HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolutions (R-89-512)-10/03/1989
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
RESOLUTION R-89-512
A RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNCIL ACTION
UNDER BUSINESS AT THE REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING OF
OCTOBER 3, 1989
3
5
WHEREAS, Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under
Business,
6
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
7
8
Sec. 1. THAT the agenda decisions approved by Council action under
Business this date and not otherwise adopted by Ordinance and
separate Resolution, as follows are hereby adopted:
9
1. THAT the agreement between the City and the Feitel IS be
approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same.
2. THAT the developer agreement for Monticello Phase IV be
approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same.
3. THAT the City hire Schrickel, Rollins and Associates to
prepare a comprehensive park master plan for a fee of $26,000
to $34,000 and that the matter be referred back to the Park
Board for suggestions on the best approach to the plan to
maximize the utility of City funds.
4. THAT the City Manager be authorized to settle the claim
of Mr. R. Tice in accordance with the recommendation of
the consultant.
AND IT IS SO RESOLVED.
Passed by a vote of __~ to __~ on the 3rd day of October, 1989.
~\\ CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
~J) CHRIS HAWKINS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Council did not
veto on October
override the Mayor's
17, 1989.~,
LaVada Johnson
City Secretary
1 vj
26 L/A/63
r'
city Of
llcg
Texas
October 9, 1989
RE: VETO OF RESOLUTION R-89-512
I have given careful thought and consideration to the issue of the II Feitel
skate ramp settl ement" and have deci ded to veto Resol uti on R-89-512 approving
the settlement between the Feitel 's and the City.
A brief review of the facts reminded me that:
1) When Mrs. Feitel called the building inspector about the necessity
of a permit, she did not describe in any detail the size or height
of the structure much less offer for review a set of plans or a
drawing; something they indeed had.
On the contrary, Jesse Lawson, the building inspector to whom Mrs.
Feitel spoke, was told that the structure was to be "portable and
temporary. II "Portable and temporary" in no way impl ies a structure
54 feet by 22 feet by 12 feet hi gh wi th concrete footi ngs. It is
also interesting to note that the approximate value stated on the
building permit application by the Feitel IS is $1,000.00.
2) The stop work order on the structure at issue was not initiated by
the City but in response to a neighbor's complaint. Statements by
neighbors of the Feitel IS to the Council at the initial Council meeting
revealed that the Feitel's had not made at least two of their adjacent
neighbors aware of their intentions to build this structure.
3) The zoning ordinance for their property clearly prohibits such a
structure or use unless it could be considered ..customarily incidental II
to the purposes of a single family dwelling.
Obviously this use and/or structure would not be customarily incidental
to a house.
These facts cause me to conclude that this problem was created almost entirely
by the Feitel's.
P.O. BOX 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 281-4044
'._"""'r"
I
As you may remember, I did agree with the proposal for settlement with the
Feitel 's as discussed at the September 5, 1989 meeting.
After reflecting on my reasons for that position I bel ieve they were not the
right reasons. I believe I was motivated by sympathy for the Feitel's, an
interest in giving them the benefit of the doubt, and even the desire to promote
their goodwill toward the City and its elected officials. I think other
Councilmembers may have shared my feelings.
Well intentioned as those motives are they do not justify expending $3,000.00
of taxpayers money when the facts point so clearly to a more difficult but
totally opposite decision.
This situation only points up the problems precipitated when decisions are
made without basis in statutes, city ordinances, or some appropriate policy.
I believe we were offering the money to be amicable.
The Feitel's believe that the City owes them the money; that they have a "right"
to it.
l~hen limited to the proper basis for decision on this issue, I would find it
much easier to justify, to the taxpayers of Colleyville, why I didn't want
to give the Feitel 's $3000.00 than why I did.
Your careful consideration of this matter is appreciated.
~ours,
Chris Hawkins
Mayor
CH/dMcW
G/d/47