Loading...
06 - Boards & Commissions - MinutesItem No. 6 Paris Public Library Advisory Board Meeting Minutes September 15, 2021 Opening: The meeting of the Paris Public Library Advisory Board was called to order by Chairman Steve Hellmann at 4:00 p.m. Present: Board members present were: DeEtte Cobb, Steve Hellmann, Melanie Loughmiller, Eva Dickey, Lauren Mathews, Melanie Loughmiller, Library Director Tim DeGhelder, and City Council Liaison Linda Knox. Board Member. I. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the August 18, 2021 were approved with the correction of the word from "sing' to "sign" the Minor Computer Workstation Agreement. Discussion bought up on a way to thank board members after their service on the board. Tim DeGhelder will look at certificates. Motion by DeEtte Cobb to accept the minutes, 2nd by Melanie Loughmiller. Motion passed. II. Citizens Forum: Nothing to report. III. New Business: Library Board gave introductions to our new library board member- DeEtte Cobb. Amend New Library Card Policy. The board voted to remove the limitations of only 4 items allowed to be checked out by a new library card user. They also voted to allow new library card users to ILL materials. This vote removed the new library card type from the library policy. IV. Old Business: Strategic Plan (January 2022) Strategic Planning sessions will start after the New Year. The board looked at the PC Public Usage Policy passed on August 18th for a quick review before posting in the current policy. V. Presentations: a. Budget Report. Expenditures in July totaled $61,962.50, with $584,738.28 expended so far for the year, which is 80% of FY 2021 budget of $727,331.00 Tim noted that the new budget begins October 1, 2021 and we will return any unused funds back to the general fund in the budget. The library will have quite a bit of unused salaries and wages since the previous library director was retired for almost 6 months before a new director was hired. The budget for FY2022 has already been voted on and passed. The salary survey was passed by the city council which will try and put city staff wages to the mid- point average for each position. The staff are very grateful at the library for giving a monetary value for their hard work. b. Statistical Report. There are currently 9,337 active library cards. Book rentals continue to increase, especially in the Juvenile department. This was the second month in which volunteers returned to the library, with 14 volunteer hours for the month. Tim noted that we have five new volunteers wanting to start this month. We are also going to start adding You Tube and Facebook stats to our monthly report. The staff work very hard on programming and marketing through social media. Social media is a way to reach out to people who cannot make it to the library. VI. Friends of the Library Report: a. We hope to work with the Friends on a birthday party in December. Tim also wants to do a volunteer and Friends membership drive in December. VII. Director's Remarks: Tim mentioned the following is happening at the library Stats and budget- we are on target with money to return (over $50,000) New cameras are installed with remote access and we can get a recording. Starting to get new ceiling tiles replaced. Strategic plan document will be something that will be ready for us to start in Jan 2022. 1 am still having staff meeting and trying to catch up on new services. Developing our new You Tube channel and trying FB Live. Putting on digital content. We are working hard on this. I will start adding stats to views on our report starting in October. Read to me- coming once a month- Saturday- trading cards (this is a certified pet program working with Pet Partners) Sneek Peeks coming- September and October (this is working with the PJC theatre program) Story Walk- Christmas- all down town businesses (Polar Express) 90th party- Night time story walk- party with community- we need to pick a day. (Christmas and birthday party- celebration) Two special interns at the library- Texas workforce + PJC intern (3 other volunteers) Credit card- back on schedule from finance. The library is trying to find a simple way to take credit and debit cards as a payment option for fines and gifts. Book Days is a You Tube channel that makes books come to life. Filming done- Madeline - episode about Paris TX, coming out in October (giving away 3 Madeline books) Friends- decals and birthday party- ornaments? I will ask the Friends about helping with some costs to create gifts. Last minute- painting- had to paint on Sunday- latex paint has a strong odor and customers cannot be in the building Air freshers throughout the building- working great- we are getting compliments City Manager walked our basement and thought developing a community space was a wonderful idea. Next, step is to just get an estimate on costs. Just looking for a ballpark figure. (free estimate- give or take 10%) Getting some new library shirts for the staff- goes with the nametags Tim noted when he gives the director's report, he wants the library advisory board to be the first citizens to know what is going on at the library. Many programs are at the planning stages and the advisory board should not be surprised about things that are happening at the library. The next meeting will be on October 20th, 2021. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 5:05pm Submitted by Timothy DeGhelder, Library Director MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE 107 EAST KAUFMAN STREET PARIS, TEXAS MONDAY SEPTEMBER 20,2021,5-30 P.M. 1. Call meeting to order and welcome remarks by Commission Chairperson Alix Putnam. Chairperson Alix Putnam called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call. Members present were Alix Putnam, Syble Bills, Brenda Cherry, Matthew Coyle, Lydia Fitzgerald, Jessica Holtman, Reeves Hayter, Linda Kapp, Stacy Ladell, Chad Lindsey, James Mitchell, Taisley Scroggin, and Kenneth Webb. Also present were Don Edmonds, Consultant; Paula Portugal, Mayor; Grayson Path, City Manager and Janice Ellis, City Clerk. Members absent were Connie Dodd and David House. 3. Remarks by Mayor Paula Portugal. Mayor Portugal expressed appreciation to the Committee Members for volunteering their time to serve on this very important project. 4. Receive Citizen's input. Chairperson Putnam asked for anyone wishing to speak on any of the items on the agenda, to please come forward. With no one speaking, Ms. Putnam closed the forum. 5. Introduction of Commission Members, City Staff and Consultant. Chairperson Putnam asked the Committee to introduce themselves, including where they worked, where they were born and their favorite cookie. 6. Consider election of a Vice -Chairperson. Chairperson Putnam opened the floor for nominations for Vice -Chairperson. Jessica Holtman nominated Reeves Hayter. Chairperson Putnam asked for other nominations and there being none, she closed the floor for nominations. Chairperson Putnam asked for a vote and the Committee voted unanimously that Reeve Hayter would serve as Vice -Chairperson. 7. Consider a meeting time for future Commission meetings. Following a brief discussion, it was a consensus that the meetings would take place at 5:30 p.m. City Manager Grayson Path explained the meeting would be in a different place for the next meeting but would Staff would keep them informed. 8. Consider establishing a quorum number for future Commission meetings. Mr. Edmonds inquired of the Commission about establishing a quorum for the purpose of conducting a meeting. Following a brief discussion, it was a consensus that having one-half of the commission plus one would constitute a quorum. 9. Consider an overview of the current Charter prepared by Consultant Don R. Edmonds and discuss a tentative schedule by which to comprehensively review the document (See the following: Appendix A and Appendix B). Mr. Edmonds explained the difference between a General Law and a Home Rule City and how they operate. He said the first City Charter of Paris was granted in 1845 by the State Legislature. Mr. Edmonds stated there were twelve articles and one -hundred fifty-one sections in the Charter. According to the schedule in their packets, Mr. Edmond said they would have five more meetings with the last one being the wrap-up of the review. Mr. Edmonds explained that the City Council wanted an independent opinion. Ms. Cherry confirmed with Mr. Edmonds that they were to review the Charter and make recommendations as to changes. Ms. Putnam inquired if the City Council decides what would be on the ballot. Mr. Edmonds answered in the affirmative. Ms. Putnam asked about being involved in a pro -active campaign and Mr. Edmonds said they would speak to community organizations, such as the Rotary Club. Mr. Path explained that the City Staff could not be involved in a campaign pursuant to State Law. Mr. Hayter asked about how to get an item on the agenda for discussion. If someone has an item for the agenda, Mr. Edmonds said they could e-mail it to him or call him. Mr. Path emphasized that Don Edmonds was their Charter resource. 8. Adj ournment. A Motion to adjourn was made by Kenneth Webb and seconded by Chad Lindsey. Motion carried, 12 ayes — 0 nays. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Approved this 4th day of October 2021. Ali x ut , Chi irpe���v�i/iM'�� ----- rson SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF PARIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF PARIS - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM PARIS, TEXAS TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 7 2021 12:00 O'CLOCK P.M. The Board ofAdjustment meeting was called to order by Ruth Ann Alsobrook at 12: 00 p. m. The following members were present: Ruth Ann Alsobrook, Chris Fitzgerald, Jerry Haning, William Sanders and Larry Walker. Also present were Andrew Mack, via cell phone, Stephanie Harris and concerned citizens. 2. Approval of minutes from previous meeting. (June 1, 2021) Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve minutes for the June 1st, 2021 meeting. Motion carried 4:0. 3. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Charles Edwards, on behalf of Michele and Ricky Hines on Lot 32, Block 84, of the Hines Addition being located at 541 NW 11th Street. The petition requested variances of Section 9-201 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows: (1) 9-201 (1) Schedule minimum lot widths -Residential districts SF -2 Zoning requires a minimum of b0' lot width The applicant is proposing to re -construct a house as part of the HOME Program at 541 NW 111 St. This property does not meet the schedule minimum lot width of 60'. The applicant is requesting a variance of 10' to allow the re -construction of a house on a 50' wide lot. Board Member Chris Fitzgerald arrives at 12:02 PM. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, presents the variance to the board explaining that the existing home will be demolished and rebuilt as part of the Home Program. After doing so, Director Mack reminded the board of previous discussion on amending the Ordinance to accommodate sub -standard lots in Paris. Lastly, Director Mack stated that City Staff recommend the variances be approved with no conditions since the existing lot width is 83% of the required lot width and all of the required setbacks can be met and based on the recommended findings of fact listed in the staff memo. €riin anvingo; e a narrow lot to build on. City Staff member Paige Unger reassures her and the remaining board members that though the required lot'with for this particular zoning is 60' there are other residential zoning districts that the proposed home will be appropriate for the zoning Andrewmakes lot is in SF -I zoning when it should say SF -2. 0 one spoke in favor or opposition. RuthAnn Alsobrook made note of citizen input forms submitted by mail as follows: Jimmie Wilkerson of 614 NW 11th St, in favor. Stated it would improve the appearance of the street. Terry Hurd of 533 NW l 11h St, in favor. Michele and Ricky Hines of 541 NE 1 Ith St, in favor. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve the variance to Section 9-210 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the re -construction of a home on a 50' wide lot vs. the required 60' width based upon the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5;0. Staff Recommended Findings of Fact 1. Although there are no unique conditions or features of the property which is not generally common to other properties with older platted lots in the city, it is the intent of the city to pursue changing the ordinance to make such variance requirements unnecessary in the future. 2. The literal compliance with Sections 9-201 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given the fact that this is an existing lot of record, is substandard in lot width and depth, and the proposed two-family dwelling cannot be constructed without a variance. 3. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of this article. 4. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance did not result from the property Frey 5, The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property. 6. The proposed use of a new single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the SF -2 Zoning District. 4. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition ofChance Floyd, on Lot 1, Blo B, ofthe Meadows, being located at 4135 Jasmine Street. I The applicant requests a variance of Section 9501 Area Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance is provides as follows: (1) 9-501 Schedule minimum front yards -Residential districts ontTar—a,--u-n-�essThe—p7a—[—aZo7signatesadyjere setback TYMT'TM7= -TUXTun ;dpz;fMIr0It_c0nsIrU corner lot a 10' front yard setback is required on the side yard according to the plat. The applicant mistakenly built the fence on the property line instead of at the 10' required setback. The applicant is requesting a 10' variance to leave the fence where it is. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, presents the variance to the board. Andrew states that the fence was measured 10' from the back of the curb, which placed it on the property line versus being measured 10' off the property line. The fence had been permitted Jerry Haning asks since the variance was applied for if the applicant was not willing to do the diagonal instead of going through this process to which Andrew replied that the diagonal was proposed as an option along with the variance process, William Sanders asked with there being other fences in the area identified as non-compliant are that they can have normal maintenance done, but if they are ever removed they would be prohibited from reconstructed unless they were built in compliance with current ordinance of that time. RuthAnn then asks if the legal non -conforming fences maybe existed before the ordinance was put in place to which Stephanie Harris says she believed it was adopted in 2008. Andrew then states that part of the issue with the corner lots is that they should have been platted bigger to prevent things like this because people want to utilize more of their yards and in doing so their fences are closer to the street. Public hearing was declared open. Chance Floyd, property owner, states that when obtaining the permit he was directed to draw where he was wanting to place the fence. After doing so Paige Unger and Roger Colson had reviewed the drawing along with a copy of the plat and directed him measure 10' off of the back of the curb and 6' away from the alleyway for the construction of the fence. Mr. Floyd then states that when constructing the fence he chose to build the fence further in than the 6' away from the alley for visibility and because it is used frequently as a two-way alley when it really is only wide enough to be used as a one-way alley. Chance measured 10.5' away from the alley and about 12 to 11.5' away from the curb and followed the curve on 42nd street to help with the visibility. Mr. Floyd continues to explain the necessity of the fence since he knew he would want a place for his kids to play, privacy, he knew that they were going to be, putting in a pool and a safe backyard since 42nd street is a busy street. Lastly, Chance mentions that at the time of inspection the inspector had told him he may have to put in a diagonal setback 15'. Larry Walker and William Sanders clarify with the applicant that the permit was pulled and approved before the fence was built. Larry Walker asks Andrew Mack if applicant has gone through the proper procedures by pulling a permit and it being approved why he was required to request a variance. Andrew Mack states that even though there may have been confusion of the setbacks when the permit was issued that the ordinance still applies and that is why the variance was suggested to correct it. RuthAnn Alsobrook, asks if the fence remains as is if it will be unsafe or how the visibility will be affected. Andrew states that the middle area of the fence does not create an obstruction though the structural mass of the fence is more than usual than desired along the street, but the City does recommend that the diagonal be installed at the alleyway to help with the visibility. Cory Jones of 345 SE 42nd St, spoke in favor of the variance. He stated that over the years they have had neighbors come and go at this address and heard their complaints of there not being a fence in the back yard to utilize it and have privacy. When the Floyds moved in and installed their fence, he was excited for them to be able to use their backyard and have the safety and privacy they deserved. He continues to say that he often drives his truck down the alley and has the visibility he needs considering that the road is curved and does seem to have heavy traffic sometimes. Mr. Jones does not believe that the fence itself is the issue but rather the flow of traffic since 42"d is often used to cut across to Lamar. RuthAnn asks if he believes that a passenger car would have that same visibility to which he responds that no matter the size of the vehicle if you are to pull up past the fence which is set back far enough to keep you out of the line of traffic and take the time the look both ways, you can safely exit the alley. He continues to say that with the road being curved you have to be cautious of the traffic either way and come to a complete stop when exiting the alley. Mr. Jones also says that people have been cutting across the corner of the lot for a long time despite the owner's efforts of putting rocks and reflectors up to deter people from damaging their car and to be more cautious. James Jaggers of 4015 Jasmine St, spoke in opposition of the variance. Mr. Jagger states that he uses the alley very often and it has worked well until the fence was put in place. He states that he cannot see around the fence in his vehicle and that the fence has made it dangerous to exit the alley. He continues to tell the board that he believes the fence was built in violation of the ordinance and should have been built shorter, with 50% visibility and located further back to meet the front yard fence criteria so that there would not be visibility issues like there is now. Mr. Jagger also explains that since all of the homes on that block have rear entry driveways and garages the alley is the only way in and out, so with this being their main exit from the alley it needs to have more visibility to also prevent the alley from getting congested when people try to exit. Lastly, Mr. Jagger states that this issue could potentially decrease the value of his home when he tries to sell it in the future since this issue affects the accessibility of the home. RuthAnn Alsobrook made note of citizen input forms submitted by mail as follows: Larry Cope of 4130 Oleander Ave, in favor. Paul and Marsha Stuart of 355 SE 42nd St, in favor. Stated that Chance followed the correct procedure in obtaining the permit and should be able to leave the fence where it is since that is where he was initially told he could place it even if it was wrong on the city's part. Also, they do not believe the Floyd's should have to move their fence since there are similar constructed fences along 42nd street. Wayne & Betty Clement of 4120 Jasmine St, in opposition. Stated they believe the fence obstructs the view of the oncoming southbound traffic on SE 42nd from motorists entering SE 42"d from Jasmine Street. Murray Jackson of 4110 Jasmine St, in opposition. Stated when pulling out of Jasmine visibility to the north is more blocked than before; southbound traffic on 42nd street cannot be seen until right upon the intersection. Lynn Wells of 365 SE 42"d St, in favor but is concerned the fence was poorly built and a strong wind could blow it over. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. Jerry Haning asks if Mr. Floyd's recollection of him obtaining the permit and the direction he was given is correct. Staff member Paige Unger says that it was correct and when issuing the permit she had misinterpreted the plat and instead of directing him to set the fence 10' off of the property line she and the Building Official at the time had directed him to set it 10' off the back of the curb. It was later after the fence had been constructed and inspected that the error was discovered once the City started receiving complaints. William Sanders confirms that the fence permit was in fact approved before it was constructed to which staff member Paige Unger confirms it was. RuthAnn states that even though the fence was approved it has now come to the board for a variance and the matter of safety needs to be considered. Larry Walker asks what the variance is for in reference to the fence. RuthAnn clarifies that the variance is to allow the fence to remain as is or the board also has the option to approve it with the conditions presented by the city. Chance Floyd then marked on an aerial view map to help the board visualize what is proposed. While doing so Mr. Floyd explained that if he were to remove part of the fence to create this diagonal, his fence would be about only 10' away from his house and the whole purpose of the fence for his kids to have room to play would be irrelevant. Andrew Mack states that if the board were to approve the variance with the recommended condition that he or someone from the city would go and meet with Mr. Floyd to verify the measurements since they have not been applied in the field yet. Motion was made by Chris Fitzgerald, seconded by Larry Walker to approve the variance to Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-501 of the Area Regulations to allow the fence to remain on the property line. In the Board's approval of the variance request, there were no findings of fact or conditions. Motion carried 4:1, with William Sanders as the dissenting vote. 5. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition of Audrey Bills, on Lot 10, City Block 74-A, being located at 824 NE 3rd Street. The applicant requests a variance of Section 9-501 Area Regulation of the Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows: 9-501 (1) Schedule minimum front yards- Residential districts. 2F minimum front yard- 25' The applicant is proposing to construct a carport in the side yard in line with the existing home with a 22' front yard setback versus the required 25' setback. The applicant is requesting a 3' variance to allow the proposed carport to be built with a 22' front yard in line with the existing home. Andrew Mack, Director of Planning & Community Development, first notifies the board that the aerial view map included in their packet is not accurate since the two lots should be shown as one with the house being located in the middle. He continues to present the variance to the board and notify them that the construction of the structure had already began before the variance or any permit had been applied for. Lastly, Mr. Mack makes a neutral recommendation to the board to consider both variances for this address. Public hearing was declared open. Audrey Bills, property owner, states that she is wanting to construct the carport to cover her cars from the sap coming from the tree in the yard. Ms. Bills also states that she has maintained the vacant lot located just north of hers since she moved into the house in the 80s. She has tried contacting the owners and has never been able to find anyone to purchase this property. Larry Walker clarifies that the two posts that have already been put in place are on her property line to which she confirms they are. RuthAnn Alsobrook made note of citizen input forms submitted by mail as follows: Audrey Bills of 824 NE Yd St, in favor to build carport. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. Motion was made by Jerry Haning, seconded by William Sanders to approve the variance to Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-501 of the Area Regulations to allow the carport to be constructed with a 22' front yard setback in line with the house based upon the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5:0. Staff Recommended Findings of Fact 1. Although there are no unique conditions or features of the property, the house is constructed in the middle of the lot making it impossible to construct a two -car attached carport on the north side of the lot without a variance. 2. Substandard building setbacks are prevalent in the surrounding properties of this area. 3. The literal compliance with Sections 9-501 & 9-601 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given the fact that dwelling was previously constructed in the middle of the parcel without room for a 2 stall wide carport without a variance. 4. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of this article, but it will allow a structure to be permitted adjacent to the neighboring property line. 5. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance does result from the property owner's own actions. There is room to construct an accessory carport structure in the rear yard without a variance. 6. The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property, but physical convenience with the structure in the proposed location would be favorable to the land owner where requested. 7., The proposed use of a new attached carport accessory structure for the single-family dwelling is a permitted addition to the principal residential use of the property in the 2F Zoning District. 6. Public hearing to consider and take action on the petition ofAudrey Bills, on Lot 10, City Block 74-A, being located at 824 NE Yd Street. The applicant requests a variance of Section 9-601 Area Regulation of the Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows: 9-601 (1) Schedule minimum side yards -Residential districts 2F Zoning requires a minimum of 5' side yard The applicant is proposing to construct a 20' wide by 22' long carport in the side yard in line with the existing home on the property. The applicant is requesting a 5' variance to allow the proposed carport to be built up to the side property line. Public hearing was declared open. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Public hearing was declared closed. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by Jerry Haning to approve the variance to Zoning Ordinance, Section 9-601 of the Area Regulations to allow the carport to be constructed up to the side property line based upon the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5:0. Staff Recommended l findings of Fact 1. Although there are no unique conditions or features of the property, the house is constructed in the middle of the lot making it impossible to construct a two -car attached carport on the north side of the lot without a variance. 2. Substandard building setbacks are prevalent in the surrounding properties of this area. 3. The literal compliance with Sections 9-501 & 9-601 of the Zoning Ordinance would cause unnecessary hardship given the fact that dwelling was previously constructed in the middle of the parcel without room for a 2 stall wide carport without a variance. 4. The granting of the variance will not violate the spirit or the intent of this article, but it will allow a structure to be permitted adjacent to the neighboring property line. 5. The condition or feature which creates the need for the variance does result from the property owner's own actions. There is room to construct an accessory carport structure in the rear yard without a variance. 6. The variance by the applicant is not solely for personal convenience, financial hardship, or other reasons unrelated to the property, but physical convenience with the structure in the proposed location would be favorable to the land owner where requested. 7. The proposed use of a new attached carport accessory structure for the single-family dwelling is a permitted addition to the principal residential use of the property in the 2F Zoning District. 7. Adjournment. APPROVED THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021. Chairman Minutes City of Paris MT NOTIM The city staff was represented by Asst. Chief Randy Tuttle. Mayor Paula Portugal was present as council calledJohn Eyler the meeting to order5:15pm. quorum . b membersseven Mr. Eyler then yd to item #2 regarding introduction of ; Commission • Asst.o.y Lloyd Fry as new member with his term expiring June 30, 2023. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #3 regarding approval of minutes from December 01, 2020 meeting. Mr. Ellis made a motion to approve the minutes and it was second ry Mr. Moore.Motion passed -0. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #4 regarding discussion and possible action concerning installation of a stop sign at 32nd NE & Houston. actioninformed members that a previous request was considered by members in 2018 with no -d another -qby concerned residentshad membersbeen made to reconsider a stop sign at the intersection. Tuttle informed accidents -♦ at this location within the previous years but adding a stop sign would increase the safety of the intersection. After 4iscussion Mr. Clark made a motion r recommends stop sign at 32nd NE & Houston stopping traffic on 32nd NE. The motionsecond by Mr. Moore o motion carried . Darst 2. Wendell oo 3. John Eyler ,: Charles Richards S. Michael "Mickey"Ellis ,; Tony 7. o • Fry MT NOTIM The city staff was represented by Asst. Chief Randy Tuttle. Mayor Paula Portugal was present as council calledJohn Eyler the meeting to order5:15pm. quorum . b membersseven Mr. Eyler then yd to item #2 regarding introduction of ; Commission • Asst.o.y Lloyd Fry as new member with his term expiring June 30, 2023. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #3 regarding approval of minutes from December 01, 2020 meeting. Mr. Ellis made a motion to approve the minutes and it was second ry Mr. Moore.Motion passed -0. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #4 regarding discussion and possible action concerning installation of a stop sign at 32nd NE & Houston. actioninformed members that a previous request was considered by members in 2018 with no -d another -qby concerned residentshad membersbeen made to reconsider a stop sign at the intersection. Tuttle informed accidents -♦ at this location within the previous years but adding a stop sign would increase the safety of the intersection. After 4iscussion Mr. Clark made a motion r recommends stop sign at 32nd NE & Houston stopping traffic on 32nd NE. The motionsecond by Mr. Moore o motion carried . Mr. Eyler then moved to item #5 regarding discussion and possible action concerning the installation of a stop sign at 37th NE & Village Bend. Asst. Chief Tuttle informed members that a request had been made to members to install a stop sign at this intersection. Tuttle advised members that there had been no accidents at this intersection within the past three years but adding a stop sign would improve the safety of the intersection. After discussion Mr. Clark made a motion to place a stop sign at 37th NE & Village Bend stopping west bound traffic on Village Bend. Mr. Richards second the motion and it passed 7-0. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #6 regarding any old business. There was none. Mr. Eyler then moved to item #7 regarding request for future agenda items. There were no future items but a request was made to get the high weeds in the S curve on 36th NE cut and also to place traffic buttons into that curve to assist traffic negotiating the curve. Tuttle said he would forward this to Public Works. Mr. Ellis asked about the possibility conducting a traffic study to add a four way stop to 4th SW & Washington. Tuttle stated the traffic study would have to be done by the City Engineer when one was hired. Mr. Darst asked if any more had been done in regards to placing a divided medium on Lamar. Tuttle informed members that this was still under study by TXDOT. At 5:27pm Mr. Darst made a motion to adjourn the meeting. A second was made by Mr. Moore and motion carried 7-0. f ' Chairperson: Date: