HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 05/02/1984MINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 2, 1984
2:00 P.M.
Present:
Mayor Luther Jones
Mayor Pro Tem Betty N. Turner
Council Members:
David Berlanga, Sr.
Welder Brown
Leo Guerrero
Dr. Charles W. Kennedy, Jr.
Joe McComb
Frank Mendez
Mary Pat Slavik
City Manager Edward A. Martin
City Attorney J. Bruce Aycock
City Secretary Bill G. Read
VOu (
Mayor Luther Jones called the meeting to order in the Council Chamber of
City Hall.
The invocation was given by Rabbi Warren Stone of Temple Bethel, following
which the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States was led by
Council Member Welder Brown.
City Secretary Bill G. Read called the roll of required Charter Officers
and verified that the necessary quorum was present to conduct a legally
constituted meeting.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner that the minutes of the Regular
Council Meeting of April 25, 1984 be approved as presented; seconded by Council
Member Mary Pat Slavik; and passed unanimously.
* * * * * * * * *
Mayor Jones then administered the oath to the following new appointment to
the Building Standards Board: Mr. John E. Hernandez.
Mayor Jones called for consideration of Board and Committee Appointments
and reviewed the appointments discussed during the morning workshop meeting.
A motion was made by Council Member Mendez that the following appointments
be confirmed, seconded by Council Member Guerrero and passed unanimously:
Board of Adjustment - term to 4/04/86, Bill J. Brown, Robert F. Gonzales, Ralph
Krause, Floyd Williams, Claudio Herrera, Bette L. Harris, and Morgan Spear;
Coastal Bend Hospital Authority - term to 4/21/86, Jacob Munoz, Jack Solka, Don
Hanks, Gabe Lozano, Sr., Nancy Bowen, Carl Lewis, and Joe Sturm; Housing
MICROFILMED
.lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 2
Authority - term to 4/04/86, Ernest Carter, Ruben Rodriguez, and Mo Morehead;
Sister City Committee - Dr. Royal Mills, term to 5/85; Jamie Cook, term to 5/86;
Transportation Advisory Board - term to 4/30/87, Dr. Herbert E. Madalin and
Roland Gaona.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Jones announced the bid opening on the following engineering project:
The project includes the installation of a six-foot chain link fence at the
Corpus Christi International Airport, a thirty-foot rolling gate, and the
relocation of certain portions of present barbed wire fence, all totaling
9,130 feet, at the northern portion of the Airport property. Federal
Aviation Administration will participate on a 90% Federal/10% City basis.
Assistant City Manager James K. Lontos opened bids on this project from the
following firms: Allied Steel and Wood Fence Company, Cyclone Fence Company,
Texas Fence, Inc., Viking Fence Company, and Paul's Fence Company, Inc.
Mayor Jones expressed appreciation to the companies who had submitted bids
and stated that they would be tabled for 48 hours pursuant to the requirements
of the City Charter, and referred to the staff for tabulation and
recommendation.
* * * * * * * *
Mayor Jones explained to
included a presentation by Hay
City to perform a survey of the
Thomas P. Flannery, Principal,
Principal, Dallas Texas.
*
*
the audience that the morning workshop agenda
Management Consultants who were employed by the
City Secretary's Office. He then recognized Dr.
Kansas City Missouri, and Dr. Susan M. Bennett,
Dr. Flannery presented the report to the Council
transparencies showing the following categories of which
been made, noting that he would cover the following
methodology, findings, and recommendations.
through the use of
their evaluation had
categories: scope,
1. Methodology - He stated that they conducted extensive interviews within the
City, surveyed various municipalities that had City Secretary or City Clerk
positions for salary determination purposes, budget purposes, etc. He stated
that they administered several questionnaires with the personnel in the City
Secretary's Office to find out job accountabilities, duties, workloads, those
types of issues, and finally analyzed them and various documents which the City
provided for them.
2. Findings - (a) Clarity of direction - He stated that they defined this as
the extent to which the office has established clear courses of action as
conveyed by well defined goals and plans. He stated that on this point they
found that there is insufficient direction provided to the City Secretary's
Office, nor is there sufficient direction within the City Secretary's Office for
it to function effectively, and one of their recommendations is to clarify the
role of the City Secretary in relation to the City Council, the Mayor's Office
.utes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 3
and the rest of the City operation. (b) Decision making - This is the
systematic formulation, implementation, and review of information on which to
base decisions. He stated that they do not see the City Secretary's Office as a
decision-making body, rather as an informational, recording and contributory
office to provide services to the City Council - not its policy making process.
He stated that they have some specific recommendations for the City Secretary's
Office in terms of assisting the City Council in this process by facilitating
that process more effectively.
3. Organizational Integration: defined as the degree to which the office
assures the effective communication within the unit and fosters cooperative
interaction with the appropriate peer units - He stated that their finding is
that in terms of integration within the City organization, the City Secretary's
Office could be better integrated into the total operation of the City. In many
instances, the City Secretary's Office acts independently of the rest of the
City functions, and they think that it could more effectively and efficiently
provid services to the Council by working closer with those entities. As an
example, they feel that one role the City Secretary's Office provides
effectively is the ability to respond to citizen inquiries; however, they feel
that the role of the City Secretary is not to formulate the actual response or
to conduct the research for that, but to refer those questions to the City
Manager's Office which is in a better position to provide the data, and report
that data back to the City Secretary's Office which would then respond to the
constituent. In that same vein, to support the City Council, the City
Secretary's Office should continue to provide information to each member of the
Council on the types of questions and responses from citizens so that the City
Council is fully informed of what is happening with the constituents of the
City.
4. Performance Orientation: This is the extent of emphasis placed upon
accountability results - high levels of performance. He stated that their
assessment is the City Secretary's Office performance could be improved in terms
of how it goes about performing its work. They found that it is somewhat
inefficient in how the work is performed. They found that the staffing level is
appropriate in that office; they feel that the way they go about doing the work
could be improved considerably so that the records and documents that are
retained by the City Secretary's Office could be more accessible to the City
staff as well as the public, and that the materials produced by the City
Secretary's Office could be improved upon to some extent.
5. Organizational Vitality: In the City Secretary's function, you do not want
to see that. It is contradictory to what we would want to see in most
organizations - what we want in the City Secretary's Office is to maintain the
records, keep track of the boards, provide assistance to the City Council to
provide liaison to the public that goes to that office. To that extent, you
want it to develop routines to provide for those things to happen. We would
prefer to see the City Secretary's Office facilitate rather than innovate. In
that regard, we feel that the City Secretary's Office is performing very well.
6. Management Style: We think that over the past several years, as the City
Manager form of government has evolved, it has become the predominant office,
and the emphasis upon the City Secretary's Office has declined. As it has
Lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 4
declined, it has received insufficient clarification of the new role of the City
Secretary's Office and one of their recommendations is that the City Council
provide greater direction as to what it wants of the City Secretary's Office.
In other words, does it want the City Secretary's Office to handle constituent's
complaints, does it want greater liaison with the other offices in the City?
7. Accountability: We see the City Secretary's Office as being one which
supports the Council. We do not see the City Secretary's Office to be
unconstrained in its freedom to act. For example, we do not see the City
Secretary's Office as the proper place for interaction with the press. We think
that inquiries from the press should go to the City Manager's Office and that
the information that the City Secretary's Office has be provided through there.
He explained that that is not to say that the press should be encumbered in its
seeking of information, but what they would recommend is that there needs to be
a better liaison with the press and the way to get that information out to the
City. He stated that they do not think the City Secretary's Office should
represent the City Council. The Council should represent itself on behalf of
the Council and the City Manager should represent the City on behalf of the
management of the City.
Dr. Flannery referred to the impact of the results and stated that they
think the City Secretary's Office function is an important function of the City
of Corpus Christi, Texas and their recommendation is that the office remain
independent of the City Manager's Office and that it be an operation that
provides service exclusively to the City Council. He stated that they do not
recommend the elimination of the City Secretary's Office - they think that it
does perform an important function, does provide a return to the residents of
this City.
Other recommendations Dr. Flannery made were that most of the work that the
City Secretary's Office performs, it should continue to perform; it maintains
the records of the committees; it provides a point for the receipt of certain
documents and certification of documents; and those types of functions are
essential to any unit of local government and the City Secretary's Office should
retain those functions. However we do not think the City Secretary's Office
should act as a management function within the City - it should provide those
services which support the Council. He stated that one of the things the
Council needs to do is decide what the Council's support functions are and place
those in the City Secretary's Office and what functions are management functions
and properly place those in the City Manager's Office. He gave as an example
the agenda which is prepared by the City Manager's Office, which they think is
very appropriate, but the City Secretary has a role in insuring that the Council
receives those in a timely fashion.
Dr. Flannery continued by stating that the other functions which are
performed by the City Secretary's Office, such as certifying elections,
submitting documentation of them to the federal government on the results of the
election, etc. should continue to be performed by the City Secretary's Office.
He stated that primarily the focus of their recommendations is for a better
delineation of the role of the City secretary's Office as a supportive function
within the City, one which compliments the City Council but does not supplement
.rotes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 5
the City Council, and one which needs to be better integrated into the overall
operation of the City.
Dr. Flannery stated that a written report will be prepared for the City
Council which will include a job description for the City Secretary, performance
measures, standards by which the office can be measured, and assured the Council
that that material will be forwarded to them in about two weeks, noting that he
will send approximately ten copies to the City Manager for distribution to the
City Council.
Council Member Slavik stated that she was very pleased with the report and
was very glad to have this tool to work with to come up with a better operation
for the City Secretary's Office.
A motion was made by Council Member Brown that the report be accepted,
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Turner and passed unanimously.
A motion was made by Council Member McComb that a closed meeting be
conducted next Wednesday, May 9, 1984, at 8:30 a.m. to discuss personnel
matters. The motion was seconded by Council Member Guerrero and passed
unanimously.
* * * • * * • • • *
Mayor Jones called for consideration of the consent motions on the
following items:
1. Approve the purchase of one 1,250 GPM Triple Combination Pumper Truck for
the Fire Department from Riggs First Line Equipment for the amount of
$117,261 based on best bid. This item is included in the 1983-84 Revenue
Sharing Account. Nine bid invitations were issued and four bids were
received.
2. Bids be received May 29, 1984, for wastewater effluent sampling equipment.
Samples will be used to collect final effluent at treatment plants for
analysis. Equipment is included in the 1983-84 Capital Outlay Budget.
Estimated expenditure is $8,400.
3. Twelve months service agreement with option to extend for an additional
twelve months, at the same terms and conditions, subject to the approval of
the supplier and the City Manager, or his designee, for automotive air
conditioning repairs to City vehicles be awarded to Joe's Auto Electric &
Air Conditioning, on the basis of low bid. This bid is based on $16.50 per
hour labor rate and a 35% discount on parts. Bids were received from two
firms. Price comparison shows a 13% decrease from last year's contract.
4. Approving a twelve months supply agreement with option to extend for an
additional twelve months, at the same terms and conditions, subject to the
approval of the supplier and the City Manager, or his designee, for fire
fighting clothing for the Fire Department, based on low bid to Koetters
Fire Protection Service, for an estimated annual expenditure of $15,705.84.
Twenty-one bid invitations were issued and eight bids were received. Funds
are included in the 1983-84 Budget.
_lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 6
5. Accepting the Corpus Christi International Airport Access Road Overlay
project and authorizing final payment of $105,436.50 to Heldenfels
Brothers, Inc. for this work. The total work done on the 9th Year
Community Development Block Grant, Supplemental Appropriation project is
$118,167.
*6. A bridge agreement relating to South Fork Unit 2 Subdivision be approved
providing for the deferring of a bridge obligation by the County Creek
Corporation. The City has been unable to obtain a Corps of Engineers'
permit for a low-water bridge across this contiguous wetlands area. The
agreement would defer the bridge obligation pending a decision to
ultimately build a different type of bridge. *(This item withdrawn)
7. The demolition of four (4) buildings in the South Bluff Park area located
at 413 and 413 (rear) South Carrizo Street; 412 and 412 (rear) South King
Street be awarded to Gilbert R. Ortiz, dba G. R. Paving and Demolition
Company for $9,800 be approved.
8. Amending, prior to third reading, the ordinance closing and abandoning that
20 foot wide of Williams Drive located in Lot 10, Section 31, Flour Bluff
and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts and that 20 foot wide portion of unnamed
street located in Lot 1, Peary Place Annex "E" and Lot 10, Section 31,
Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts to delete "Closing and
abandoning that 20 foot wide portion of Williams Drive located in Lot 10,
Section 31, Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts".
Council Member Slavik referred to item 6 and inquired if the staff felt
that the City should request that the developer deposit money for the
construction of this bridge.
City Manager Martin explained that the developer was not in agreement with
this recommendation; he is ill and unable to be present today; and he has
requested that the item be delayed for one week.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner that item 6 be withdrawn,
seconded by Council Member Slavik and passed unanimously.
Council Member McComb referred to item 8 and asked for a further
explanation.
City Manager Martin explained that the original recommendation was to close
two segments of the streets in this area, one, the 20 foot wide Williams Drive
and the 20 foot wide portion of an unnamed street located in lot 1, Peary Place
Annex E and lot 10, section 31, Flour Bluff and Encinal Farm and Garden Tracts.
He stated that at one of the recent staff meetings, some of the staff people
reminded them that there is sometimes a need to have street right-of-way for
future extensions, even though there is no evident need for it at this time.
Assistant City Manager Lontos explained that the staff reviewed it and they
feel that the need could possibly arise in the future for the use of the
Williams Drive right-of-way. He stated that the staff is recommending that the
ordinance be amended prior to third reading to omit the Williams Drive
.lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 7
right-of-way.
Council Member Mendez referred to the same ordinance and inquired as to the
requirements the Corp of Engineers will impose on construction of bridges on the
Oso, and Mr. Martin stated that the staff will have that information for the
Council.
Mayor Jones called for comments from the audience on items 1 through 8 with
the exception of item 6 which had been withdrawn.
Mr. Harry Bennett, Goldston Engineering, stated that he is representing the
Moose Lodge who had requested the street closure mentioned in item 8. Mr.
Bennett questioned the need for the City to retain the Williams Drive
right-of-way, pointing out that the portion west of the subject property will
exit on Ennis Joslin; the portion to the east will exit on Paul Jones; and other
portions will exit on Padre Island Drive. He stated that their access has to be
to Padre Island Drive and displayed a drawing and explained the plans for access
and exits, which will be on Padre Island Drive whether Williams Drive is
extended or not. He pointed out that his client is the only one who would have
any use for Williams Drive and expressed the opinion that there would never be a
reason to extend Williams Drive. He stated that they would prefer to have the
ordinance passed as it was originally voted upon.
Mayor Jones stated that he did not agree with Mr. Bennett because
frequently things happen and there could be a requirement for the extension of
Williams Drive because there is a great deal of growth in that area.
Council Member McComb stated that he had been concerned about this ever
since the first reading of the ordinance and he definitely supports the staff
recommendation to omit Williams Drive from the ordinance closing the unnamed
street.
There were no further comments on the consent motions.
A motion was made by Council Member Guerrero that the consent motions item
1 through 8, with the exception of item 6 which was withdrawn, be approved;
seconded by Council Member Slavik; and passed unanimously.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Jones called for consideration of the consent ordinances and
ordinances from previous meetings on items 9 through 24.
City Manager Martin referred to ordinance 9 appropriating $2,452,496 for
relocation and acquisition costs for land acquisition for the City Hall Site
Project. He reminded them that the Council's action was that all of tract 44 be
acquired and the action proposed today is to make bond funds available for the
land acquisition and the relocation costs. He stated that all of the actions
have been completed except for parcel 8 of tract 44. He stated that he is
making this recommendation at this time because there is a need to move forward
and take possession of the parcels that have already been purchased.
nutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 8
Council Member Kennedy inquired about the original estimate for land
acquisition, and Mr. Martin replied that $3 million was the original estimate
which was fairly accurate until the Council directed the staff to acquire an
additional 12 block and the estimate now is that the total cost will be about
$3.5 million. To the Mayor's question, Mr. Martin stated that the
groundbreaking ceremonies will be in January of 1985.
Mayor Jones requested a discussion of items 11 and 12 which pertain to the
George Evans School Area Street Improvements Phase 1 project in view of the
lawsuit that has been filed by AGC.
City Manager Martin explained that last week an injunction was filed
against the City by Associated General Contractors; a hearing was held on that
last night; and Judge Rene Haas denied the temporary restraining order. He
stated that the status at this point is that a hearing on a temporary injunction
will be set for possibly May 16, May 18 or at the latest June 1. He reiterated
that the temporary restraining order was denied and there is no reason not to
award the contract.
Mayor Jones inquired if the City Council is in the position that anything
said by the Council could be used against them in court, and City Manager Martin
stated that that was true and he would suggest that if the Council wants to do
much more than just discuss the basics, that further discussion should be in
closed session.
Council Member Kennedy stated that he had two concerns, one, if the
contract is awarded and the contractor goes ahead and orders materials and
commences construction, and if the City loses the lawsuit on the restraining
order, what the consequences would be. He also inquired if they delay awarding
the contract until after June 1, what kind of damage or increased cost the City
would incur.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner expressed the same concern, and City Manager Martin
pointed out that the City cannot stop progress because of a lawsuit.
Assistant City Attorney Jay Doegey confirmed the statements made by City
Manager Martin and stated that at this point the City can do whatever it wants
to as far as this contract is concerned.
Council Member Kennedy stated that he has still not received an answer to
his second question, which was the possibility of delaying the award of the
contract until after the June hearing and he would like to know what the cost to
the City would be in that event.
City Manager Martin stated that all that would occur is there would be a
delay of the project, assuming that the bidder would adhere to the prices
included in his bid.
Council Member Guerrero indicated he felt that this discussion implies that
the contractor is going to sue the City; there is no indication of that; and he
did not feel that the City should stop business because they are involved in a
lawsuit.
.rotes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 9
A motion was made by Council Member McComb that item 12 be withdrawn until
the court decision has been made on the AGC lawsuit. The motion was seconded by
Mayor Pro Tem Turner.
Council Member Berlanga stated that he felt Judge Haas' decision indicated
that the Council had acted appropriately, and Council Member Guerrero objected
to Joe McComb's motion.
Council Member Brown pointed out that the City is not under any restraint
whatsoever legally and he felt that the contract should be awarded.
Council Member Kennedy stated that he felt that he would like a date placed
on the delay of the contract to comply with the date it will be heard by the
court.
City Manager Martin explained that the item is scheduled to be heard by
June 1 at the latest, but if the Judge's docket allows, they will try to hear it
on May 16 or May 18.
Council Member Kennedy offered an amendment to Council Member McComb's
motion to delay the award of the contract no later than June 5.
Council Member McComb accepted the amendment to his motion.
Mayor Jones stated that he will support this motion since the City is in
court on the matter and he sees no problem with this delay.
Mayor Jones then called for the motion to delay award of contract on item
12, the George Evans School Area Street Improvement Project, until June 5, 1984
and the motion failed to pass by the following: Jones, Turner, Kennedy and
McComb voting "aye"; Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Mendez and Slavik voting "no".
Council Member Berlanga referred to ordinance 13 which pertains to
amendments to the Civil Service Board rules and regulations. He stated that he
had a number of questions before he met with City Manager Martin and the
Director of Personnel, Chuck Speed, but he still has some reservations before
the rules and regulations are changed. He stated that he did not see that there
would be any upper movement into the management by the minorities if this is
passed. He stated that he would like to see more concrete indication that the
people concerned with job applications will not be considered on the basis of
preference by the department heads or management and reiterated that he would
like to see more upper mobility for minorities.
A motion was made by Council Member Guerrero that ordinance 13. be withdrawn
and rescheduled for the workshop meeting on June 12, 1984.
Mayor Jones inquired of the City Manager if he had any problem with this
delay.
City Manager Martin stated that he did not have any particular problem with
holding this matter up; his concern is that someone has a concern that the
City's Affirmative Action Plan will be endangered; that the Veterans will be in
lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 10
endangered; and evidently some of the Council Members do have a problem with
that.
Council Member McComb stated that he was under the impression that this
item was delayed one week in order for Council Member Berlanga to obtain some
answers to his concerns, and inquired about the reason he did not have his
questions resolved.
Council Member Berlanga stated that he would still like to know how this
amendment would be placed in the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations.
Mayor Jones pointed out that he felt that the Council had assurance of
promotion of minorities through the Affirmative Action Plan and other programs
that have already been approved by the City Council.
Council Member McComb stated that he would like to offer an amendment to
Council Member Guerrero's motion to include the date of discussion be
established as May 16.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner pointed out that if this is going to be discussed next
week, she would like to have some comments from the staff on the concerns
expressed by Council Member Berlanga.
City Manager Martin inquired if the intention was that this be listed as a
regular agenda item, and the Council indicated their concurrence with this
suggestion.
Mayor Jones referred to ordinance 16 which authorizes a contract for the
Hialco Center Renovation Project. He referred to the memorandum on this item
and inquired as to how the City staff determines minority involvement.
City Manager Martin stated that it is sometimes very difficult because
there is no requirement and it has to be on a voluntary basis by the
contractors. He explained that the City staff determines what they think can be
a significant minority participation without eliminating competition. He
explained how Mr. Gerald Smith, City Engineer, makes the determination that
there are enough subcontractors to be employed and they expect the primary
contractor to make a good faith effort to accomplish this. He stated that they
also specify a minority participation as far as employment is concerned as well,
and the contractors are making a very good effort along this line also.
Mr. Smith explained that the City staff has been doing this for about three
months.
Mayor Jones stated that it is very commendable that the staff is initiating
this without any guidelines or instructions from the Council to do so.
Council Member Mendez stated that he also is glad the staff initiated this
without the Council or the federal government having demanded it and he too felt
that the staff should be commended for making such an effort which seems to be
working.
lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 11
Mayor Jones called for comments from the audience on ordinance 9 through
24.
Mr. Jim Anderson, representing Associated General Contractors, referred to
ordinance 12 which awards a contract to A. Ortiz Construction and Paving Company
for the George Evans School Area Street Improvements Phase I and stated that it
is not their purpose to delay this project and it is not their purpose to favor
one contractor over another. He stated that the issue is the award of contract
in compliance with the City's standard instructions which are actually a part of
the contract. He stated that their original intent was to file for a temporary
restraining order and to file for a temporary judgement, but they had reached an
agreement by telephone with the City Attorney's Office that they would soften
their lawsuit provided the City would not proceed to award the bid until after
the hearing. He stated that this is covered by a letter dated April 19, the day
the lawsuit was filed. He stated that they also gave the City the opportunity
to set the time schedule on the docket. He then requested that this item be
postponed until after the hearing, because if the injunction is granted, it is
his understanding that the bid and the contract are invalid and the funds
involved could be considered misappropriated funds. He expressed the opinion
that the award of the contract could hinder the matter.
There were no further comments on the ordinances; City Secretary Read
polled the Council for their votes; and the following ordinances were passed:
9. ORDINANCE NO. 18204
APPROPRIATING $2,452,496 FOR RELOCATION AND ACQUISITION COSTS INCLUDING CLOSING
COSTS, APPRAISAL FEES, SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS FEES AND COURT COSTS FOR PARCELS 1,
2, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 10, OF THE CITY HALL SITE PROJECT; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
10. ORDINANCE NO. 18205
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF TEXACO, INC. BY GRANTING
SPECIAL COUNCIL PERMIT ON A PORTION OF BLOCK A, MEADOWBROOK SUBDIVISION, FOR A
SIGN 42 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE WITH A 27 SQUARE FOOT PRICE SIGN TO BE INSTALLED
BELOW IT FOR A TOTAL OF 69 SQUARE FEET AT A HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 25 FEET,
PROVIDING THAT NO OTHER SIGNS BE ERECTED ON THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
.rotes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 12
11. ORDINANCE NO. 18206
CLOSING THE HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING STREETS:
George Evans School Area, Phase I
1. North Alameda Street, from Laredo Street to Comanche Street
2. Mussett and Caldwell St., from Brownlee Blvd. to North Staples Street
3. Lowell, Mexico and Josephine St., from Mussett Street to Caldwell St., and
4. Sam Rankin Street, from Mussett Street to Comanche Street.
FIXING A LINE AND CHARGE, THE MANNER AND TIME OF PAYMENT AND COLLECTION; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
12. ORDINANCE NO. 18207
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH A. ORTIZ CONSTRUCTION AND PAVING,
INC. FOR THE GEORGE EVANS SCHOOL AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; APPROPRIATING
$910,000; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Kennedy and McComb voting "no", Berlanga, Brown,
Guerrero, Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
13. *WITHDRAWN
*Approving proposed amendments to the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations.
The Civil Service Board met and approved the amendments to the Civil Service
Board Rules and Regulations on April 13, 1984.
14. ORDINANCE NO. 18209
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE CITY'S
SHARE OF THE ALAMEDA AND KOSTORYZ ROAD AND ALAMEDA/DODDRIDGE TO PARADE OVERLAYS;
APPROPRIATING $81,600; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
autes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 13
15. ORDINANCE NO. 18210
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH HANNES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKING LOTS AT LAKEVIEW AND WEST GUTH PARKS, GREENWOOD
SOFTBALL COMPLEX AND THE GAS DIVISION YARD; APPROPRIATING $87,900; AND DECLARING
AN EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
16. ORDINANCE NO. 18211
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH HUNT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR
THE HIALCO CENTER RENOVATIONS; APPROPRIATING $67,000; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
17. FIRST READING
ADOPTING THE STANDARD FIRE PREVENTION CODE, 1982 EDITION, WITH CERTAIN OF THE
1983 REVISIONS, AND OTHER CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second
reading by the following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero,
Kennedy, McComb, Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
18. SECOND READING
AMENDING THE CITY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 9, AVIATION, BY ADDING SECTION 9-79,
PARKING RATES, WHICH ESTABLISHES PARKING RATES AT CORPUS CHRISTI INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed to its third
reading by the following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero,
Kennedy, McComb, Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
19. SECOND READING
CLOSING AND ABANDONING AUSTIN STREET FROM THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ROSSITER
STREET TO ITS DEAD END APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET WEST; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPLAT
OF SAID PROPERTY.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed to its third
reading by the following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero,
Kennedy, McComb, Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
autes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 14
20. SECOND READING
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH D. J. POLINARD AND W. D. "TRAY"
BOONE, A PARTNERSHIP, FOR USE OF A PORTION OF THE BAYFRONT SEAWALL FOR THE
OPERATION OF A BICYCLE SURREY CONCESSION.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed to its third
reading by the following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero,
Kennedy, McComb, Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
21. ORDINANCE NO. 18212
CLOSING AND ABANDONING THAT 20 FOOT WIDE PORTION UNNAMED STREET LOCATED IN LOT
1, PEARY PLACE ANNEX "E" AND LOT 10, SECTION 31, FLOUR BLUFF AND ENCINAL FARM
AND GARDEN TRACTS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPLAT OF SAID PROPERTY.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the third and final time and passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
22. ORDINANCE NO. 18213
AMENDING SECTION 53-46 OF THE CITY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRIVILEGES FOR AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLES SET FORTH IN STATE LAW WITH
EXCEPTIONS FOR AMBULANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the third and final time and passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
23. ORDINANCE NO. 18214
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
UNIFORM CHARGES FOR THE DUPLICATION OF PUBLIC RECORDS; AND PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the third and final time and passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
24. ORDINANCE NO. 18215
CLOSING AND ABANDONING THAT 60 FOOT WIDE PORTION OF CANAL AVENUE LOCATED WEST OF
THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SURFSIDE BOULEVARD AND EAST OF THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 181; AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPLAT OF SAID
PROPERTY.
The foregoing ordinance was read for the third and final time and passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 15
* * * * * * * * * * *
*
Mayor Jones called for action by motion from the Regular Agenda on the
following item:
25. Approval to void the City's offer for a proposed agreement relating to
timing, financing and removal of the head -in parking area at Camp Cleaners
on Elizabeth Street at Third Street as authorized by the City Council on
October 12, 1983. This proposed agreement provided for removal of the
head -in parking area after January 1, 1986, and at the option of the City
would allow recessed parallel parking after that date. The owner has
refused to accept the proposed agreement, which action will soon hold up
construction as the improvements in Elizabeth Street began five weeks ago.
Assistant City Manager James K. Lontos provided background information by
stating that the City Council had authorized an agreement with Camp Cleaners to
allow them to continue head -in parking until January 1, 1986 at which time the
City would re-evaluate the need for parking and consider recessed parallel
parking. He explained that the agreement was submitted to Camp Cleaners; they
have not signed it; the contractor has progressed to the point that it is
necessary to have the agreement signed before construction is eminent in that
area; and there is a conflict as to what the requirements were. He explained
that the staff had interpreted the Council's instructions and put them into the
agreement. He reminded the Council that at that time testimony was presented to
them which indicated that the two year period for head -in parking should be
allowed due to the fact that the owners indicated that they wished to attempt to
work out an agreement with the property owners next to them to purchase land or
be allowed to utilize parking at that location. He stated that there is a need
for the Council to make a decision as to whether or not they want to continue
with the plan according to the agreement or if they want the staff to proceed
with the street construction without the head -in parking. He presented a
drawing showing the situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner stated that she did not understand the action as the
staff had interpreted it. She stated that it was her understanding, and that
she was the one who made the motion, that the owner of Camp Cleaners be allowed
to have head -in parking until January 1, 1986 and after that time the City would
have the opportunity to either allow for the continuance of head -in parking or
to install recessed parallel parking. She then inquired about the tape of the
motion, and Mr. Lontos stated that the staff acted in accordance with the
minutes which had been approved by the Council. He stated that the staff had
always been opposed to the head -in parking and such parking was eliminated for
several businesses in the area, but the motion during the meeting at which time
this was discussed was to allow Camp Cleaners to continue with head -in parking
for that period of time as mentioned before.
Council Member Kennedy stated that he could understand the problem and
pointed out that to his knowledge, the City Council did not allow this type of
thing anywhere else in town. He mentioned Boatner's Restaurant which also would
have liked to retain head -in parking and in his opinion, at the end of the two
year period, some type of permanent solution should be worked out and he did not
think it was in the City's best interest to allow permanent head -in parking.
Lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 16
Council Member Berlanga stated that he very clearly remembered that the
reason the Council granted the head -in parking for the two year period was to
provide the owner an opportunity to seek a solution to his parking and the
Council was to re-evaluate the head -in parking after the two year period.
Mr. Lontos stated that that was not what he understood from the minutes or
in accordance with the recommendation of the staff. He stated that the owner of
Camp Cleaners was to attempt to find some other solution to his parking within
that two year period, and it is his understanding now that the owners have
negotiated an agreement with the Plomarity's who own the property next door for
off street parking.
Mayor Jones read the agreement proposed which Camp Cleaners had declined to
sign.
Council Member Slavik stated that she would like to hear the owner or his
representative speak to this.
City Manager Martin stated that it was his understanding that the owner of
Camp Cleaners would be allowed to retain the head -in parking until some future
date and at that time, recessed parallel parking or parallel parking would be
allowed. He explained that the owner would like the issue of head -in parking to
be considered at that time also, and according to the minutes of the meeting at
which the matter was discussed, that was not one of the issues that was to be
included. He stated that he recalled the discussion and the motion was to allow
the head -in parking to continue only until January, 1986.
Council Member Mendez stated that he had seconded the motion and that was
what the Council had agreed to. He stated that the only reason for allowing
head -in parking for two years was to provide an opportunity for the owner to
come up with an alternate plan and the Council meant for head -in parking to be
eliminated after two years.
Speaking on behalf of the applicant was Mr. Wilson Calhoun, attorney, who
presented copies of various items including a portion of the minutes pertaining
to this and a portion of the transcript which he had made. He compared the
minutes with the transcript and noted that Mayor Pro Tem Turner, who was
presiding that day, had indicated that the head -in parking should be an
alternative even after January of 1986. He also referred to a statement made by
Council Member Slavik which reflected the same possibility. He stated that he
and his client contended that after January 1, 1986, consideration should be
given to the retention of head -in parking or recessed parallel parking and the
minutes of that meeting do not reflect this.
Council Member Kennedy pointed out that he was not present when that action
was taken, but he personally would not vote for head -in parking after 1986 for
any reason.
Council Member McComb indicated he too was absent that day and he felt that
the minutes reflect the final vote on the motion, regardless of different
statements made during the discussion. He would certainly be concerned about
the continuation of head -in parking after January 1, 1986 and if the minutes
.lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 17
reflect the correct motion made by Council Member Guerrero and seconded by
Council Member Mendez, who indicated they recall that to be the case, he would
not have any quarrel with that motion.
Mr. Calhoun continued by stating that the following three members were not
present at the time the matter was considered in October: Mayor Jones, and
Council Members Kennedy and McComb, and he felt that they did not have the
benefit of their presentation. He stated that they felt they had reached a
compromise but the motion in the minutes did not include the possibility of
head -in parking. He expressed the opinion that the intent of the motion was
that in January of 1986, the decision would be made to go to recessed parallel
parking or continue with the head -in parking.
Council Member Guerrero stated that he would like to make a motion to
instruct the staff to include the option of head -in parking in January of 1986
and if the head -in parking was not required, that recessed parallel parking
should be allowed.
Mr. Lontos stated that the decision to be made was to either have curb -side
parking or recessed parallel parking and head -in parking was not one of the
options considered at that time.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner stated that she felt that during the October meeting
the staff was to include the option of head -in parking until January, 1986 and
with the option to continue the head -in parking or go to recessed parallel
parking at that time.
Assistant City Manager Lontos stated that he hesitated to disagree, but the
decision according to his understanding to be made in 1986 was whether the
recessed parallel parking would be allowed as opposed to curb -side parking, and
head -in parking was not to be considered at all after that date.
Mayor Jones pointed out that a motion had been made to include the option
of continuing head -in parking or go to recessed parallel parking in January,
1986 in front of Camp Cleaners. He stated that the motion had been made by
Council Member Guerrero. The motion was seconded by Council Member Mendez.
Council Member Berlanga referred to the possibility of recessed parallel
parking and inquired if there would be a sidewalk associated with that.
Mr. Lontos stated that there is a sidewalk there now. He displayed a
transparency showing the plan in front of Camp Cleaners. He stated that it is
possible that the curb could be left out and there would be recessed parallel
parking without a curb. He stated that the staff would not have any objection
to that but they would be opposed to head -in parking after January of 1986.
Mayor Jones reviewed the motion and stated that the agreement with Camp
Cleaners would provide for the continuation of head -in parking until January 1,
1986 at which time a re-evaluation would be made to allow for either the
continuation of head -in parking or recessed parallel parking.
lutes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 18
Council Member Mendez stated that he thought those were the only two
options that would be available in 1986.
City Manager Martin interjected that they might wish to consider having
curbs in front of Camp Cleaners with the allowance for parallel parking. He
stated that he is not suggesting that head -in parking be an option at all.
Council Member Kennedy stated that he would like to offer an amendment to
the motion to add the third option to allow for the usual parallel parking in
front of Camp Cleaners to be considered after -January 1, 1986.
Council Member Guerrero accepted that amendment to his motion.
Mayor Jones reviewed the motion as follows: That head -in parking be
retained in front of Camp Cleaners until January 1, 1986 at which time the
parking situation will be re-evaluated and the decision will be made to allow
for the following three options: (1) continuation of head -in parking (2) allow
for recessed parallel parking (3) allow for the usual curb -side parking.
The motion passed unanimously.
City Secretary Read asked for a clarification on the motion as to whether
the Council will make that decision, the staff, or someone else.
Mayor Jones stated that the Council will make that decision on January 1,
1986, and Council Member Guerrero agreed that that was the intent of his motion.
26. Approving the Airport Capital Improvement program.
City Manager Martin stated that the basic recommendation is that the City
Council establish priorities for the improvements to the Airport and that the
priorities as indicated by the Council had necessitated the rearrangement of
some of the FAA funded projects, which have been approved by FAA. He explained
that in order to establish priorities for some of the Council's requests, it was
necessary to move some of the projects to future years, and he stated that it
was the staff's opinion that any additional land acquisition could be moved to
the second year program which would allow for the airconditioning of the east
and west concourses to be moved forward to the 83-84 list of projects.
Mr. Martin continued by stating that it would be necessary to issue $1
million in Certificates of Obligation to be retired in 20 years in order to
accomplish this. He stated that they also expect to receive additional funds
from FAA and concluded his remarks by stating that with the recommended
priorities, they were of the opinion that the City could accomplish the goal of
the Airport as established by the City Council.
Mr. Lontos pointed out there would also be another gatehouse on the west
concourse.
Council Member McComb stated that he supported the airconditioning of the
concourses, but he would like to know just what the plans would involve. He
stated that he objected to the installation of window type units for the purpose
.utes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 19
of airconditioning the concourses. He expressed the opinion that if it is done
correctly the first time, it will be money well spent. He also suggested that
the City consider the new gatehouse to be on a two-story level in order to
provide for first class boarding of planes.
City Manager Martin pointed out that when the bonds were approved for the
Airport Improvements, the design of the City's airport was to be a single -level
facility. He stated that if this is considered, it would require a change in
priorities.
Mr. Lontos addressed Council Member McComb's concern about the window units
for the airconditioning of the concourse and stated that the staff has been
discussing the possibility of a central system with the architects.
Council Member Kennedy pointed out that the use of jetways is usually at
the expense of the airlines, and he suggested urging that they establish this
means of boarding airplanes.
City Manager Martin stated that the City assigns gatehouses and he did not
feel that this is the proper time, in view of the market situation, to demand
that the airlines establish jetways.
Mr. Martin pointed out that if the Council approves the scheduled projects,
the City staff will move forward on the plans and specifications, noting that
the exact cost would not be known until the bids have been received.
Mayor Jones called for comments from the audience.
Mr. Hayden Head, member of the Airport Board, stated that all of these
things were discussed at one of the Airport Board meetings at which time they
reaffirmed airconditioning the concourses as their number one priority and that
the increase in parking lot fees be spent towards that aim.
He stated that the plan did call for individual airconditioning units and
the board members had questioned this also, following which a motion was made
that this be studied to see if central airconditioning could be used. He stated
that their recommendation would be that the capital improvements program be
approved with the understanding that it would still be subject to review in its
implementation.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner that the scheduled projects for
FY 83-84 and for FY 84-85 be approved as listed in the memorandum from Assistant
City Manager Lontos dated May 1, 1984. The motion was seconded by Council
Member Berlanga and passed unanimously.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Jones announced the scheduled hearing on the following project:
Annaville Area No. 1 Street Improvement Project (Forest Hill Lane from
Violet Road to Birdwood Lane & Redbud Drive from Japonica Drive to near the
West Guth Park boundary)
Utes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 20
Assistant City Manager Lontos stated that bids had been received on this
project and this public hearing is required by state law to enable the staff to
provide testimony in regard to the value of the assessments levied.
Assistant City Attorney Jay Doegey called as his first witness Mr. Gerald
Smith. Through questioning of Mr. Smith, Mr. Doegey ascertained that he has
been with the City for 241 years; he has a degree from the University of Texas
at Austin in Civil Engineering; and he is a registered Engineer in the State of
Texas. Mr. Doegey then asked Mr. Smith to explain the project.
Mr. Smith stated that this project provides for the reconstruction of the
following streets which are located in the Annaville area: Forest Hill Lane,
from Violet Road to Birdwood Lane; and Redbud Drive, from Japonica Drive to dead
end. He explained that this is a voluntary paving program project initiated by
a majority of the property owners.
He stated that the original request included Bluebonnet Hill and two other
streets which were eliminated from the program. He explained that the streets
will be constructed by excavation to a width and depth to permit the laying of a
standard 6" curb and gutter section, 6" compacted subgrade, 8" flexible caliche
base and 115" type D hotmix asphaltic pavement. He stated that the streets will
be 28' wide within the existing 60' right-of-way; 4' wide reinforced concrete
sidewalks 4" thick; and 6" thick reinforced concrete driveways will also be
constructed as shown on the plans.
Mr. Smith informed the Council that bids were received on this project on
March 21, 1984 and the low bidder was Ibanez Construction Company for the amount
of $227,422.64. He stated that the project will require 60 working days or
approximately three months construction, for both streets.
He stated that the assessment roll was prepared in accordance with the
City's assessment ordinance and includes 39 parcels of property. He stated that
the following rates for assessments will be charged: 6" curb, gutter, and
pavement - $9.75 per linear foot; sidewalks, $1.00 per square foot; and
driveways, $2.70 per square foot. He stated that the preliminary assessments
total $60,303.89 and all of the property owners have been notified of their
assessments. He assured the Council that a second meeting was conducted to poll
the residents about their opinion of the street reconstruction on October 27,
1983. He stated that Forest Hill Lane has 22 owners; 11 owners wanted the City
to pursue the project; and 10 owners did not want the street improved. He then
referred to Redbud Drive and stated that 10 of the property owners were in favor
of the project and 5 did not sign the letter indicating their opinion.
Mr. Smith then stated that the assessments will not be due until the
project has been completed, at which time the property owners may pay in cash or
may make payments over a five year period at 8% interest. He informed the
Council that Mrs. Candy Smith had initiated the original petition.
Mr. Doegey then asked Mr. Smith to describe the present conditions on the
two streets.
utes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 21
Mr. Smith explained that both streets have a 60' right-of-way; they contain
18' wide paved streets; there are no sidewalks; and there are no commercial
properties in this area. He stated that the specific benefit to the community
and the individual property owners will be the elimination of road side ditches
and the necessity to maintain those ditches. He stated that the street will be
widened from 18' to 28'; parking will be allowed on both sides of the streets;
sidewalks will be provided; and the entire area will be generally improved. He
stated that if a contract is awarded within the next week or two, work will
begin on one of the streets the first part of June and anticipated completion
date will be about September 1, 1984.
Mr. Doegey called as his next witness Mr. George N. Paraskevas, real estate
appraiser and broker. Through questioning of Mr. Paraskevas, Mr. Doegey
ascertained that he is a registered real estate broker in the State of Texas,
that he has been certified, and has been performing this type of appraisal for
10 to 12 years, both residential and commercial.
Mr. Paraskevas testified that he is familiar with the Annaville area, the
assessment roll, and that he has examined each piece of property listed on the
assessment roll. He explained that the existing conditions include ditches on
the sides of the street and the absence of sidewalks. He expressed the opinion
that each parcel will be improved at least in the amount of the assessment. He
also testified that there are some odd -shaped parcels but he does not recommend
any adjustments because he feels that they too will be enhanced at least in the
amount of the assessment.
Mayor Jones called on members of the audience to speak.
Mr. Clyde Taylor, 11106 Forest Hill Lane, expressed concern that if the
ditches are eliminated, their homes will be flooded when heavy rains are
experienced, pointing out that he lives in the lower portion of the street.
Mr. Smith informed the Council that on this project there is a drainage
easement and the drainage runs towards Up River Road and I.H. 37. He stated
that the only storm sewer work planned as a part of this project is at the
intersection and the drainage will be channeled to the drainage easement. Mr.
Smith continued by stating that the grades are set so that the water will be
channeled towards the intersection and he agreed that an extremely heavy rain
might be a problem but the staff feels that since the street will be lowered,
the drainage will be diverted. He explained that the water will run down the
street faster than it does now and it will take a slightly different route to
I.H. 37.
Council Member Mendez agreed that with the improvement of the.. streets, the
flooding will be eliminated at this location, but pointed out there is a lot of
drainage that goes to the Jackson Terrace area. He agreed that the drainage
will be improved on Forest Hill Lane.
Mrs. Linda Jenkins, 11102 Forest Hill Lane, also expressed concern about
the flooding, particularly on her lot. She stated that she prefers not to have
the improvements because they prefer the country atmosphere and the installation
of sidewalks will take away from the rural nature of the subdivision.
.utes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 22
Council Member McComb suggested some type of drainage collector underground
to prevent flooding.
Mr. Smith agreed that that is a possibility and noted that if the owners
are willing to dedicate an easement, the staff would be glad to examine this.
Council Member Slavik suggested that the water be piped through an
easement, and Mr. Smith stated that it would be very expensive to take it all
the way to I.H. 37. He estimated that the cost would be about $700,000. Mr.
Smith reiterated that the street will be lowered from 12 to 15 inches and he
felt that this project would improve the drainage a great deal.
Mrs. Gene Sheets, 11101 Forest Hill Lane, also expressed concern about the
drainage and indicated that they did not want the improvements because it would
change the character of the neighborhood, and also noted that the installation
of sidewalks will greatly reduce the size of their front yards.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner inquired about the one-half street improvements
planned for Birdwood, and Mr. Smith explained that since the City is lowering
the street around the turn into Birdwood, they propose to install some curb and
gutters on that street.
Mr. Robert E. Hayes, 9850 Redbud Drive, pointed out his lot which is the
third piece of property from Japonica. He stated that they have a 12" concrete
drainage ditch; the system works very well now, but in heavy rains, because of
the slopes, his neighbors have had water in their house. Be stated that he was
one of the originators of the second petition.
Mrs. Margaret Cash, 11117 Forest Hill, stated that she prefers that the
street remain as it is. She explained that at the time the petition was
circulated, they did not think about the drainage and she was of the opinion
that the money could be used in a better way. She explained that she has been
involved in the sale of property in the Annaville area for the last five years
and she did not personally feel that the improvements would increase the value
of the property.
Council Member Kennedy pointed out that the vote in favor of the
improvements was only one more than those who are opposed to it and stated that
if the property owners desired to stop the improvements, they needed to get one
more person to express opposition.
Mrs. Judy Dryer, 11118 Forest Hill, stated that she voted in favor of the
street improvements. She explained that there were 11 votes in favor of the
project and 10 votes against the improvements and one who did not express an
opinion. She stated that she has a very deep ditch in front of her house and
she felt that the improvements are badly needed.
Mrs. Noel Blackwood, 9825 Redbud, explained that at the time the petition
was presented, there was only space for those who were in favor of the project
to sign and she did not sign it. She stated that she is one of the five who did
not sign the petition, but she was not necessarily opposed to the project.
.utes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 23
A motion was made by Council Member Brown that the hearing be closed,
seconded by Council Member McComb and passed unanimously.
Discussion followed among the Council Members in regard to the close vote
in favor of the improvements on Forest Hill Lane.
Mr. Smith informed the Council that there is another criteria that the
Engineering staff works with in that they consider the majority of the frontage
area in order to qualify over 50% in favor of street improvements. He stated
that under this criteria, there would be 53% in favor and 47% opposed to the
street improvements.
Council Member Slavik stated that she would still like for someone to
contact the lady who did not vote to see how she feels. She asked that this
individual be contacted.
Mr. Smith assured Mrs. Slavik that the staff had contacted her, but they
have never received an answer from her. He stated that some of the neighbors
have talked to her but she did not want to cast a vote.
Council Member Mendez explained that since he has been on the City Council
as a representative of District 1, a number of the people in that area feel that
they are not receiving enough City services. He stated this project is a clear
indication that the City is spending money to improve the drainage in that area
and he thinks that the only way to do this is to install curb, gutters, and
sidewalks which will improve the area and improve the drainage. He expressed
the opinion that it would be wrong to eliminate this street from the project.
Mr. Smith informed the Council that the next action would be to officially
close the hearing and adopt the assessment roll, and this will be done in the
form of ordinances on the agenda within the next week or so.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner inquired about the situation if this were not a
voluntary paving project, and Mr. Smith stated that it would not be done because
voluntary paving is the only way for this area to be improved.
Mr. Mendez reiterated that the street will be lowered and the drainage will
be improved and he intends to vote in favor of the project.
Also indicating that they would vote in favor of the project were the
following: Mayor Jones, Council Members Brown, Guerrero, and McComb. Council
Member Slavik indicated that she would vote against the improvements for Forest
Hill Lane only and Mayor Pro Tem Turner and Council Member Berlanga did not
indicate how they would vote on the ordinances. ..
* * * * * * * * *
Mayor Jones announced the public hearing on three zoning applications.
rtes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 24
28. Application No. 384-12, Mr. John Tucker: for a change of zoning from "I-2"
Light Industrial District and "I-2" Light Industrial District with "SP"
Special Permit, and "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "8-4" General
Business District on Tract 1, from "I-2" Light Industrial District to "AB"
Professional Office District on Tract 2, from "I-2" Light Industrial
District and "R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "R-2" Multiple Dwelling
District on Tract 3 and "R -1C" One -family Dwelling District on Tract 4,
Tract 1 being 11.4± acres, Tract 2 being 1.5± acres, Tract 3 being 8.3±
acres, and Tract 4 being 17.3± acres, all Tracts out of Lot 7, Section 8,
Bohemian Colony Lands, located between Ayers Street and the Richter
Drainage Ditch, approximately 2,000' south of Holly Road.
Assistant City Manager Tom Utter stated that in response to the five
notices of the public hearing, one in favor and one in opposition had been
returned and that the Planning Commission recommends approval and the Planning
staff now recommends approval.
Mr. Larry Wenger, Director of Planning, displayed the area on the zoning
and land use map, described the land use in the surrounding area, and showed
slides of the area.
Mayor Jones ascertained that no one in the audience wished to speak in
regard to this zoning application.
A motion was made by Council Member Kennedy that the hearing be closed,
seconded by Council Member Brown and passed unanimously.
City Secretary Read polled the Council for their vote on the ordinance
effecting the zoning change and it passed as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 18216
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF JOHN TUCKER BY CHANGING THE
ZONING MAP IN REFERENCE TO TRACTS 1, 2, 3, and 4, BEING PORTIONS OUT OF LOT 7,
SECTION 8, BOHEMIAN COLONY LANDS FROM "I-2" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, "I-2"
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH "SP" SPECIAL PERMIT, AND "R -1B" ONE -FAMILY
DWELLING DISTRICT TO "B-4" GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ON TRACT 1, "AB"
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT ON TRACT 2, "R-2" MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT ON
TRACT 3, AND "R -1C" ONE -FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT ON TRACT 4; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb, Mendez and
Slavik voting "aye"; Turner absent at the time the vote was taken. ..
* * * * * * * * * *
29. Application No. 384-14, Star Homes of Texas: for a change of zoning from
"R -1B" One -family Dwelling District to "R -1C" One -family Dwelling District
on Lot 15, Block 2, Saratoga Downs Unit 1B, located on the north side of
Triple Crown Drive, approximately 100' west of the drainage easement.
ites
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 25
Mr. Utter stated that in response to the 19 notices of the public hearing,
one in favor and none in opposition had been returned and that both the Planning
Commission and Planning staff recommend approval.
No one spoke in regard to this zoning application and a motion was made by
Council Member Kennedy that the hearing be closed, seconded by Council Member
Slavik and passed unanimously.
City Secretary Read polled the Council for their vote on the ordinance
effecting the zoning change and it passed as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 18217
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPON APPLICATION OF STAR HOMES OF TEXAS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING MAP IN REFERENCE TO LOT 15, BLOCK 2, SARATOGA DOWNS UNIT 1B,
FROM "R -1B" ONE -FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "R -1C" ONE -FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The Charter Rule was suspended and the foregoing ordinance passed by the
following vote: Jones, Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb,
Mendez and Slavik voting "aye".
* * * * * * * * * *
30. Application No. 384-1, Spohn Hospital: for a change of zoning from "AB"
Professional Office District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on a
portion of Lot 25, Block 6, Del Mar Subdivision, located on the east side
of 3rd Street, approximately 100' north of Cole Street.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner stated that she owns an office building immediately
across the street from the subject parking lot and she will disqualify herself
depart the Council Chamber during this discussion, and will not vote on the
matter to avoid a possible conflict of interest.
Assistant City Manager Tom Utter stated that in response to the 24 notices
of the public hearing, 4 in favor and 6 in opposition had been returned and that
both the Planning Commission and Planning staff recommend denial. He stated
that the 20% rule is in effect which will require six affirmative votes to
approve the zoning since Mayor Pro Tem Turner has disqualified herself from
voting.
Council Member Berlanga stated that he had been in contact with members of
the Del Mar Association; he has received calls and letters; and all of the
people seem to think that this request should be denied. He stated, that in view
of all of the contacts he has made, he will concur with the Planning Commission
and Planning staff recommendation to deny the request.
Mr. Wenger located the area on the zoning and land use map, described the
land use in the surrounding area, and showed slides of the vicinity. He stated
that the property is presently paved but not in use for parking. He related
that the staff, in analyzing this case, recommended against the entire request
for a parking garage and they do not support this request either, which they
.rtes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 26
feel might involve further encroachment into the Del Mar Neighborhood. He
stated that the staff feels that the "AB" buffer type of zoning is appropriate.
He explained that the parking lot was paved as a result of the previous special
permit but that special permit has since been voided and the two parking lots
are in violation of the ordinance.
Council Member Guerrero pointed out that since the property is already
zoned "AB", if an office building were located there, parking would be allowed,
and Mr. Wenger agreed that parking would be allowed on a portion of the lot if
that occurred. He also noted that Spohn Hospital does plan the construction of
another parking lot in another area to alleviate the parking problem. Council
Member Guerrero indicated that he will vote in favor of this.
Mayor Jones suggested that before the Council makes a decision, that
comments be made by members of the audience.
Council Member Kennedy stated that he has been involved in this issue since
the last time it was considered and his problem is the same as it was at that
time in that he is very concerned about the encroachment into the Del Mar
neighborhood. He expressed the opinion that even though he is a physician who
practices at Spohn Hospital, he thought that Spohn Hospital should recognize the
integrity of the Del Mar neighborhood. He stated that Spohn Hospital has failed
to stay north of the hospital for parking lots and they should agree not to
extend their expansion south of Cole Street. He stated that the only way he
would support a special permit to allow for the parking on these two lots was if
the Board of Spohn Hospital would make a statement to the effect that they would
place a moratorium on expansion into the Del Mar neighborhood for 25 years. Dr.
Kennedy reiterated that he has a lot to lose in opposing Spohn Hospital but he
thinks it is essential that Spohn Hospital go on record by making such a
statement to co -exist with the Del Mar neighborhood rather than purchasing lots
indiscriminately within that neighborhood.
Council Member Slavik stated that she had a similar proposal for a
compromise solution.
Council Member Brown pointed out that parking is a problem at Spohn; this
particular parking lot already is in existence; and he does not understand why
it cannot be utilized.
Council Member Berlanga complimented Dr. Kennedy on his statement and
stated that he agrees with him 100%. He stated that he too would vote for a
special permit to allow parking on these two lots, provided Spohn Hospital would
make such a binding clause that no future changes will be made in the Del Mar
neighborhood.
Mr. J. W. Gary, attorney representing Spohn Hospital, pointed out that the
subject property is not an encroachment into a residential neighborhood because
all of the area is zoned "AB" and clinics and hospitals require a specified
number of parking spaces. Mr. Gary pointed out that Spohn Hospital could build
an "AB" type of office building on this location and parking would be allowed on
the subject lots. He explained that the parking lot was constructed there when
Spohn had a special use permit to construct a parking garage. He noted that
rtes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 27
area needs additional parking and Spohn Hospital is doing everything possible to
resolve the parking problem, but they have no plans at this time to establish
additional parking in this residential neighborhood.
Council Member Kennedy interjected that Mr. Gary's last statement was the
key to the problem "has no plans at this time." Dr. Kennedy continued by
stating that Spohn's natural growth should be to the north and the west and not
to the south. He expressed the opinion that 40 parking spaces are not going to
make that much difference to the problem at Spohn Hospital. He again stated
that he thought that Spohn should guarantee that they will not grow further into
the Del Mar neighborhood.
Council Member Slavik inquired of Mr. Gary if a special permit would be
acceptable, and Mr. Gary stated that it certainly would, because they just want
to be allowed to utilize the existing parking lot.
Mr. Hayden Head, Sr., member of the Board of Directors of Spohn Hospital,
stated that he is very concerned about the problems of Spohn. He reminded the
Council that most of them were present when Spohn was granted a special use
permit for a parking garage, at which time the Board was confronted with the
compromise as proposed by Dr. Kennedy. He explained that the Board felt that it
was unjust to have limitations attached to that special permit, but they
accepted it in good faith if they could build a parking garage. He pointed out
that that compromise was not honored and shortly after that, a lawsuit was
brought against Spohn Hospital to prevent the construction of the parking lot at
that location. He stated that they were of the opinion that they could not
accept the risk of spending $2 million if a court set the special permit aside.
He stated that he felt that the lawsuit was designed to prevent the construction
of the parking garage and the Board approached the City Council again and asked
that the special permit be rescinded in order to eliminate the lawsuit. He
stated that they also thought that they could build a parking garage north of
Elizabeth Street and now the same compromise has been proposed again. He
expressed the opinion that such a compromise transcends the bounds of reason to
ask them again to agree to something with strings attached when a lawsuit will
probably be filed again.
Mr. Head continued by stating that the lots in question were paved at a
time when it was perfectly legal for them to do so. He also pointed out that
Spohn Hospital is a beneficial institution for the entire community.
Council Member Kennedy asked Mr. Head to comment on the substance of the
lawsuit that was filed, and Mr. Head explained that the suit was brought to set
aside the special permit as being spot zoning.
Council Member Kennedy inquired if there was not a covenant running with
the land, and Mr. Head stated that he did not recall.
Sister Kathleen Coughlin of Spohn Hospital stated that she resides in the
Del Mar neighborhood. She explained that the sole purpose of the hospital is to
provide care for patients and Spohn receives a large number of complaints about
the lack of parking. She stated that they have purchased 13 lots on which they
are now parking cars; the hospital owned the old HEB store which they used for a
.rtes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 28
warehouse and this building has now been torn down to provide for additional
parking. She stated that they are renting space 12 blocks away from the
hospital and they do plan to build a parking garage to the north of the
hospital, but they are also planning expansion of the hospital. She stated that
they are only requesting parking for 42 cars next to another large parking lot.
She displayed a map showing all of the property that Spohn owns and assured the
Council that they would continue to maintain the two lots to the south of the
subject lots as green space. She explained the future plans for the expansion
of the hospital and also mentioned the possibility of closing Elizabeth Street
so that their facility would not be divided by a street. She stated that
hopefully the parking garage will be started next year and pointed out that they
plan building construction on one of the existing parking lots.
Council Member Slavik inquired if Sister Kathleen would be willing to
assure the Del Mar neighborhood that Spohn Hospital would not move further into
the neighborhood for 25 years, and Sister Kathleen stated that she could not
respond to that on behalf of the board. She informed the City Council that she
had just been presented with a petition signed by five residents of the Del Mar
Subdivision indicating that they are in favor of this zoning application.
Mr. Mike DeShetler stated that he has property in the Del Mar area but he
is not a member of the Del Mar Neighborhood Association. He stated that he and
his partner own a structure that is being used as an office and they also own
substantial property on Second Street across from Spohn Hospital. He stated
that he is in favor of approval of this application.
Mrs. Janet Rice, 118 Southern, President of the Del Mar Association, stated
that this particular block under consideration was meant to be a buffer between
the hospital and the residential neighborhood. She pointed out that the
property is zoned "AB" and "A-1" but a parking lot requires "B-1" zoning and
expressed the opinion that a parking lot is actually a blight on the
neighborhood. She pointed out that other businesses in the Del Mar Subdivision
have been forced to follow the zoning in the neighborhood, mentioning in
particular several professionals such as architect Jack Rice Turner who has
complied with the zoning and established an office building that is in keeping
with the character of the neighborhood. She pointed out that gradually Spohn
has obtained other lots in this area and continues to purchase property which
represents an encroachment into the neighborhood. She expressed the opinion
that Spohn Hospital should not be allowed privileges denied to other
professionals and their encroachment into the neighborhood has a domino effect
and soon they will want to go even further into the Del Mar Subdivision. She
stated that she dislikes having to fight Spohn Hospital constantly on zoning
cases because she felt that she and the other members of the association could
accomplish more by addressing other concerns. ..
In response to Mayor Jones' question, Mrs. Rice informed the Council that
they have turned in petitions to get new curb, gutters, and sidewalks for the
neighborhood and they have sponsored various events of a social nature to help
the neighbors become better acquainted.
Mayor Jones pointed out that evidently Mrs. Rice is opposed to "8-1"
zoning. £Ie then asked her to evaluate the difference in a parking lot that is
.rtes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 29
used and one that is closed off.
Mrs. Rice explained that Spohn Hospital should be told to develop something
that is compatible with the neighborhood similar to Mr. Turner's building. She
stated that when the area was blacktopped, Spohn Hospital had special
restrictions but they refused to honor those that were included as a part of
their special permit.
Mr. Paul Dunkin, 610 Del Mar, stated that they are opposed to the "B-1"
zoning and to the special permit because that is the method Spohn uses to move
further into the Del Mar neighborhood. He questioned why Mr. Head objected to
the restriction or the moratorium to prevent them from encroaching further
south, unless they actually plan to move further into the neighborhood.
Mr. Robert Rice, 118 Southern Street, agreed that Spohn Hospital is a good
service organization and the Del Mar Association is not involved in an
anti-Spohn campaign. He stated that their objection is that Spohn was granted a
special permit for their parking garage which included the stipulation that they
could not expand past Cole Street and they now refuse to agree that they will
not move south of that street. He expressed the opinion that Spohn Hospital
wants to purchase lots in a domino effect to break the zoning with no
restrictions attached. He referred to Mr. DeShetler's comments and stated that
he was under the impression that Mr. DeShetler has the same special interest as
Spohn in getting property rezoned.
Mr. Jack Cooper, 401 Clifford, Zoning Committee Chairman for the Del Mar
Association, agreed with Council Member Guerrero's statement that if a building
were located on the two lots in question, there would be parking but pointed out
it would be a much smaller area. Mr. Cooper presented several documents to the
City Council which outline the plans for the expansion of Spohn Hospital and for
their parking. He referred in particular to a letter dated June 28, 1982
addressed to him from Sister Kathleen which states that at that time all lots
owned by Spohn Hospital will be utilized for surfacing parking and landscaping
areas surround the proposed parking garage. He reminded the City Council of the
previous zoning case initiated by Spohn for their parking garage and pointed out
that within three weeks after the special permit was discussed, Spohn Hospital
officials went to the newsmedia and stated that they could not live with a
two-story structure and the special permit was rewritten to allow additional
stories in five years. He called attention to other projects which Spohn had
been involved in which clearly indicate that they do not intend to adhere to
their original plans. He also referred to the variances that were granted by
the Board of Adjustment to allow for the construction of several parking lots
and noted that the Board of Adjustment no longer has that authority. He also
referred to several plans prepared by Spohn Hospital that show that they even
have plans drawn up to build additional parking lots on all of the lots they
have purchased. He alleged that there was no good faith involved in any of
Spohn's intentions.
Mr. Cooper continued by stating that if the special permit is granted for
parking on these two lots, he was of the opinion that Spohn Hospital already has
plans for further expansion to the south. He urged that the Council vote
against the special permit so that Spohn will start planning to expand their
rtes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 30
facilities to the north or to the west.
Mrs. Cindy Eckman, 121 Naples, stated that she had visited a number of
homes in the Del Mar neighborhood and even property owners some distance away
from Spohn Hospital are of the opinion that Spohn is attempting to encroach into
the Del Mar neighborhood. She expressed the opinion that zoning is a special
tool that the Council is in charge of and urged that the Council assist them in
stopping Spohn Hospital from further encroachment into their neighborhood.
Mrs. Susan Holly -Lowe, stated that she had always heard that one must be
fair for people to respect and trust you and look up to you. She pointed out
that in the Turner zoning case, the Blackwell zoning case and others, the City
Council denied their zoning requests. She urged that at least three members of
the Council vote against this special permit.
Mrs. Barbara Grimes, 421 Cole Street, stated that she is speaking on behalf
of her family and others in the neighborhood. She urged that Spohn be
encouraged to expand their facilities to the north.
No one else spoke in regard to this zoning application.
A motion was made by Council Member Kennedy that the hearing be closed,
seconded by Council Member Brown and passed unanimously.
Mayor Jones stated that he had read all of the information attached to the
zoning case hearing and the testimony and he felt that it is shameful to see
this degree of animosity that exists between the Neighborhood Association and
Spohn Hospital. He stated that it is difficult for him to understand how Del
Mar neighborhood could be harmed by allowing parking on these two lots that are
already paved when this parking would help alleviate the parking problem at
Spohn. He expressed the opinion that it is Spohn's intention to go to the north
for expansion and he would hate to see these 42 parking spaces not used.
Council Member McComb stated that he does not support the zoning
application per se. He then made a motion that the request for the zoning of
"B-1" be denied, but in lieu thereof that a special permit be granted to allow
the use of these two lots for parking. The motion was seconded by Council
Member Guerrero.
Council Member Kennedy stated that he agrees with the assessment for the
need for parking at Spohn Hospital. He pointed out that the problem did not
occur overnight, but occurred because of a lack of planning. He stated that at
this time Spohn has ample funds including a $12 million surplus which could be
used to construct parking garages and pointed out that they already have the
zoning on the north and west sides for such a facility. He reiterated that
Spohn has the zoning and the money to construct parking garages and he felt that
the major point here is the principle involved. He pointed out that this
neighborhood has a real concern and unless Spohn recognizes the problem that the
neighborhood has, they will never be good neighbors. He stated that Spohn
Hospital had created the problem; it is up to them to resolve the problem; and
he did not intend to vote for the special permit unless Spohn would agree to a
moratorium on expansion into the Del Mar neighborhood.
ates
xegular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 31
Council Member Guerrero disagreed that Spohn had created the problem,
pointing out that it was the demands that the community had placed on the
hospital that created the problems. He stated that the very least the Council
could do is to allow these lots to be used for parking.
Council Member Mendez stated that he sympathizes with the Del Mar residents
but he felt that Spohn was doing everything they could to expand to the north
and he felt that it would not be fair to place the same restrictions on this
small parking lot as were placed on the large parking garage in Spohn's previous
zoning case. He stated that this Council should only be concerned with the
additional 42 parking spaces.
Council Member McComb indicated that he too was sympathetic with the Del
Mar neighborhood, but since the zoning on this particular piece of property is
already "AB", he did not feel that allowing the use of this parking lot would
represent any further encroachment. He referred to the suggested restrictions
and stated that he did not think that was fair either because people who own
property south of Cole Avenue should be allowed to sell their homes to Spohn
Hospital if they want to.
Council Member Slavik stated that she feels that both Spohn Hospital and
the Del Mar Neighborhood Association have good reason to be concerned, but
stated that she is particularly concerned about one exhibit which had been
presented to
them by Mr. Cooper which shows that Spohn Hospital plans to construct a parking
lot on the property at the intersection of Cole and Second Street.
Mr. Utter stated that the staff has not seen that plan and they do not
recall ever having seen such a proposed plan.
Council Member Slavik stated that as a compromise she would like to ask
Spohn Hospital to agree to the 25 year moratorium restricting them from
expanding further south of Cole Street.
Council Member Slavik then made a motion to amend Council Member McComb's
motion to allow for a special permit for a parking lot, but that a 25 year
restriction be included to restrict Spohn from expanding further south of lots
1, 2, 23 and 24 or south of Cole Street into the Del Mar area. The amendment to
the motion was seconded by Council Member Kennedy.
Mayor Jones repeated the motion as
authorize a special permit to allow for parking on
subject to a 25 year restriction of expansion of the
23 and 24, Del Mar Subdivision, south of Cole
Subdivision.
follows: To deny "B-1" zoning, but to
the two existing paved lots
parking lot into lots 1, 2,
Street into the Del Mar
Council Member Mendez stated that he felt that
unfair.
the 25 year restriction was
tes
ncgular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 32
Mayor Jones stated that he was not aware of any kind of restriction that
could be placed on property that could legally prevent someone from requesting a
change of zoning.
Council Member Berlanga expressed the opinion that this restriction is only
an indicator of good faith because if Spohn has no plans to expand south, then
they should not object to that restriction.
Council Member Slavik pointed out that there is a need to examine the
background of the history of parking at Spohn Hospital and mentioned the special
variances that were granted by the Board of Adjustment to allow parking in other
areas. She agreed that her amendment was a good faith restriction, but it would
reassure the Del Mar neighborhood that Spohn did not intend to further encroach
into their area.
Mayor Jones then called for the vote on the amendment to the motion which
added the 25 year restriction on expansion into lots 1, 2, 23 and 24, Del Mar
Subdivision, into the Del Mar neighborhood south of Cole Street and it failed to
pass by the following vote: Berlanga, Kennedy, and Slavik voting "aye"; Jones,
Brown, Guerrero, McComb, and Mendez voting "no"; Turner having disqualified
herself from voting.
A motion was made by Council Member Mendez that the Council recess for five
minutes, seconded by Council Member Slavik and passed unanimously 8:18 p.m.
* * * * * * • * *
Mayor Jones reconvened the Regular Council Meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Council Member McComb then made a motion that the Council impose the 25
year restriction on future expansion by Spohn Hospital into those lots as it
pertains to parking. Council Member Guerrero seconded the motion.
Mayor Jones pointed out that this was the same motion that was defeated a
few minutes earlier. Mayor Jones then clarified the wording as follows: Deny
"B-1" zoning but authorize a special permit for the use of two lots for parking
with a 25 year restriction on expansion of the parking lot for lots 1, 2, 23 and
24, Del Mar Subdivision and south of Cole Street in the Del Mar Subdivision.
Council Member McComb pointed
Hospital if they work a deal for lots
facility for employees or apartments
Council Member Kennedy interjected or
out that this does not restrain Spohn
1, 2, 23 and 24, for some type of a living
if they were to sell it to a developer.
an office building.
Mr. McComb continued by stating that it simply addresses the expansion of
parking into this area. Mayor Jones then stated that he would like to read the
amendment to the motion one more time with a 25 year restriction on expansion of
the parking lot for lots 1, 2, 23 and 24, Del Mar Subdivision and south of Cole
Street in the Del Mar Subdivision. He inquired if the motion was correct and
Mr. McComb indicated that it was. The motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0, with
Mayor Pro Tem Turner having disqualified herself from voting.
.tes
Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 1984
Page 33
The Mayor stated that the amendment to the motion had passed.
Mayor Jones then referred to the original motion which was to deny "B-1"
zoning but authorize a special permit for the use of the two lots for parking
with a 25 year restriction as included in the amendment to the motion. He noted
that the original motion was made by Council Member McComb and seconded by
Council Member Guerrero. He then repeated the motion deny "B-1" zoning but
authorize a special permit for the use of the two lots for parking with a 25
year restriction on expansion of the parking lot for lots 1, 2, 23 and 24, Del
Mar Subdivision and south of Cole Street in the Del Mar Subdivision.
The motion passed 8 to 0, with Mayor Pro Tem Turner having disqualified
herself from voting.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Jones called for the City Manager's Report.
City Manager Martin referred to the schedule of the Council Meetings
following the change to the meetings on Tuesdays, noting that this will begin on
June 5, 1984. He pointed out that during that same period of time, budget
hearings will be scheduled. He pointed out that on the schedule for May 9 is a
closed meeting for 8:30 a.m., in lieu of tax discussions, discussion of the
policy on IRB's, Corpus Christi '90 appointments and then another closed
meeting. He stated that the staff plans to reschedule the report on the
Hurricane Preparedness study. He then referred to the trip to the west coast
planned by the Business Development Commission and noted that Mayor Jones and
Council Member Berlanga and himself will depart the meeting May 9 early for this
trip.
* * * * * * * *
*
*
Mayor Jones called for petitions or information from the audience on
matters not scheduled on the agenda.
Mr. Hank Snyder requested that the City Council consider appointing Mr.
Robert Gross as an advisory member of the Marina Board.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner that Mr. Robert Gross be
appointed as an advisory board member of the Marina Board. The motion was
seconded by Council Member Kennedy and passed by the following vote: Jones,
Turner, Berlanga, Brown, Guerrero, Kennedy, McComb and Mendez voting "aye";
Slavik abstaining, indicating that she was doing so because this matter was not
properly before them.
There being no further business to come before the Council, on motion by
Mayor Pro Tem Turner, seconded by Council Member Kennedy and passed unanimously,
the Regular Council Meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m., May 2, 1984.
DZ/tb