapes of this public hearing are located in the
Exhibit Foider for the May 29, 2$&5 City Co'unci7.
meeting.
The
1 pages were not adopted as a part of the official
minutes of that meeting. They are merely a typed trans-
cri.pt in verbatim style (as best as can be done) for
information purposes.
Kay Rainey, CMC
City Secretary
Page 1 of 16
PUBLIC HEARING -• May 28, 1985 - North Main Street Assessments
Mayor Samuels: This item is a public hearing concerning improvements and assessments
to North Main. Street and the bridge over Little Bear Creek. For this case, the City of
Euless will be the proponent, and then we will give anyone an opportunity to speak as
an opponent or to ask questions regarding this. At this time, we' l l open the public
hearing and the first proponent will be the city attorney, James Cribbs,
-fir•.• Cribbs: Mayor and Council, as you all know, this is a public hearing that
culminates a great deal of hard work on the part of city staff, city engineer and I think
all the citizens of Euless recognize that the improvement to North Main, from the Bear
Creek bridge to Glade Road is a project that needs to be done. No I want to point out
to the Mayor and Council before we call on Mr. Wayne Hagood and Mr. Bill Pasteur from
the audience to discuss the value of the properties affected -- I would like to remind
you that much of the land abutting either side of North Main has heretofore either been
zoned or developed, or at least built out, and many of these properites have been
subdivided in residential areas and home; and the developers in every instance were
required by this Coucil to deposit at the time that they received the zoning approval
and plat approval as a con =dition to commencing the development to deposit with the city
funds which at that time were calculated to be a reasonable cost of the improvements of
North Main. That being the case, whenever the assessment roll is prepared, it was
composed in some 17 pages with some eight to nine different properties listed on the
assessment roll. It's formidable and it is required by law to go completely through
with the preparation of this assessment roll, and the attachment of proposed
assessments for each property shown on that list. Now, I think there was included in
the notice, which went out to the public, the indication that the Council had informally
taken the position that it did not intend to assess any assessments against those
properties where money was deposited at the time of their development. In effect,
Council, what this means is that only five properties out of the 89 shown on the list
are going to be subject to an assessment. Four of those properties are commercial, and
the other is a combination of planned development. The properties which in effect will
be affected by this assessment are property owner No. 23, 49, 56, 57, 78, and 79 shown
on your list. That's the McCormick tract, Olperton, Inc., Cheek - Sparger Joint Venture,
Miller -- McDonald, Glade Crossing Joint. Venture. The engineers made an estimate of what
its going to cost to complete this new thoroughfare; the estimate was low, and whenever
the actual bids came in, the cost will exceed a $190 per foot of front foot, built at
street, according to the plans and specifications. I believe that the city has
indicated that it will absorb the difference in cost between asphalt and concrete. You
requested that the project be bid both ways and I believe that your decision will be
made later tonight, but I believe it is the Council's decision to absorb the cost
differential. _ would like to point out to you that at the conclusion of the evidential
testimony relative to the value of these some five tracts that I read into the record,
I will point out to you that the proposed assessment which has been recommended by the
staff to the Council of $190 a foot, but on the McCormick tract, 98.95 a foot, and on
the retraining four tracts, $109.32 per front foot for each of those four affected
tracts. This is substantially below the actual cost in installing that street.
Mayor Samuels: Approximately one -half, isn't it?
Mr. Cribbs: Well, sir, the percentage is 52,1 percent for the McCarnicks; 57.5 percent
for the remaining four tracts, of the actual cost to the city, We have Mr. Bill Flowers,
Page 2 of 16
who is the civil engineer available to answer any questions from any citizen who cares
to inquire. We have at this time Mr. William Hagood, who is an MAI appraiser. I'm
going to ask Mr ", Hagood to come up here> _ would like to point out that we have
presented for the record and to each of the Gouncilmembers, a copy of Mr. Hagood's
appraisal on all of these tracts, He actually appraised eight tracts. He appraised
Chuck Hunt's tract; he appraised Mr. Lawler's tract, and the Morrison tract, but he will
tell you about those tracts himself. Mr. Hagood.
Mr. -lagood: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm Wayne Hagood. I'm
president of Hagood and Associates, a professional corporation. We are real estate
counselors. Our primary office is at 3608 Pershing, Fort Worth. We also have an office
at 205 N. Davis, Arlington. I have been engaged in the appraisal of real estate and
consultation in this area for just over 35 years. I have a professional certification
of MAI from the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, from the Professional
Certification of GRE, Counselor of Real Estate, from the American Society of Real
Estate Counselors, and am this year serving as national president of that organization.
We were engaged by the City of Euless to make a study of the properties fronting along
North Main Street for the purpose of estimating the market value of each of these eight
tracts, and the condition that they exist today, with the two -lane hot-top road, open
barditches, a little bit on the rough side, not a very good street, and carrying
excessive traffic. Also we consider the market value of each of these properties as if
the proposed new street and drainage improvements were in place, also as of this date.
The difference between these two values is the enhancement created by the construction
of the new street and the bridge improvements, The methodology employed in making the
appraisals of these eight tracts of land was what we call direct sales comparison or
market comparisons, which is based on the assumption that a person is justified in
paying no more for a property that the prices paid in the open market for similar
competitive properties in this basic market area. In this confection, we made a
detailed market study of land sales thorough the north part of Euless that we considered
to be competitive with the properties fronting along North Main, Some of these sales
were on streets that were similar to North Main as it exists today. Some were along
thoroughfares that had already been improved. These properties ranged in zoning from
single family residential for apartment to commercial zoning. Within the report that
each of you have there are a list of some 32 market transactions which have occurred,
and on each of these you'll find the information that the grantor, the grantee, the
location, the size, the date of the sale, the price of the prpperty, the zoning -- and
the unit. price. Then the unit price that we consider primarily in the analysis of
property, such as, this is either priced per acre or priced per square foot. When price
for acre gets to be great enough, we ususaily convert that to price for square foot.
Much of the land is in the city of Euless today has arrived at that glorified state of
being valued at a price per square foot. Land prices throughout this area have
escalated just almost unbelievably in recent years. With this as a basis and with the
information furnished by the engineer about the legal description and size of the
properties, we've made our analysis of those several properties which were assigned to
us. There were eight of therm in all. I would refer you first to Page 19 of the report.
Page 19b is a plat showing the shape and dimensions of what we have called Parcel No.
1, that's Mr. Hunt's property. This property contains a total of approximately 20 acres
of land. Now, they have already acquired an easement for part of that for floodway.
This land is almost entirely below the level of the street; it's almost entirely in the
floodplane. There are about four acres in one corner that's out of the floodplane,
Page 3 of 16
Now, in our analysis of this property, it was my opinion that the market value of Mr.
Hunt's property with the street facilities as they are today was $331,500. Now, this
value was prorated on the basis of those $60,000 per acre to the four acres of good land
above floodplane and $6,000 per acre for the land lying within the floodplane. I've
never quite understood why people will buy floodplane land and pay that kind of prices,
but the fact is, they do. The proposed North Main: improvement along this property
consists of an extension of the bridge over Little Bear Creek for about B0 feet. In
my judgment, this will have absolutely no effect in any way on the value of Mr. Hunt's
property. It's below the grade now; it's mostly in the floodplane now; and the street
program is not going to change that. It's still going to be below street grade; its
still going to be in floodplane. In my opinion, the market value after the completion
of the street program will still be the $331,000, and in my judgment, no paving
assessment is justified on Mr. Hunt's property.
The second property plat is on Page 24. Now, prior to our analysis of the paving
assessment, we were requested by the city to consider certain other things that were
happening to some of this land, one of which was the acquisition of this drainage
easement for some 37, 390.9 square feet through the center. The drainage easement will
be under continuous water. When it gets to this property -• this is Mr. Law+ r er' s
property - was to leave him with three small isolated pieces of land of irregular
shape, almost totally within the floodplane and almost totally useless to anyone.
This property has, in my opinion, nothing but useless value. There is no way that it
can be built upon. If the adjoining property owner owned this tract of land, he would
be able to have access to the creek, if for any reason he wanted to have access to the
creek. My study of this property indicates that it strictly is a nuisance value
situation; the market value of Mr. Lawler's property as it stands today is about $400,
and it will not be changed by the street improvement program. It will still be just
like it is; a market value of about $400, if you could find anyone to take it. No
assessment is justified in this property, in my opinion.
Parcel No. 3. The plat on that is on Page 29 in the report. This property is the
property belonging to Morrisons. This is an irregular shaped tract of land, It has
a frontage of 539.8 feet along the west side of North Main Street, and at the present
time there is a small single-family dwelling situation near the center part of this
tract of land. The site for the house appears to have probably been filled a little
bit to bring it above floodplane. All of the remaining land, approximately 67,082
square feet -- all of that remaining land is within floodplane. The entire tract has
no more use than possibly one homesite, and that's what it is used for at the present
time. My analysis of this tract of land as a single honiesite indicates that it had a
market value as of now, with the existing street, of $26,300. The proposed street
program will have no positive influence. There is some possibility that there might
be some adverse influence on that particular property as a result of the median cuts
in the center, which will make the access to it even more difficult. That, perhaps,
could be worked out as a matter of course in the construction, but that's - whether it
will or not, I don't know. In my opinion, the market value after the completion of the
street program will remain at $26,300, and in my judgment no paving assessment is
justified there.
The next is what we have called Parcel No. 4 that's illustrated on Page 4, and things
begin to change when we get to this one. This is the McCormick property. This plat
indicates that it is a slightly irregular shaped tract of land with about 7.561 acres
for 229,357 square feet of land. Now, this future right -of -way through here will, in
my opinion, have very substantial benefit on this property, This has some very good
Page 4 of 16
usable potential. In my opinion, the market value of this tract of land as it exists
today is $3.75 per square foot, and the total of $1,235,000. Now, in my judgment the
new construction will include a center median, it will completely eliminate direct
access from the (Tape Side A/22) subject to south bound traffic along North Main and
enter it southbound will have to turn left on the Cheek-Sparger and then right back
into the property. It will, however, have a very good influence on the development
potential of the property, and will, in my opinion, make it worth substantially more
money in (Tape Side A/23) The possibility for this property after the street
improvement is completed would include such things as community shopping facilities,
office, professional buildings and this type thing. In my opinion, the market value
of this property after completion of the street would be based on a unit value of $4.00
per square foot, and a total of $1,317,500. This is an increase in market value of
S82,500, As I understand, the proposed assessment on this property was some
$41,821.22. In my opinion, the market evidence indicates that this assessment is in
fact justified.
Page 3g shows a plat of what we have called Parcel No. 5 and consists of 421,007 square
feet, and that its the Overton property. According to the owner's agent and confirmed
by a Euless engineer, the entire 9.65 acres is within the floodplane of Little Bear
Creek. The engineer estimates that it would take about 45 cents to 50 cents per square
foot to raise this site to fill it up above floodplane and make it usuable land. Once
usuable, it will be an excellent site. In my opinion, the highest and best use of this
particular tract of land at the present time is to hold for future commercial
development. In my judgment, this tract has a unit 'value as of this date of $3.50 per
square foot, market. value $1,473,500, and considering the situation afterwards, the
property will be greatly enhanced by the presence of the new street, it will be a far
more desirable property for commercial development, there is a median cut in front of
it, and south of Cheek-Sparger access will be much better and the traffic flow will be
much better. In my opinion, the market. value of this tract after the new street
program is in place is $4.00 per square foot, a total of $1,684,000, and that this
amounts to an increase in property value resulting from the street program of
$210,500.00. The proposed assessment as I understand it is $66,019.44. Market
evidence would indicate this to be justified.
Parcel No. 6 is illustrated on Page 44 of our report. Parcel No. 6 has 799,570 square
feet. This is identified as the Cheek-Sparger joint Venture. The entire parcel has
full access from Bear Creek Drive and from North Main. Ali public utilities are
available and it is zoned for commercial use. In my opinion, the highest and best use
would be for phased/mixed commercial development, which would include retail shopping
facilities, commercial buildings, professional office buildings, and possible the-
ater, cafeteria, and things of this kind. It is a large tract of land with a great deal
of use potential. In my analysis, the value of this property as of today has a unit
value of $6.00 per square foot, and a total market value of $4,797,000. This property
likewise, in my opinion, will be greatly enhanced by the multi-lane thoroughfare in
front of it. The access will be improved, the entire appearance will be improved, the
use potential will be accelerated, and in my opinion, the unit value of this property
after completion of this street will be $6.50 per square foot, a total of $5,197,000.
This amount will increase contributably to the street program of $400,000. Proposed
assessment, as I understand it, is $101,362.60, and the market evidence appears to
justify this assessment.
Page 5 of 16
Parcel No. 7 is illustrated on Page 50. This tract has 34, 571, 52 feet, and its defined
as the Miler- McDonald property. Incidently, I probably should add at this point that
we have given no consideration to any buildings or improvements. Our analysis has been
relating to land, so we are dealing entirely with and value and such improvements as
you listed on some of these parcels have been disregarded. Parcel No. 7 is rectangular
shaped, it's an interior site situated on the west side of North Main about 350 feet
south of the intersection with Glade Road. It has an old masonry dwelling located on
it which has been used for commercial purposes - an electric shop, I believe at this
time. Zoning is for commercial use. In my opinion, this property has a unit value, as
of this date with the existing creek, of $6.25 per square foot, a total market value of
$216,000, In my judgment, that after the completion on the street program, the unit
value wi 11 be increased to $7.00 per square foot, the total market value of $242,000.
This results in an increase in value attributable to the street program of $26,000. I
understand that the assessment here is $1.8,498.04. Market evidence seems to justify
this assessment.
The last of these is what we call Parcel No. 8 illustrated on Page 54 of the report, and
this one is referred to as the Glade Crossing Joint Venture. This is a rectangular
shaped tract of land and has a branch of 105.17 feet on the west side of North Main.
It's about 250 feet south of Glade Road and is the property situated immediately south
of the little strip shopping center which is at the corner. The•depth ratio of this
tract of and is a little bit unique. It has a frontage of 105 feet and extends back
to a depth of 471.94 feet. It makes the use of the development of this tract a little
more difficult and has some very positive adverse influence. It is my opinion that the
street improvement program will substantially benefit this property, and that after the
program is complete, the unit value will be increased to $5.50 per square foot for a
total market value of $273,000. This is an increase in value attributable to the street
program of $25,000, making full assessment of $11,497.18 markup appears to justify the
assessment:,
That is in substance the study we submit today, in which we have presented to you in much
more detail than within the contents of your report. If there are any questions, I will
be happy to try to answer them,
Mayor Samuels: You did an excellent job of explaining it. I have not had an opportunity
to look at that and rt looks like there are no questions.
Mr. Cribbs: Thank you Mr. Hagood, we certainly appreciate it. Mr. Pasteur, would
approach. Mr, Pasteur, is that correct?
Mr. Pasteur: Yes sir.
Mr. Cribbs: What is your address Mr. Pasteur?
Mr. Pasteur: 2275 Westpark Court in the City of Euless.
Mr. Cribbs: What is your business?
you
Mr. Pasteur: I'm a licensed real estate broker operating a brokerage firm in Euless
since 1963. Were engaged in the selling of both commercial and residential real
estate. We are members of the Northeast Tarrant County Board of Realtors of Texas,
Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Realtors.
Page 6 of 16
Mr. Cribbs: Mr. Pasteur, since you are engaged in the sale and purchase of real estate
in the City of Euless, you are familiar with all the property located on North Main
Street north of Little Bear Creek as it extends up to Glade Road, is that correct?
Mr, Pasteur: Yes sir, we are.
Mr. Cribbs: You've sold some of that property and bought it for your clients down
through the years?
Mr. Pasteur: Yes sir, we have.
Mr. Cribbs: I believe that you do know Mr. Hagood and recognize his reputation, and you
have reviewed in detail his assessment of the value of these particular eight tracts?
Is that correct?
Mr. Pasteur: Yes sir.
Mr. Cribbs: And 1 believe that you have received from the Staff a copy of the proposed
assessment rolls, which left some 89 properties?
Mr. Pasteur: Yes sir, we have.
Mr. Cribbs: Do you concur that all these facts will be essentially benefited from the
improvement proposed by this assessment?
Mr. Pasteur: Yes, we have. 1 don't think that you could not concur with Mr. Hagood's
report.
Mr. Cribbs: I'm asking to whether or not all the tracts, all the residential tracts,
Whi --------------- listed on the assessment rolls, abut North Main, Will these have advanced
values in your opinion?
Mr. Pasteur: Yes sir, in my opinion they will.
Mr, Cribb's: And it is consistent with the assessment rolls?
Mr. Pasteur: Yes.
Mr. Cribbs: Thank you very much Mr. Pasteur. Any questions Mayor or the Council?
Mayor Samuels: No, thank you.
Mr. Cribbs: Thank you very kindly. That concludes Mr. Mayor the package of evidence
at this point, The City Engineer, Mr. Bill Flowers, is here and will answer technical
questions, and of course your Staff Engineer, Mr. Knight, also.
Mayor Samuels: Does Council have questions before we see if there are any opponents,
or have questions from the audience? At this time we will hear from opponents or
persons wishing to ask questions about what has been presented this evening.
Page 7 of 16
My name is Gerald Hartman, I am with ?nterFirst Trust Department representing a couple,
or a family here, that most of you in this room know. Mr. and Mrs. W. W. McCormick
established a couple of trusts with us several years ago for the benefit of their
daughter and themselves. And if you even know these people, you know that they can never
be against any project that would be for the benefit of Euless, certainly they are not
against the project. of widening North Main. But they and we do have several questions
or points of verification that we would like to ask, and we would like to do that.
First is, is our understanding correct in that the cost of this project includes the
grading, paving, sidewalks and curbs and gutters of the street itself; and then in
addition, the cost of the bridge?
Mr. Hagood: No sir, i t does not.
Mr. Hartman: So the bridge costs are not added. So the figures shown as the assessed
values are their portion of only the widening of the street.
Mr. Hagood. That is correct.
Mayor Samuels: Let me also inject here and say and they are also based on the asphalt
bids and the - lowest asphalt bid. The Council is probably going to recommend accepting
the concrete bid which is slightly higher, but assessment would be based upon the
asphalt, and the City would pay the total difference between the two types of
construction, because we feel in the long run the maintenance would be much less. I
thought this would be a good time to make that point clear also.
Mr, Hartman: Secondly, last year the McCormicks made a gift to the City of Euless some
land for a park that will be in the middle of the widening of North Main in order to
preserve some hundred plus- year-old pecan and other trees there. The question that we
have at this time, since they have made this gift. Is there any credit allowed using
Mr. Hagood's figure of $3.75 a square foot that it would probably be worth somewhere
around $1S0,000 plus?
Mayor Samuels: You are saying in coming up with a total assessment of the McCormick
property was there any allowance made for the donation which took place last year on the
park side which allows us to have the street divided?
Mr, Cribbs: I don't believe there was. No sir there was not?
Mr. Hartman: Does that rnean that there will not, or that just hasn't been addressed
yet?
Mr. Cribbs: It was not given, No sir. In the widening of the proposed assessment to
tfn McCormick tract, there was no credit given for it.
Mr. Hartman: There will not be then?
Mr. Cribbs: I didn't say that. I said there has been none given. I don't know, That
will be up to this Council.
Page 8 of 16
Mayor Samuels: Not anything the Council has discussed as such, at least. not with regards
to the hearing this evening. I wonder about, and I thought perhaps you had and 1 will
go ahead and ask the question now. I noticed the value assigned for the street was
slightly less in front of the McCormick property than it was the other piece of property
- like $98 compared to $109. Maybe that included something for that.
Mr. Cribbs: Mixed zoning.
Mayor Samuels: Mixed zoning?
Mr. Cribbs. That's correct.
Mayor Samuels: Oh, O.K. The fact that the other pieces have a more commercial type
zoning category is how quick you get more value?
Mr. Cribbs: That's right. The (Tape 1/8/7) assessment to commercial properties are
side crape 1/5/7 -1/2) because the McCormick is a mixed type zoning. Its an 89 plus.
9 {9 plus.
Mayor Samuels: 98 -95 is what I wrote down.
Mr. Hartman: Let me make just one additional comrrerrt: along that line as to the use of
the property.
Mayor Samuels: Can you tell me before we leave here how much, and I know 1 looked back
at the records, but I don't recall how much and there was in the gift.
Mr. Haygood: I don't recall the total square footage, but we can check the file and find
out. As I recall at the time, it computed out using (Tape 1/6/8 -1/2) value some where
around $150 to $150 thousand dollars.
Mrs. McCormick: I'm sorry, but I think you are high on the amount. It seems to me it
was about ,35 or .37, I'm not sure.
Mr. Hartman: I have that information here. According to our records its (Tape 1/6/8 -
1/2). it's about 26,000 plus square feet on that. So that will be an all high. We are
talking maybe about a $100,000 rather than $150,000 or $160,000.
Mr. Cribbs: Mr. Hartman, you have raised a point that I think that needs to be made quite
clear to everyone present in the audience. Many of the property owners, whenever they
were approached, rededicated rights-of-way to the City. They in fact gave street
rights-of-way to the City without compensation. The City has come back to these people
and has asked them at this point, or is about to ask them, to contribute to the
improvement of this street, recognizing that hopefully it will benefit all properties
out there. The point you have raised is to .whether or not the City Council has taken into
consideration a gift of park land to the City. They did not take that into consideration
in establishing the proposed $98 assessment. That will be something they may want to
talk about, but that certainly would be different and should be treated differently than
all of the other property owners who dedicated their proptery to the City without any
credit.
;fir. Hartman: The last comment that I would like to make has to do with the current usage
of the property and the proposed usage for the immediate future. As you are probably
Page 9 of 16
aware, Mr. and Mrs. McCormick reside on the property and assume their daughter will be
living next door to them, it's conceivable that during the lifetime of the McCormicks
it will continue to remain as residential with no other type of usage. There is an option
to purchase the property that will come into effect under certain conditions that would
impact the value at that time. But during the period of time that its continued to he
used as a residence, there is no anticipated change or anticipated increase in value for
their purposes. Whether that makes any difference in whether the option that we are
talking about will impact the effect of value on the property or not (Tape 1/B/11-1/2).
Thanks very much.
Mayor Samuels: Do we have other persons wishing to speak at this time? I'll get you next
sr. There is a man already moving and I thought we would go ahead and hear from him and
we will give you an Opportunity to speak.
Mr. Scalise: Excuse me Mr. Mayor I thought you had recognized me. Mayor and members of
the Council I just have a question to ask that's been brought up for the first time
tonight by the City ;attorney. My name is Tony Scalise, (Tape 1/B/11 -1/2) Mega
Development, we own the center of Bear Creek and Main.
Mayor Samuels: I know who you are - I just wanted it on the record.
Mr, Scalise: O.K. The question is, or the statement was made tonight, that there is no
anticipation of assessing further those property owners who have already escrowed money
or put up a deposit - whatever terminology that you want to use. Is this the
recommendation of the Staff and is what is before the Council tonight for those property
owners who have already; put up money for the widening, there will be no further
assessment?
Mr, Cribbs: That is correct.
Mr. Scalise: O.K. Because the correspondence that we received didn't say that and
:.hat's the question I'm asking.
Cribbs: Yes sir, but those who did put the money up, even though the money you put
up does not approach what the actual cost of this (Tape 1/B/12 -1/2), because you in good
faith put it up (Tape 1 /B /10 -1/2). It is the recommendation of the staff, and I believe
the consensus of this Council, that they will give full credit for that money. As a
matter of law, we had to establish an assessment against every tract (Tape 1/B/12-1/2).
That's the reason for the lengthy assessment roll. But when you give the credits to
those who previously deposited money, with full credit, and that is what we are giving,
Mayor Samuels: 'What's the fact that Council had not, and even to date, has not taken any
formal action, but that's the recommendation of the staff.
Mr, Cribbs: Basically, in your assessment roll, when you assess the property, then if
someone has put up money that's what the assessment came back at. That's the
recommendation of the Staff to the Council and they indicated this position to go on.
Mr. Scalise: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ron VanWey: My name is Ron VanWey and I live at 2415 Ariberhi l l Lane. I now own that
Mayor Samuels: Is that right on the street? Is that it?
Page 10 of 16
Mr. VanWey: Yes - one block inside of Main. It's the street just east of Main running
iarafl el .
Mayor Samuels: G.K. That puts your backyard backed up to?
Mr. VanWey: Yes. There are several others here and I just wanted to ask a question of
Council to clarify something for myself. The developer had put up a deposit originally.
As the property owner there is apparently some difference between what the developer put
up and what the actual assessment is on the property.
Mr. Cribbs: to sir. We are sorry about the confusion that has arisen, but we had to
aTIocate the assessment cost of everybody that either fronts or backs up to North Main.
The Council is disposed and will (Tape 1/8/14 -1 /2) - I think, to give full credit for the
assessment shown on that roll, and the letter that you got is not the intention of this
Council to assess any of you homeowners one nickel.
Mayor Samuels: Let me explain it this way. Let's say that at the time your particular
developer came in and he preferred to have a street, but there were not funds to do the
street, so at that time we estimated the cost of the street, and he put those monies up.
Since that time and as time has passed and construction costs have continued to esculate
as everything else has, I don't think any of those escrow deposits were adequate to cover
the cost of the street, but we in our worksessions have discussed the idea that we would
not go back now to the individual homeowners or others either where, same with the
commercial, where in good faith monies had been put up that we would not go back and say
to you well that only covered two - thirds cost of streets and you are going to have to come
back and (Tape 1/8/15 -1/2). I can understand your concern if I had seen the letter and
all I would have been up the meaning also.
Mr. VanWey: Yeh, sure, but all of a sudden just take the ruler out and start calculating
as $14,000.
Mayor Samuels: Anyone else? Yes sir, your name?
Gerald McDonald: My name is Gerald McDonald. I ani president of Miller and McDonald
Electrical. We are the owners of item No. 7 on the list. I have a couple of questions
for clarification I guess, since I am really not too familiar with how these things are
worked out when you get to the real detail. The first thing is I would like to know is
ho;r'-an I obtain a copy of the assessment roll? i would like to have it. Is that
possible?
Mr. Cribhs: Yes sir, we'll be glad to give it to you.
Mr. McDonald: I would like to add for future references, as far as credit for donated
and, I think Mr. Hart will attest that we also volunteered giving up about 2,500 square
feet which is worth about $18,000, and if you decide to give that out in credit, we would
like to get in line too for that part of it, The appraised value that Mr. Hagood has put
together at $6.25 a square foot, we have had that reaffirmed and for sale for about nine
months and were not asking anywhere near $6.25 a square foot and were not getting too
many takers. I'm not, you know, disputing the fact that your road improvements will
probably, hopefully, greatly enhance the value of the property, if we can just manage to
hang onto it long enough
to - - --
Page 11 of 16
Mayor Samuels: Do you feel it would enhance it at least the 50 cents per square foot?
Mr. McDonald: i really feel like it would. The only drawback that real piece of property
has, 1 guess my main objective is that it is really not a large enough parcel with 34,571.
Its just too small for most businesses and its too expensive to promote to smaller
bus inesses.
Mayor Samuels: You and your neighbo- to the north could get together, but I'm sure you
need to talk to each other.
McDonald: We've been trying to pawn it off on them, but he hasn't got -- I guess the
biggest question 1 have, and here again, once the assessment is levied out, how do we as
individual property owners go through the mechanics of actually paying the foot
assessment - that's what I'm concerned about.
Mr. Cribbs: For a small independent businessman, you know, $18,000 is not much, but if
had it 1 would go to Vegas or something.
Mr. McDonald: Well, of course this
provision for payout is built into the ordinance.
Mayor Samuels: First of all it doesn't come due until the street is complete. Is that
correct?
Mr. Cribbs: That's correct.
Mayor Samuels: The low bid was based on like 390 days, I think. That's roughly a year.
Mr. McDonald: There's a very strong possibility then that we will have sold the
property. Once the assessment is levied there will be a lien attached against the
property.
Mayor Samuels: Then there is a payout provision, is it five years or three years, its
four years.
At this time two or three people are talking at the same time and it is impossible to
determine whether it is Mr. Cribbs, Mr. Hagood, or Mr. McDonald)
: Yes sir, the interest rate charged is less than interest approved value.
MT-fixer; rate is about 10 percent.
the in
Assessment is not due until the improvements are complete, that's why
erest rates start running until it is completed and accepted by the City.
I might point out to you that whenever we started this project last year,
the engineers made an estimate of what they thought this street was going to cost. By
the time we got around to taking bids, we undershot, so when we were accepting money from
the developers several years back, we were receiving money that would not begin to cover
the cost today. The City does not feel it should saddle the people with that cost
difference.
Gerald McDonald: That's all 1 have. I appreciate your time.
Mayor Samuels: Thank you Gerald. Yes sir.
Page 12 of 16
Berry Blomquist: My name is Jerry Blomquist. 1 live at 2401 Amberhill Lane. The back
of my property abuts North Main. 1 have three beautiful trees right behind my fence.
What provision of this development has been made for the placing of trees that have to
be cut down, and how do we find out if those trees are going to disappear on us?
Mayer Samuels: Are they inside your fence?
Jerry Blomquist: They are right outside; but still on my property, right on the end.
Mr. Cribbs: Bill, do you have any idea whether those trees will be affected?
Bill Pasteur: I'm not familiar with the trees that the gentlemen is speaking of.
Certainly, we won't qo out and wholesale cut down trees. If they are inside, between the
fence and the back of the sidewalks, certainly they won't be touched. We have a set of
prints here if you would like you and 1 to get together we could look and see where your
property is. They may be detailed on the prints.
Jerry Blomquist: Thank you.
Mayor Samuels: Number one, we always try to save trees. Number two, we do try to
replace them with smaller trees when we can, but we are not going to promise that we will.
And the thing we sometimes run into is that with all good intentions, we might have even,
you know, the contractor and the guy that he's got running the bulldozer that
day, or the fellow out there with a chain saw may go by; he may also run into your fence
and I'm just saying things happen sometime when you get involved with contractors.
Mr. Cribbs: You can check with Bill, and if it doesn't look like your trees are to be
cut, put you a sign up "Do not cut these trees" up there and well do our best to keep
them from it.
Mayor Samuels: We like trees too and have always tried to preserve there when possible.
1 was afraid though, there are some trees along there. I drive that way to work about
everyday and there are some beautiful trees that are going to go because they would be
right in the middle of the road. 1 just don't know exactly where yours are, but there
are some along there that will be taken down when the road goes in.
Mr. Knight: Unfortunately many of those trees were in the old fence row there, and the
fence row will be under the pavement.
Mayor Samuels: Jerry, you might check with Mr. Flowers right now while the plans are
back there.
Mayor Samuels: Other questions or comments?
Unidentified Woman: How wide are they making that row?
Mr. Knight: 61 foot back to the curb.
Mr. Cribbs: 61 feet back to back of curb.
Mayor Samuels: Its like preceding curb, which would be 60 foot of paving.
Unknown Woman: I s it four lane or two lanes?
Page 13 of 16
Mr. IHagood: It will be identical as it is between the bridge and Harwood.
Mayor Samuels: Four driving lanes and a center common turning lane.
Unknown Woman: Are you going to put stop lights up in that area?
Mayor Samuels: There are no plans on this particular thing for traffic signals, and we
usually run behind on traffic signals - that's why I want to say to you - we have some
other areas where the traffic is greater, I had a person today contact ate, and they may
be in the audience, about a three -way stop sign at Glade and Fuller- Wiser. There are
some problems with that. We've got Grapevine on one of those intersections and Airport
DFW, and its pretty hard sometimes to coordinate between neighboring communities, but we
have a full-time traffic safety engineer that's an employee and when traffic patterns
change we try to have hips on the scene, For some tick:, we've found needs before we have
dollars.
Unidentied Woman: When you start the construction, how is that going to affect people
who have to enter in and off that road right now?
Mayor Samuels: : don't think that's been finalized, We suggested - the Council did -
in our worksession that we make every effort to preserve the traffic flow and asked the
engineers to study that, and they may have a recommendation. We have not heard their
recommendation, so I don't know. We talked about such things as starting at the bridge
and going up there to Bear Creek Drive leaving the north part open, you know, do south
half or the north half, whichever way and use Dear Creek Boulevard and Baze Road, and
then some people could also cut over to Fuller- Wiser and go out that way. But I don't
know what the final plans are.
Mr. Knight: It would be our intention that we try to inconvenience the neighborhood to
the least extent possible. There can be a period of time during construction when its
going to be unavoidable to be inconvenienced to some degree, The intention is to keep
the bridge open full time. They build it in sections.
Mayor Samuels: Will they build like two lanes, and either one lane and then ------ -
Mr. ribbs: I hope they do a better job than the Texas Highway Department did on 157
and 360?.
Unidentified Man No. 1: How far up is that going to go? Is it going all the way up to
Mayor Samuels: It goes to Glade, and then that's Grapevine.
Unidentied Man No, 1: Are you going to make North Main go all the way to 114.
Mayor. Samuels: No sir. Just up to Glade Road. Grapevine is beyond that and I don't
Fri& X41 a —ffeir la.ns are.
p T think they got half a street in. 1 suppose as soon as
someone on the east side develops, I assume they will go ahead and build the other half
of that street. We try not to build half streets. We've done it some in the past and
it hasn't worked out too well. Now we may build, some sections may be burst half street,
but it won't be left there for months to come, it will only be built and moved over.
Page 14 of 36
!Jnident.ifled Man No. 1: So I can go home and tell my wife, if we own a home in the
{APE CraftDe; elo meat and we have been paying, I supposed they escrowed it, we don't have
� p.. re be._
anything to worry about - I mean you are not going to come and tell us we owe you money,
Mayor Samuels: No sir, Not if this Council votes as I expect they are going to. Hang
around, 1 think they will.
Unidentified Man No. 2: On the other side of the GemCraft development, were backer
against it, on:the other side, what is all that property going to be. What is it zoned
for?
Mayor Samuels: Where is it in relationship - where the little shopping center and the
City's old water tower - where are in relationship - are you just- across the street from
it?
Unidentified Man No. 2: There is a Stop - and -Go here and then you go down a little
farther and it is just north of Cheek - Spargar.
Mayor Samuels: All right, that's the 17.5 acres that Mr. Hagood mentioned would
probably be held for a future commercial. He mentioned mixed use, theater, restaurant,
or other cornriercial type.
Unidentifed Man #2: It wouldn't be like apartments?
Mayor Samuels: I don't. believe - there may be some apartments away from Main Street,
---t apartments anywhere near that and the Council has
but I� den 't t bet i eve there are any p - that,
been fairly negative to changing from commercial to multi- family, but 1 would never
want to crake a committment. This Council could change next April, and so --
Unidentified Man #2: Is there any kind of an ordinance at all whatsoever on, if they
did put in a Kroger or big shopping_ center, about tall street lights shining over our
fences into our homes.
Mayor Samuels: We don't have a light pollution ordinance in Euless. To my knowledge
the onTy city that does is this entire area is the City of Dallas, and theirs doesn't
work too well. I personally feel like they would want to be good neighbors and there's
certainly lighting today that cuts off at the property line. We don't have an ordinance
though that actually requires that.
Unidentified Man #2: if you do have to cut down those trees, could somebody buy all that
wood for firewood, or what?
Mayor Samuels: I'd cut a deal with my. neighbor and go over there and share a, rent a,
chain saw. There will be a lot of firewood along that area. Unfortunately, probably
it will all be pushed down in June and July and nobody wants to go out and cut firewood
in 104 degrees. That's my luck. It has to be 50 degrees before I'll go cut firewood,
Unidentified Man• #2: There is no guarantee though that you will replant trees along
there, just if you have the money left over, or - --
Mayor Samuels: There's no guarantee. Let rye say this. We last year purchased a tree
spade,-we're one of the few communities of our size that didn't have a. tree spade, and
Page 15 of 16
we've one as far away as the far side of Fort Worth to bring in little redoak trees for
the complex here, and it's not just -- we've done tree plantings around school sites,
and the City will even do that for individuals on a kind of a - if you defray the costs,
1 understand that it is $50 or $100 depending on the size of the tree. ;here's really
nothing in this particular plan that says we will put in trees back there. We like trees
and we are trying to get trees just as fast as we can.
Unidentified Man #2: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mayor Samuels: Other comments?
Unidentified Man #3: You mentioned earlier Bob that you were going to recommend a
concrete pavement as opposed to asphalt.
Mayor Samuels: It's less than *200,000 difference, and that seems like a lot of money
to you or 1 individually, but when you consider that concrete' streets generally are
worth to 30 to 35 percent more and its only about 10 percent more than the bid, we felt
like it was a good value. Were going to have enough streets to maintain in Euless. If
we can get a few concrete, just like Fuller- Wiser, is a concrete street, and its
probably the fastest street that we have in the community. By the way, that was paid
almost entirely by the developer, rather than you citizens or taxpayers.
Unidentified Man #3: ; -L v e there been any other alternative sections looked at as far
as pavement or anything like that. As I understand, its just going to be the
pavement on top of a treated subgrade.
Mayor Samuels: We've got some pretty strict -- I'm not an engineer, but I'll defer that
question to Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight: This section that we proposed is a six-inch paved 1`ine of subgrade with,
in case of concrete it would be a six. -inch thickness of concrete. We did not look at
say six inches of line subgrade and six inches of crushed stone lays and if
we had put the limestone in there it would have increased cost substantially.
Mayor Samuels: Are you an engineer? Are you saying that you feel like maybe our
specifications aren't quite as good as they should be?
Unic{entifed Man #3: : was just wondering if anything else had been considered. Because
I just did a quick check, because I thought I was going to have to pay for part of this,
so, and it seemed to me like it would increase the cost by less than 10 percent, and I
think it would substantially increase the life of the pavement. But that aside, my main
question and I'm sure what you put out there will probably do the job well as on the
other streets, but in the event that eventually there is some maintenance costs out
there, would it be possible if you could come back to us at that time and we would have
to pay for the maintenance of the street, as we thought we were going to have to pay for
the construction.
Mayor Samuels: I don't believe we have ever assessed anything to anyone for
maintenance, unless maybe utility persons who tore up a street or something, or
something of that sort, maybe someone in their automobile ran over some street curbing,
or something like that, but no not the maintenance.
Unidentified Man No. 3: O.K. Thank you.
Page 16 of 16
Mayor Samuels: Other questions or comments?
Unidentified Man •r4: I have a question (End of Tape IiSide B). (Question not
audible:)
Mayor Samuels: Well sir, that's an excellent question and I probably asked that
question almost 20 years ago, and I'll tell you as it was explained to me and I'm not
sure I know all the reasons, but the school districts were set up long before, well
won't say before the City existed, but before the City existed in that area of the
County. Euless at one time, within my memory which hasn't been that many years ago,
stopped at Harwood Road. I don't know where Grapevine stopped, but somewhere far north
of Glade Road. The school districts, when they were implemented, did not have - well
say - did not have any undesignated areas. They all picked common boundaries so to
speak, and they sold bonds which is a big part of building schools, and the geographic
areas are tied in with their bond covenants, ;:bout 12 years ago, long before that area
of Euless developed, our school district - Bedford has the same problem over that way
- Grapevine, and the school people met and talked about the possibility _ and we
bought it would be better before some development got going - of could we do some
trading, and we were so far apart with - you know - and someone said well sure we might
trade, but we want two acres for every one, because this has a higher value, and that's
that thing. And then the attorneys got involved in it, pardon me sir, and then they
said you've got real problems with your bonded indebtedness, because these are 30-year
bonds and geographic area as such, and so at that point in time we more or less gave
up. Euless then grew on out to the north and Grapevine: grew to the south, and so now
the two cities are continuously joined.
it occurs all over though, that same thing, and T understand it is a problem. I learned
the other day that the H -E -B School District goes actually all the way to the Trinity
River. Well, Euless stops a long way from that. Euless stops at Menasco on Pipeline
Road. The School District goes all the way to the Trinity River bottom, which means
that they are going to have to provide schools for those 17,000 people that are
proposed to move into the area south of Euless. They will actually technically be in
the Fort Worth City limits, but they will be in the H-E -B School District, and they
were talking about the fact that that would impact the possible location of Highschool
No. ?, as that develops out. The District could take care of the students as such, but
as I said, it goes back a long ways. And that's the way it was explained to me, and
there may be a few technicalities and problems I've left out, but I think its a pretty
good - - --
Mr. Cribbs: Political subdivisions never give up anything. They trade, This City on
many occasions has made boundary line adjustments with the City of Fort Worth, and have
tried to be up front and fair with Bedford and Colleyville whenever they needed to make
adjustments. But the school districts - you don't have the same fluid adjustments that
you are going to have between cities.
Mayor• Samuels: As I understand it, school districts in effect are - what they can do
is mandate it by state laws. What the City can do, as long as its not mandated, we
can do it,. Its kind of a opposite thing. They have a lot more patrols governing what
they can do than the City does.
Unidentified Man No. 4: Thank you.
Mayor Samuels: Other questions or comments?
Mayor Samuels: The public hearing is closed.