Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-14MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE EULESS CITY COUNCIL January 14, 1986 CALL TO ORDER 1966_004 A regular meeting of the Euless City Council was called to order at 8:05 p.m„ on Tuesday, January 14, 1986, in the Council Chambers of the Euless Municipal Building, by Mayor Harold D. Samuels. Coxncilmembers present were Robert Pippin, Ron Sternfels, Bob Eden, Carolyn Park, and Mayor Pro Tern Glenn Walker. r. Staff Members Present W. M. Sustaire, City Manager. Bob McFarland, City Attorney Torn Hart, Assistant City Manager Kay Rainey, City Secretary Rosemary Gafford, Deputy City Secretary James Knight, City Engineer Visitors Mike and Linda Scott John and Peggy Vandiver John and Vicky Herda Ken Wilkinson Dean and Irene Hamilton Carl and Ruth Smith Virginia M. Smead Joe Sebastian and other interested parties PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Robert Pippin led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Mayor Harold D. Samuels. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of December 1D, 1986, were approved as written. 1.986 -005 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Two 010 BUSINESS ITEM 1: PRESENTATION OF AWARDS TO FLAG CONTEST WINNERS Mayor Samuels and the Counci 1 presented awards for designs of the City of Euless Official Flag, with assistance from Betty Yarbrough and Julia Wakeley, to the following contestants: Winner - Wendy Clayton; second place - D. L. Dobbins; third place - Virginia M. Smead. Honorable mention went to: Mark Tang, Vicky Herda, John Herda, Joe Sebastian, B' €i1 Sebastian, Margie Dobbins, Anniece Vargas, and Linda Beasley. ITEM 2: SECOND AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 870 Mr. Pippin moved to approve second and final reading of Ordinance No. 870 for Zoning Case No. 85-34, a request of Aubrey Leon Sheppard for a change of zoning on Tracts 1A28 and 1A3, J. Groves Survey, A -599, totaling 2.0 acres of land, from C -2 to PO for multi-family dwellings located south of West Pipeline Road, north of Raider Court, and between Raider Drive and David Drive. Mr. Sternfeiis seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Pippin, Sternfel s, Eden, Walker, and Mrs. Park Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 86-618 Mrs. Park moved to approve Resolution No. 86 -618 showing endorsement and establishing the base budget for the preservation and enhancement of historic themes along portions of North Main Street; that the Council appropriate funds to install the clock at the intersection of McCormick Farm where North Main forks; that in the general area of Mid- Cities Park and North Main one block from the Airport Freeway be the two other target areas for improvement; that the funding be $20,000 for the clock area, which could be taken out or included in the Main Street 1.8 Trillion bond improvement fund, and $5,000 for the remainder of the improvements for a total of $25,000, which would be ,monitored by the Sesquicentennial Committee over a three -year period; and that the Sesqui- centennial Committee submit to the Council competitive bids on all the improvement items. Mr. Walker seconded the motion. Ayes: Mrs. Park, Messrs. Walker, Pippin, Eden and Sternfels Ways: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. 1986-006 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Three NEW BUSINESS ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF PLATTING NO. P -85 -58 Mr. Sternfels moved to approve Platting No. P- 85 -58, a final plat of S.H. 10 Business Center, located south of S.H. 10 and north of Softball World, containing 2.4301 acres of land, in accordance with the recommendation of the Planing & Zoning Commission. Mr. Pippin seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Sternfels, Pippin, Eden, Walker, and Mrs. Park fva,ys: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING CASE NO. 85-35 Mayor Samuels explained the public hearing process and opened the public hearing regarding Zoning Case No. 85 -35, a request of Shawn McGrath for a change of zoning on Tracts 3A4 and 3A7, J.M. Downing Survey, Abstract A -415, a total of 2.192 acres of land, from I -1 and C -2 to PD for Mini-warehouses, located on the south side of she 300 Block of S.H. 10, west of F.M. 157, east of Highland Drive and north of south Pipeline. Mr. Gary Crossland, brother of Clay Crossland who is the ultimate end -user and owner of the aforementioned property, requested that the public hearing for Zoning Case No. 85-35 be postponed for 30 to 60 days, due to the fact that his brother was in Colorado and unable to be present at the public hearing. City Attorney Bob McFarland stated that petitioners would be required to give at least three-weeks' notice of their request for a public hearing to the City Secretary, so that the City will have sufficient time to notify adjacent property owners and publish another notice of public hearing. Mayor., Samuels asked if there were any opponents to the zoning case in the audience. There being none, Mayor Samuels closed the public hearing and asked for a motion for or against postponement. Mr. Eden moved that Zoning Case No. 85 -35 be postponed until a later date. Mr. Pippin seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Pippin, Walker, Sternfels, and Mrs. Park Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. 1986-007 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Four ITEM 6: PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING CASE NO. 85 -36 Mayor Samuels opened the public hearing for Zoning Case No. 85-36, a request of Grandy's Restaurant for a change of zoning on Lot IR, Block 1, Euless Town Centre, totaling 20.558 acres of land, from PD to PD with an amended site plan to allow for additional construction for a Grandy's Restaurant, located south of S.H. 183, north of Bell Ranch Terrace Addition, and west of F.M. 157. Mr. Emmett Sacrey, architect on staff for Grandy's Restaurants, presented the request for rezoning. He stated they propose to construct a Grandy's Restaurant, with a drive -thru, on the parcel of land just east and adjacent to Burlington Coat Factory. He stated that the plan did displace some parking. To bring the parking back up to the requirements, they added additional parking in the rear of the shopping center. He stated they plan to place the restaurant along the existing driveway, maintaining a two -way driveway in front of the building, which would also run along the access road of S.H. 183. They propose to use the existing curb cut, and they propose to landscape pretty heavily to the east and incorporate the existing pole sign into the whole design. Mayor Samuels stated that the zoning case before the Council was really not a zoning change, but a planned development, but because it had to be amended it had to be resubmitted. Mayor Samuels asked if there were any proponents of the zoning requested change. There being none, Mayor Samuels asked if there were any opponents to the zoning change. There being none, Mayor Samuels asked if there were any questions from the Council. Mr. Sternfels asked what the time schedule would be for construction of the restaurant and would they start immediately. Mr. Sacrey stated that they planned to start immediately and estimated a 100- days time schedule. Mr. Eden moved to approve Zoning Case 85 -36, in accordance with the recommen- dation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. Pippin seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Pippin, Walker, Sternfels, and Mrs. Park Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. 1986-008 Euless City Council Regular Meeting o January 14, 1986 - Page Five ITEM : PUBLIC HEARING FOR STORER CABLE TV RATE INCREASES Mayor Samuels opened the public hearing concerning rate increases requested by Storer. Cable TV from $7.80 basic cable service - first outlet to $10.95; from $3.75 basic cable service - additional to $5.50; from $15 overhead installation to $35; and from 525 underground installation to $35. Mr. John Camp, District Manager for Storer Cable TV, located at 625 Dickey Road, Grand Prairie, Texas, stated that he was present to answer any concerns of the Council, and to introduce Teal Foley, an attorney, who was prepared to answer any questions pertaining to whether the City was getting its fair share of sales tax from Storer Cable. Ms. Foley stated that she had spoken with several people at the comptroller's office in Austin, Texas, the past few days, specifically a Joanne Washington, who is in the City Allocations Services Section, and she advised Ms. Foley that, according to the tax returns processed to date through September, October and November of 1985, Euless has been receiving a remittance of sales taxes contributable to Storer Cable. Mrs. Washington, as well as the other persons to whom she spoke at the comptroller's office, indicated to her that the basis for the comptroller making a remittance to the City of Euless is the fact that the City of Euless appears upon Storer's monthly tax return, and is scheduled as one of the cities to which taxable services were performed. The comptroller's office locks at the tax return, sees the City of Euless, sees the taxable sales, and then does the calculations and remits the sales tax to the City of Euless. Storer's understanding is that the City of Euless receives a lump sum remittance from the comptroller, so there is not a breakdown of what is eligible to Storer or any other entity. The City can confirm with the comptroller's office whether or not Euless has been receiving a sales tax. She understands that there is a procedture for getting documentation of what sales tax has been remitted to the City, but perhaps it was a time- consuming process and would involve some expense, but it apparently can be done. Mr. Camp stated that he had copies of Storer's tax returns filed out of the regional office in Phoenix, Arizona, for the first nine months of 1985, and that the CRT operator in Austin assured him that cable television sales taxes were remitted to the City of Euless, but she could not tell him how much tax had been paid. Ms. Foley stated that there has been no change in the payment of sales tax to the City since September 1985, and that the months in 1985 prior to September would not have been treated differently. City Attorney Bob McFarland asked Tom Hart, Assistant City Manager, if he was able to make contact with the comptroller's office and verify that sales taxes had been paid. Mr. Hart replied that one of the City's staff called Austin and received a conflicting report, but he didn't tell Mr. Hart to whom he spoke or what his source was. 1986-009 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Six Mr. McFarland recommended to the Council that verification be obtained from the same person Mrs. Teal contacted, because the Council has a record of the fact that contact with the comptroller's office was made by a staff member and is within the Council's packet tonight and confirms that no such sales tax was being remitted. According to some rules he received in a similar case, certain rules for establishing sales tax and titlement appear to indicate that when the sale did not culminate within Euless, unless tangible goods were delivered in connection with that sale from a point within Euless, Grand Prairie would be the source of the sales tax. However, if a challenge is made, the comptroller would establish sales tax and titlement under certain rules. To assure the City's continued collection of taxes and assuming economically a facility could be made available within the City, services and equipment could originate possibly from a physical location in Euless. Ms. Foley stated that she and Mr. Camp would like the opportunity to work with the City in contacting the comptroller just to verify the facts if a challenge were made, Mr. Camp stated that operating, construction and programming costs have increased dramatically since 1979, and the 5 percent increase in 1985 did very little to offset these increasing costs and allow them a return on their investment in our City. But Storer has continued, however, to construct a new cable plant, improve existing plant and clean up the system in Euless, and in the process, basic penetration has climbed to 40 percent, a 4 percent increase since January of this year. Mayor Samuels asked if the Council had any questions. Mr. Sternfels asked if Mr. Camp had a financial statement for the year 1985, and when it would be available. Mr. Camp replied that it would be available in March or April 1986. Mr. Sternfels also asked how Mr. Camp felt the scrambling of premium channels will affect Storer's revenue. Mr. Camp stated that they hoped scrambling would help them. They just didn't know, but scrambling will begin as of January 16. Mr. Eden stated that most complaints he has received have been about cable TV and lack of response by Storer to customer complaints, and asked if there were any plans to upgrade their service system, or at least get cable people responsive to citizen complaints. Mr. Camp replied that the percentage of service calls has decreased 7 percent, physical systems that allow us to run without problems have been installed, and Storer has made some people changes to help meet responsibil ities, and are training people and have a quicker response time. Mr. Eden stated that generally the problems that he has been hearing have regarded a lack of concern from Storer people, and that public relations between Storer and a lot of citizens have not been real good. Citizens have been promised better service for so long, but it doesn't seem to get any better. Mr. Camp stated that Mr. Eden was right. Storer has done a real had job at public relations, but since they had received fewer complaints, they assumed they were giving better service. 1986-010 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Seven Mr. Pippin asked Mr. Camp if Storer is seeking the same percentage of rate increase throughout its service area of the three cities. Mr. Camp replied that they are and Co l l eyv i l l e granted the full rate increase, but Bedford authorized only SIG for basic cable service. Mr. Hart asked if Storer planned to appeal the Bedford rate increase, and Mr. Camp replied that they planned to go back to them and try. Mayor Samuels requested that Council would like to see Storer' s 1985 figures, because in looking at the figures he gave the Council, losses could not be as great in 1985. Mr. Camp replied that they probably weren't, but could probably get him a report some time in March. Mr. i -fart commented that one of Storer's problems in the past has been a turnover of managers, but Mr. Camp has been here since March, and has responded better to him than any other manager. Sternfels commented that Mr. Camp has been responsive and he would like to commend him for that; however, Storer must realize the Council must handle Storer as any other utility and provide to Euless citizens the best service for the least price. Mr. Samuels asked if there were any other questions from the Council or the audience. There being none, Mayor Samuels asked if there were any opponents or persons who would like to ask questions. There being none, Mayor Samuels asked if the staff had an comments. There being none, Mayor Samuels closed the public hearing. Mr. Eden stated that at this point in time, based upon past experience, that it's hard to justify a rate increase, and that he would like to see some type of performance for this; that he was very pleased with Mr. Camp's reports, and sure that Storer has made a lot of progress in service, but there seems to be a lot of progress still to be made. Mr. Pippin commented that he was not personally interested in taking action on an increase until he had seen at least the first three quarters of I985's revenue, and financial statement for 1955. If that's going to take three more months for Mr. Camp to get, then the item should be tabled until the 1985 figures are available. Mr. Camp stated that he would be glad to get the figures, but he certainly would consider asking the Council to not hinge the rate increase upon that. Mr. McFarland stated that Storer Cable has the authority under congressional act to put into effect a rate increase of 5 percent per annum without consent of Council. A rate increase in excess of that amount will require Council's approval through December 29, 1986. After that date, the City will no longer have control over the rates charged by the telecommunications franchise for Storer. 1986-011 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Eight. Mayor Samuels asked Mr. Camp if he had enough quarterly information that he could take the last quarter of 1984 and the first three quarters of 1985 and give the Council something. Mr. Camp stated that he could not do it in time for the Council to help him with the rate increases. Mr. Pippin asked if Storer met the $100,000 project commitment in the last quarter of 1985, and Mr. Camp stated that, give or take a week, they did. Mr. Hart stated that there might be one other question the Mayor might want to address Mr. Camp, in that our franchise fee is presently 3 percent, and under law now and without FCC approval, we can take 5 percent if the Council so desires. Mr. Sternfels moved to approve an amount equal to that which was approved by the City of Bedford, being $10 for basic cable service fee instead of $10.95, and grant all other increases as requested. Mr. Pippin seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Sternfels, Pippin, Eden Nays: Mrs. Park and Mr. Walker. Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. Mr. Sternfels moved that all the business discussed previously would take effect March 1, 1986. Mr. Pippin seconded the motion, Ayes: Messrs. Sternfels, Pippin, and Eden Nays: Mrs. Park and Mr. Walker Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. ITEM 8: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDEMNATION IN WI_LIAMSBURG ADDITION Mayor Samuels opened the public hearing concerning condemnation of 2400 Bear Creek Drive, Lot 1, Block l., Williamsburg Addition and presented City Attorney Bob McFarland, who represented the City of Euless, Texas, as proponent. Mr. McFarland stated that the condemnation was initiated by the City at the request of Council to abate an apartment project in the Williamsburg Addition upon which construction had commenced, but had abated and not proceeded any further for some period of time. Notice was given to the current owner whoce property was affected, and an appeal was taken from that notice. Subsequent to that time he had had continuing contact with the attorney for the owners, Mr. George Davis, and he is present this evening to make a presentation on behalf of the owners with respect to the abatement request. 1.986 -012 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Nine The facts that have now come forward indicate that the owners were caught in a legal entanglement. The property in question was platted by the City as Lot 1, Block 1, of the Williamsburg Addition. Subsequent to that time, conveyances were affected in which the lot itself was basically split into two parts, and one owner owns one --half and another owner owns the other half. Two separate lenders made loans upon those respective parcels. One lender, Sunrise Savings & Loan Association in Florida made a loan on one parcel for purposes of constructing an apartment project. rafter construction; commenced, the owner of the property went into bankruptcy, as did the owner of the adjacent parcel. The City was powerless and so too were the property owners, because the property was then under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bankruptcy Court, and no action could be taken by the City, nor._ could the mortgage owners whose loans were in default foreclose on the property. The mortgage holders, through a protracted period of time, were able to obtain a discharge of the property from the jurisdiction of the Federal Court bankruptcy proceedings in mid-year of 198.5 and both mortgage lenders proceeded to foreclosure, and Sunrise Savings and Loan of Florida currently now owns the parcel upon which the improvements are located. The lender that foreclosed on the adjacent portion of Lot. 1. sold it to a third party in Dallas. The third party in Dallas has indicated that they do not consider the plat of the property valid. So, Sunrise Savings & Loan proceeded at that point toward completion of the project, and they did so at their own peril, because the adjacent property owner whose property they had to go through for exit and entry challenged their right to do so. It was at that point when the City filed the abatement or condemnation proceedings. Mr. McFarland further stated that Sunrise is in negotiation with the adjacent property owner. They have reached an agreement basically in principle to try to exchange other property owned by Sunrise, perhaps within the area of that property, so that Sunrise will be able to acquire ownership of the entire lot. .Sunrise has indicated to the City that, if they can acquire the property, they Man to complete the development. Between now and that acquisition, Sunrise has indicated that they will proceed toward abatement of the structure and will actually tear down the structure. They will furnish to the Council time parameters in which they hope to accomplish this. City staff has requested that, when the improvements are in abatement, the plumbing be capped at the foundation. Sunrise through their., attorney will request that the slab be allowed to stay so that, when they do start construction attain, there will be no need to replace the slab, since it doesn't pose a health problem. City engineers have indicated that two of the slabs which are stressed slabs may have experienced failure, Prior to reconstruction and the issuance of any building permits, the City will require that the slabs be certified as sound for the construction. It appears that two of them may need to be replaced, and this should be communicated to Sunrise by their attorney. I think Mr. Davis is going to request that all of the structures be torn down with the slabs left, and plumbing reduced to slab level and capped, with the exception of the clubhouse. Construction of the clubhouse will be allowed to be completed at this time. Staff has indicated that they want to check with Sunrise's inspectors before a permit is issued. They bel ieve that the structure is structurally sound and the one furtherest completed. 1986 -013 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Ten Mr. Eden asked Mr. Davis if it would be possible to maybe do some grading on that property and maybe a little bit of landscaping. Mr. Davis replied that the problem Mr. Eden was talking about is the property that is owned by the adjacent landowner. Mrs. Park asked the Mayor if the City could improve the adjacent property as far as weeds and etc., and attach a lien to it. Mayor Samuels replied that we could cut the weeds or grass, but couldn't do any grading. City Manager W. M. Sustaire asked Mr. Davis how long he anticipated being involved in the negotiation for the adjacent lot. Mr. Davis replied he hoped to reach an agreement with the gentleman involved as quickly as possible. The gentleman would like to trade for an income- producing piece of property which we have. We intend to make every endeavor to reach an agreement with respect to a trade and we are proceeding accordingly. Mayor Samuels asked the Councilme € € €bers if they had any further questions to ask Mr. Davis. Mr. McFarland stated that for the benefit of the citizens that were in the audience the question of a performance bond, the Council could continue the proceeding for 90 days in order for Mr. Davis' client to complete demolition of the project. If at the end of that period of time, Sunrise has completed demolition, 77 Lthen the that could simply be removed from the t Council's i agenda. If i� at the end of that 90 -day period, however, then the matter would still be before the Council for condemnation and abatement. Mayor Samuels stated that in the meantime the City will pursue against the other property owner about the weeds and grass. Mr. McFarland stated that he assumed that within the 90-day period of time, if your client decides to go ahead and complete construction of the clubhouse, inspections can be made and a buiding permit obtained. Mr. Davis stated that if they do proceed to demolish down to the slab, they will be acting in accordance with Council's wishes. They will save the slab, cap the plumbing on all but the clubhouse, and rebuild the clubhouse. Mr. McFar" i and stated that if the decision was made not to rebuild the clubhouse, they should go ahead and tear the clubhouse down to the slab and cap the plumbing. Mayor Samuels asked citizens and neighbors in the audience if that sounded fair in relation to what they have heard. 1986-014 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Eleven Mr. Charles Finney, 400 Cherry Ann, stated that he lived on the corner of Cherry Ann and Bear Creek Drive, and stated that he still was not getting a timetable as to then the project will be rebuilt. He felt that the neighborhood itself deserves either total destruction and removal back to the bare ground, or at least a date as to when the unit will be completed. As far as just demolishing back down to the slabs and capping the plumbing, its still not going to improve the looks of the neighborhood. It will improve it somewhat, but it's still going to look 1 ike a bombed -out or burned -out area. Mr. McFarland stated that utilities serving the property in question come through the other property. If that property is not subject to the existing plat, then the owner of that property has the authority to cut off, dig up, and remove those utilities and there would be no utility access to the property development. Charles Finney asked if the City could not provide a certain amount of utility easement.? Mr, McFarland replied that the easement was dedicated by the property owner. in the plat. The problem is that legally the other owner is challenging those easements. The plat and easement were granted prior to the mortgage of his predecessor, and title therefore does not bind his use of the property. It will be a lot better if they complete the project as it was originally designed, landscape it, and have an attractive supplement to your addition. The City can require them to take down those structures that are there, because our engineers and inspectors have determined the wood portion of the structure is unsafe. tinder an ordinance or statute available that says that if the City deems that structure unsafe and a fire hazard, the City can bring condemnation proceedings. At this point they are obviously operating in good faith on the part of the new owners and Mr. Davis' client, that they want to complete the project just as soon as they get ownership of the adjacent tract. Charles Finney stated that in other words there is nothing that can be done in regard to the slabs being left. Mr. McFarland replied that, unless they become a danger to the citizens of the community he personally couldn't think of any argument that says those slabs are endangering the health and welfare of the citizens of the neighborhood. Sunrise can't do anything right now until they get the lot next door question resolved, and they couldn't do anything before May because it was under a Federal Court's ,jurisdiction. Sunrise is working in good faith. Sunrise could have appealed and two and one -half years from now we would probably be litigating in court. The fact that Sunrise has come forward and said we agree with the City, and we are going to do what we can to get ownership, and we are going to go ahead and tear down the property, because we don't believe it can be rebuilt. Charles Finney stated that he couldn't see why they are going to tear down part and not all. 1986-015 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14_ 1.986 - Page Twelve Mr. McFarland stated that the clubhouse was the one essentially furtherest in completion and probably as a result suffered the least weathering and deterioration; however, before the City is going to give them a building permit, the City's building officer, Larry Finney, will make certain that the building is structurally sound before they will allow then to proceed. Charles Finney stated that the neighborhood has been very patient looking at the property, and he has not been before the City bugging the City because he felt like there has been a problem, and the neighborhood would like to know that their Council is aware of things l i k e this and w i l l make every effort to see that the project is completed and put into a good tax situation, and that the surrounding area can also be developed because there has already been a lot of money spent on developing streets and people are not even able to sell their-. lots on the other street because of what looks like a burned -out area. Mayor Samuels stated that he agreed with Charles Finney and the Council is concerned. The item will come up again on the Council's agenda and, if Sunrise hasn't complied with their promises, we will take the next step. Mr. Mike Mohler, 41.0 Christine Court, Euless, Texas, stated that those are not apartments and the plat specified condos that are to be sold and owned by people, and wanted to know if that can be changed? City Engineer James Knight stated that the property is zoned Community Unit Development R-5 multi - family and would be built as a condominium type project the way the building plans were submitted. The City does not regulate the sale of condominiums or the renting of apartments, and has no authority to do so. Mr. McFarland asked Mr. Davis if he knew, if Sunrise decides to proceed completion of the project, they intended to develop the property as condomin- iums, if they are able to acquire the other property. Mr. Davis stated that he believed they planned to develop it as condominiums if it is economically feasible. If we cannot sell the condominiums, then of course we will try to lease them. There is very little difference between that and an apartment project. Mr. McFarland stated that the City had no control. There is a community development plan; in place there. It is going to have to be built per that plan, and if it is built as apartments or apartments with unit -by -unit ownership for single- family ownership we have no control over it. Howard Alburn, 2503 Morrison, Euless, Texas, asked if the bank sells this property two weeks from now, what's going to happen then? Will the condemnation continue, will it stop, or will we have to go through this again. Mr. McFarland stated that it depended upon what the Council does. If the Council continues the matter for 90 days, and Sunrise doesn't have the demolition completed within 90 days, we are right back where we are today, the Council will condemn the property and order its demolition, no matter who owns it. Change of ownership won't affect this. 1986 -016 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January It, 1986 -- Page Thirteen Mr. Carl Smith stated that he owned the property adjacent to this project., and requested Council not wait 90 days because it is costing him money. Mayor Samuels requested that this matter automatically be put on the February 11, 1986, agenda for a report from staff. At that point in time we will see what L has happened. Mr. Eden moved to table the matter subject to call, and if there is no call placed on the Council agenda in 90 days, with the staff reporting on February 11, 1986. If the staff on February ii.t.h indicates no action, then the matter can be called from the table. Mr. Sternfels seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Eden, Sternfels, Pippin, Walker, and Mrs. Park Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. ITEM 9: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 86 -619 Mr. Walker moved to approve Resolution No. 86 -619 ordering an election of officers for the City of Euless, Texas, on Saturday, April 5, 1986, for one Counci :member"' for Place One, one Councilmember for Place Three, and one Counci lmember for Place Five, for a period of two years, or until their successors have been duly qualified; constituting one voting precinct and designating 201 North Ector Drive in Euless, Texas, as the polling place for said election. Mr.. Park seconded the Motion, yes: `1r. Walker, Mrs. Park, Messrs. Pippin, Eden and Sternfels Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. ITEM 10: CONSIDERATION OF RESO.UTION NO. 86- -620 Mr. Pippin moved to approve Resolution No. 86 -620 regarding the Hurst- Euless- Bedford Independent School District and the City of Euless holding a joint election on April 5. 1986, for the purpose of electing members of the Euless City Council and Trustees to the H -E -B Board of Trustees. s. Mr. Walker seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Pippin, Walker, Eden, Sternfels, and Mrs. Park Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. 1986-017 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Fourteen ITEM 11: CONSIDERATION OF CITY MANAGER ENTERING INTO A. CONTRACT Mr. Walker moved to approve the City "Manager entering into a contract regarding the participation with surrounding cities in the cost and operation of a Pol ice Mobile Digital Computer System. Mr. Eden seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Walker, Eden, Pippin, Sternfels, and Mrs. Park Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. ITEM 12: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE Mr. Walker moved to approve first reading of an ordinance vacating a ten-foot wide utility easement located in the Bell Ranch Terrace Addition near Highway 183 and F.M. 157. %r. Pippin seconded the motion. Ayes: Messrs. Walker, Pippin, Eden, Sternfeis, and Mrs. Park Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. ITEM 13: CONSIDERATION OF BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Mr. Sternfels moved to approve the resignation of Chuck Canton and the appointment of Ven ita M. Baker to the Library Board, and the resignation of dames K. Mi l lsap and the appointment of Michael Chance to the Park and Recreation Board. Mr. Walker seconded the motion, Ayes: Messrs. Sternfels, Walker, Pippin, Eden, and Mrs. Park Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. ITEM EM 14 : CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Bob McFarland stated he had nothing to report. 1986-018 Euless City Council Regular Meeting - January 14, 1986 - Page Fifteen ITEM 15: CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT City Engineer James Knight advised the Council that the overlay on Pipeline Road from Central Drive west to Euless City limits had begun, and that the paving of Huntington Drive was completed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ATTEST: 1,/ Kay Rai415.,-Y, City Secrefary APPROVED: Hz-fro .0 0 d D. Samuels, Mayor