The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1967/09/06-Agenda-Pre-Council AIM MI MUTES Pre-Council Conference September 6, 1967 Present Late Absent 1. Guinn 7, hoover (item 5) 9. McKinley 2. Wilson 8. Stovall (Item 6) 3. Sarsgard 4. Dunham 5. Kemble 6. Kersnick I_ t e m Follow-Up I. Botanic Garden Drive Paving & Al ,, ;,nx ent NAN (IR #1259) The City Manager summarized the inforglation in IR #1259 recommending that the Council approve the con- tract as recommended by the Park & Recreation Board with the provision that the access to the West Freeway front- age road be maintained over the existing paving for the 400 foot distance between the shelter house and the frontage road until the master roadway plan is completed in the Botanic Garden area. In the regular City Council meeting the contract was approved with the above mentioned provision. 2, Assessment Adjustments on Campus Drive NAN (MSC G-1134) The City Manager explained that this proble!i had arisen when certain properties on Campus Drives, zoned A- one family residential, had been assessed the same rate as property zoned commercial. One of the property owners in question, E. E. Cloer, has agreed to convey needed access rights to the City provided that the City adjust its assessment rate to recognize the present A-one family residential zoning. The owner further agreed that in the event a portion of the property is rezoned within the next five years, he would pay the difference between the two rates for that portion rezoned, Mr. Sarsgard asked how an agreement of this nature could be secured. The City Manager replied that the pay- ment would be demanded prior to any rezoning. At the regular meeting of the City Council, the recommendations contained in M&C G-1134 were adopted by the City Council. 3. Wedgwood Addition Storm Drain at Aragon Drive NA14 (M&C C-1057) Mr. Sarsgard asked if M&C C-1057 contained the same basic information that had be�2n transmitted to the Council orally at the close of the last meeting, The City Manager replied that it did and that all parties concerned had a reed to the change order in the contract. 4. Benefit Hearing on Ramey Avenue Paving NAN - Improvements (M&C G-1128) 1� t� Mr. Sarsgard asked if any unusual assessments would be levied for the cost of the project against any of the 4�• f L property on Ramey Avenue between Miller Avenue and Pate. Mr. Graham replied that no assessment would be levied against property owners in the westernmost block because of reconstruction credit-., with the exception of the two corner lots which are zoned coaunercial. 5. Award of Contract - Reconstruction at Five NAN Locations (M&C C-105b) Mr. Sarsgard asked for an explanation of the necessity for the project. The City Manager explained that the action is necessary as a result of numerous bare failures and high maintenance cost, Mr. Hoover asked if this project would cost the property owners anything, The City Manager replied that the cost of street reconstruction would be paid by the City from bond funds as outlined in the 1967 CIP. How- ever, in Units 3 and 5b some property owners would be assessed for curb and gutter construction where not in place. In response to a question of Mr. Sarsgard, the City Manager outlined the proposal for each of the five project locations giving detail., as to the exact project location and magnitude of work involved. _ 6. Bomber Road Paving Project EHD - Put on Agenda for 9/11/x;; for official action and notlt The City Manager related to the Council the con- GD of decision. tents of a letter received from General Dynamics concern- ing the paving of Bomber Road. Under CD's proposal, the City would pay $24,258 for the cost of that portion of the road that is within the city limits. Cost of the to- tal project is in excess of $80,000. Mr. Hoover asked how wide the roadway would be. l9ie City Manager replied that it would be a 45 foot paved surface, narrowing at points to 37 feet. It is to have a 2 inch asphaltic concrete surface over a 12 inch lime stabilized base with small stabilized shoulders but with- out curbs and gutters. Mr. Sarsgard stated that the City Manager could give GD officials their unofficial consent to proceed with work on the project with the understanding that the City Council would officially act on the project on 9/11/67. 7. Hodge: Station Storm Drain - Letter from Richard DEF - Report on proposals in letter Simon after consultation with Simon, The City Manager explained that a letter had been received from Mr. Richard Simon, representing Baker Bros. Co. , protesting the City's plans to construct an open storm sewer acrus his client 's property. He added that bids would be taken next Tuesday (9/12/67) and various cost alternatives would be available then. Mr. Ker_;nick asked if the drain would have to be en- closed in the future and if any attempt had been made to �b negotiate with the owners. The City Manager replied thatc�� it would have to be enclosed in the future, but that no at- p A U tempt had been made to negotiate with the owner for his r \y�ri� 4`�� cost participation. �,. 'u• • Ct� `- l� Mr. Kemble asked for a progress report on the Master Storm Drainage Plan. Mr. Graham replied that the first major step, the Design Criteria Manual , was being reviewed , 3 by his department. Mr. Hoover asked if the DesiKn Criteria Manual could be used by other cities such as Dallas , Mr. Graham explained that the information in the manual was based upon drainage data peculiar to Fort Worth and would therefor be of little value in other areas. In response to a question from Mr. Kemble, Mr. Graham went on to explain that the final product of the study would provide guidelines for the analysis of the needs of specific areas in the city. Mr. Wilson asked if developers would have to adhere to this report just like they do with the Street Master Plan. Mr. Gri%atm replied that they would. In response to Mr. Kemble, Mr. Graham stated that the final stages of the first phase study ,.mild be reached in approximately 6 to 8 months. _ o. Community Relations Committee - Rules of Procedure NAN Mr. Dale Hinson presented the Community Relations Commission's proposed Rules of Procedure. After discussing the scope of authority of the Commission it was agreed to make certain changes. Dr. Guinn invited Mr. Hinson to come back in the near future and discuss certain findings of the Commission with the Council„