HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - Regular - 1/12/1956REGULAR MEETING
Lubbock, Texas
January 12, 1956
The City Commission of the City of Lubbock, Texas, met at 10 o'clock A.M. in Regular Session at
the Regular meeting place in the City Hall, the following members thereof being present to -wit:
Mayor Murrell R. Tripp, Commissioners Lennis Baker, Hurley Carpenter and S. S. Forrest, City iianager
H. P. Clifton, City Attorney Vaughn E. Wilson, City Secretary -Treasurer Lavenia Lowe.
Absent: Commissioner Lucian Thomas
Invocation was given by City Manager H. P. Clifton.
Notion by Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Forrest, motion carried, Mf_ayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter, and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, the following minutes of
the City Commission were approved:
Joint Meeting of City and County Comrission. .December 12, 1955
Regular k.eeting of City Commission. . . . December 20, 1955
(t 14-386-871 Motion by Commissioner Eaker, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay,'Ordinance No. 1804 was passed
on second and final reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 1804
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ORDINiV.-CE NO. 1342 F17ITL`+,D, "AN ORDINANCE MENDING SECTION
T"v�0 (2) OF ORDINANCE No. 654, AS AMET:DED BY ORDINANCE �,_-0. 703 EiNTITLED, 'AN ORDINANCE TO AT,END
ORDINANCE No. 654 PASSED BY TIE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK AT ITS SECOND AND FINAL
READING NOVa-27ER 4, 1940, THE SAME BEING AN ORDINANCE GMNITING A FRANCHISE TO J. A. FORTI~+,�,BERRY AND
RAY FART• ER TO OPERATE A BUS LINE IP- TIE, A:A1,3 OF LU-3 0CK 3JS COMPANY 1,1ITHIN THE CORPORATE LI1_ITS OF
THE CITY OF LUB?OCI", UPOT: ITS STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES; SAID ORDINANCE BEING AMENDED
BY AIX,-DINC SECTIOII TWO (2) THEREOF SO AS TO CHAI-IGE THE Ai\':UAL FRANCHISE TAX FROM $25.00 FOR EACH
BUS OPERATED BY' THE GFWTaEES TO n-,10 PER CENT (2%) OF THE ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE LUBBOCK BUS
COMPANY RECE11TED BY IT FROM' ITS OFEIRLATIONS ON THE STREET'), ALI=5 MITI; THOROUGHFARES OF THE CIT`i OF
LUBBOCF` AND FURTHER AIEINDING SAID ORDINANCE NO. 654 BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 2-A PROVIDING FOR THE
QUARTERLY IAYTENT OF SAID FRANCHISE TA:: AITD STIPULATING THE TIME AND DATE OF SAID QUARTERLY PAYMENT
AND EXCLUDIi:G FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF SAID GRANTEE ALL RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY GRANTEES FROM THE
OFERATIONT OF SCHOOL BUSES; AND PROVIDING THAT EXCEPT AS AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 654 SHALL IN ALL OTHER
RESPECTS REI,.AIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT; ISO AS TO ADD THERETO SECTION 2-B PROVIDING FOR THE
SUSPEI:SION OF TIM IMPOSITION OF SUCH TWO PER CENT (2%) ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAX BY RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ANY PERIOD EXTEPIDSdG TO SUCH T1ME AS SUCH FRANCHISE TAX MAY BE REIMPOSED BY
THE CITY COM1-=ISSION; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE TO EFFECT Ai•ENMDI�ENTT TO FRAI: CHISE OF
THE LUPL'OCK BUS COMTFr'0TY11; SO AS TO AT D SECTION 1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1342 AND PROVIDE FOR THE IMPOSI-
TION OF THE T:dO PER CENT (2%) ANNUAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAX OR A.,,VY PART THEREOF BY RESOLUTIOF OF THE;
CITY COMIISSION; PROVIDING FOR PUI?LICATION OF THIS ORDITNAIICE TO EFFECT AiENDMENT TO FRANCHISE OF THE
LUB^OCK BUS COy:PANTY; AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT SAID BUS COMPANY SHALL FAY ALL EXTE','SES INCIDENT
TO THIS ATErIDTErdT.
i-14-386-872 Motion by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, motion carried, Layor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter, and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, Ordinance No. 1815 was
passed on second and final reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 1815
AN ORDIKANCE j)i,ETNDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1695 AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBDOCK
SO AS TO 14AKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: ZONE CASE NO. 543 - CHANGE THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND 200 FEET
EAST ADTD "vmST BY 172 FEET NORTH AND SOUTH AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF 34TH STREET
AND IT SHVILLE AVENUE IN THE CITY OF LUBDOCK, LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM Al! "R-211 TO A "C-2" ZONING
DISTRICT. (NASHVILLE AVENUE AND 34th STREET).
-14-386-873 Motion by Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Baker, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, Ordinance ado. 1819 was passed
on second and final reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 1819
ANORDIYANICE ATENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1331, AS AiEIJDED, C01,10ITLY KNONN AS THE SUBDIVISIOP'S REGULA-
TIONS OF THE CITY OF LUB'?OCK, BY RE-ENACTING SUBSECTION 10 OF SUB -PARAGRAPH A OF SECTION 3 THEREOF
(SECTION 3A-10) TO EFFECT A CHANCE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRENuET FOR MOTOR TYPES OF STREETS,
FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS OTHER THAN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS, FROM 50 FEET TO 56 FEET IN IPTIDTH, WHEN SUCH
STREETS A--:E NOT SHU...1T ON THE T-:AST}ER THOROUGHFARE PLAN, AND OTIE-WISE RE-ENACTING THE FROVISIONS i:ZTH
REFERENCE TO MINIM- 1 WIDTH OF RIGHT OF WAY ON STREETS OF OTHER TYPES, AS NOW SET OUT IN SAID SUB-
SECTION 10 OF SUB -PARAGRAPH A OF SAID ORDINAACE NO. 1331; AND REPEALING ALL ORDIiTAMCES OR TARTS OF
ORDIN-NCES Ir: CONF_:iCT HEREWITH.
-14-386-874 Motion by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, motion carried, Niayor Tripp and
Commissioners °aker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Pray, Ordinance No. 1820 was passed
on second and final reading.
ORDIN A? : CE 110. 1820
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZINT THE CITY C01,14ISSION OF TIE CITY OF LUB�OCK, ACT -'NC FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
SAID CITY TO E-TER INTO ALL NECESSARY AGREEI-M. TTS TAIITH THE STATE, DZPPART�,IENT OF PUBIC V.ELFARE RELATIVE
TO FEDERAL OLD -AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE P.ENEFITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF APrLICABLE STATE AND
FEDERAL LAWS; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ALL SAID NECESSARY AGREEMM.TS AND INSTRUMENTS FOR XITD
ON BEHALF OF SAID CITY COM1-:ISSION AND CITY; DIRECTING THE CITY AUDITOR OF THE CITY OF LU7OCK TO i;kKE
ASSESSMENTS, COLLECTIONS, AND REPORTS; AND ORDERING THE ALLOCATION AND SETTIA.G ASIDE OF SUFFICIE�qT
MONEY FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS TO CARIHY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF SAID LAWS, SUCH MONEY TO BE SET ASIDE AND
MAINTAINED Ili THE REGULAR CITY DEPOSITORY AND TO BE UjOtiP AS THE CITY OF LUB:- OCK SOCIAL SECURITY FUND.
56-14--*7-875 Motion by Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner 3aker, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, the following resolution was
passed:
RESOLUTION
'AMREAS, on or about the 15th day of Septem._er, 1952, Everett E. Key and wife, Joy Key, of Lubbock
County, Texas, did execute and deliver to the City of Lubbock, a Power Line Easement granting and
conveying to said City the right to construct, maintain, operate and repair electric transmission lines,
over and across the hereinafter descried land, as well as to place poles, guy wires and braces in and
upon said land, described as follows, to -wit:
BEGIIRT= at the Northeast Corner of Lot Mine (9), Block One (1), Nislar-Key Addition
to the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas;
THENCE South 126.25.feet to a point;
THENCE West ten feet (101) to a point;
THENCE North 126.25 feet to a point;
THENCE East ten, feet (101) to the PLACE OF BEGINNIYG.
which said Easement is recorded in Volume 482, Page 282 of the Deed Records of Lubbock County, Texas,
to which record reference is here;:y made for all pertinent purposes; and,
n1IEREAS, said Everett E. Key and wife, Joy Key, are desirous of amending said Easerrent so as to
grant and convey to the City of Lubbock the right to construct, maintain, operate and repair electric
transmission lines over and across said tract of land, but excepting from said Easement, the right
of said City to place poles, guy wires and braces in or upon said land, and have proposed to pay to
the City of Lubbock the sum of SEVEF HUNDRED AND FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS to accept such Easement in
lieu of said original Easement; and,
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of 'lubbock hays determined that such right to use said
land for the placing of poles, guy wires and braces is no longer necessary, and that it would be in
the public interest to accept such Amended Easement in lieu of said original power Line Easement for
the above mentioned consideration of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS: NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY CO:IISSIOD. OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK_:
SECTIO" 1. THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE, and he is hereby authorized and directed to
execute for and in behalf of the City of Lubbock, an indenture instrument and Amended Easement, the
same to be executed by Everett E. Key and wife, Joy Key, whereby for the cons.derati.on of SEVEN
HLTNDRED A:'D FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS, the City shall accept in lieu of said original Power Line Easement
recorded in Volume 482, Page 282, of the Deed Records of Lubbock County, Texas, an Amended Easement
whereby the City of Lubbock shall have the right to construct, maintain, operate and repair electric
transmission lines over and across the f ollov.ing described land in Lubbock County, Texas, to -wit:
BEGINNING at the Northeast Corner of Lot Nine (9), Block One (1), Nislar-Key Addition
to the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas;
THENCE South 126.25 feet to a point;
THENCE West ten feet (101) to a point;
THE1 h'CE North 126.25 feet to a ; oint;
THi,'_ICE Esst ten feet (101) to the ILACE OF BEGINNING.
and the execution and acceptance of such indenture instrument, and Amended Easement by the City of
Lubbock shall constitite a full release and relinquishment by the City of "ubbock to Everett Ev Key
and wife, Joy Key, their heirs and assigns of any rights of said City under said original easement
not included in said Ar ended Easement and indenture instrument.
SECTION 2. TH:;T the City Secretary -Treasurer shall attest such indenture instrument for and in behalf`
of the City- of Lubbock, affixing the Corporate Seal of the City of Lubbock thereto.
Passed by the City Commission this 12th day of January, 1956.
/s/ Murrell R. Trip2_
MAYOR
ATTEST:
/s/ Lavenia Lowe
City Secretary -Treasurer
AMENDED POWER L11 E :EASEMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS (!
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK 0 KNO':" ALL MEN BY THESE PRE�SETTS:
This indenture, made this 3rd day of January, 1956, by and between EVERETT E. KEY and wife, JOY KEY,
of Lubbock County, Texas, hereinafter dedgnated as party of the first part, and the CITY OF LUBBOCK,
a Home Rule Ylunicipal Corporation, of Lubbock County, Texas, hereinafter designLted as party of the sec
and part, actin.', herein by and through its 1,-,ay-or, here unto duly authorized by resolution duly adopted
by the City Commission of the City of Lub�ock, a certified copy of which is attached hereto and hereby
made a part hereof, W I T Id E S S E T H:
,:TIEREAS, the party of the first part did, on or about the 15th day of Septemoer, 1952, execute and
deliver to the party of the second part, for tke consideration therein r.Lentioned, a - ower Line Easement
over and across the following described land whereby there was granted and conveyed to said party of
the second part the right to construct, maintain, repair and operate electric transmission lines, and
to place poles, guy wires and braces in, upon &nd across the following described tract of land- in
Lubbock County, Texas;
BEGI:-7.'D,IC at the "ortheast Corner of Lot Dine (9), Block One (1), Nislar-Key Addition
to the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas; THENCE South 126.25 feet to a point;
THENCE West Ten feet (101) to a point; TH&-,CE North 126.25 feet to a point;THENCE East
ten feet (10•1) to the PLACE OF BEGINNI :G.
which said Easement is recorded in Volume 482, Page 282 of the Deed Records of Lubbock County, Texas,
to which record refer�.nce is hereby made for all pertinent purposes; and,
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is desirous of amending said Easement so as to grant and con
to the party of the second part. -:the right to construct, maintain, repair and operate electric trans-
mis-ion lines over and across said land, excepting, however, the right to use said land for placing
poles guy wires and :races in relation to such transmission lines, and has offered to pay to said pa
of the second part the sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty ($750.00) Dollars to accept such amended
easement in lieu of said original easement; and,
%THEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Lubbock has deterrsned that such right to use said land
for the placing of poles, guy wires and braces, is no lon,_,er necessary, and that it would be in the
public interest to accept such amended easement in lieu of said original Power Line Easement for the
above mentioned considerations of Seven Hundred and Fifty ($750900) Dollars; NO'e,T, THEREFO ,
This indenture witnesseth, that we, EVERETT E. KEY and wife, JOY KEY, party of the first part, in
consideration of the premises and of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar paid to said party of the first
part by the CITY OF LUBBOCK, party of the second part have granted and conveyed and by these presents
do Grant, Sell and Convey unto the said CITY OF LUBBOCK, a Home Rule Municipal Corporation, of the
County of Lubbock, State of Texas, the free and uninterrupted use, liberty and privilege pf and
passage in along, upon and across the land herein described for the purpose of allowing the CITY OF i
LUBDOCK to construct, maintain and operate transmission electric line or lines, in, along and across
said tract, and the further right to enter on said land at all times for the purpose of making
additions thereto, improvements thereon, and repairs to same as well as maintenance of said lines,
together with free ingress, egress and regress to and for the City of Lub.,ock, its succes�sorLj and
assigns, and agents, workmen and representatives, as by it or them may be considered necessary or
convenient at all times and seasons, in, along, upon and across said way, in connection with Grantors,
their grantees and assigns, provided said line or lines shall to constructed in an approved manner and
with as little damage to said premises as may be practical, considering the nature of the construction.
And for the same consideration set out hereinabove, Grantors covenant and agree to and with Grantee
that no building or other structure shall ever be placed in such proximity to the electric, power and
transmission lines as to endanger persons or property and Grantors so bind their heirs and assigns.
TO HAVE A17D TO HOLD the above described pr �mises, wherein this Easement applies, together with all
and singular, the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging un;:o the said 01T}' OF LUBLOCI;,
its successors and assigns forever; and we do hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and
administrators, to Warrant and Forever Defend all and singular the said premises unto the said CITY OF
LUB7OCK, its successors and assigns, against every person whomsoever 1:4wfully claiming, or to claim
the sai-e, or any part thereof.
IT IS Ui DE=LST00D A*:D AGREED that the CIT:1- OF LUB3OCK, party of the second part, shall riot have the
right, under this a :ended easement, to place poles, guy wires or braces in or upon said above
described tract of land.
IT IS FURMER UI DENOOD AND AGREED that the CITY OF LU-"BOCK, party of the second part, for and in
consideration of the sum of SEVEN HUIIDRED A!,D FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS to it in hand paid by EVERETT E.
KEY, and wife, JOY KEY, partyof the first part, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby
accept this amended easement, whereby the CITY OF LUBPOC" shall no longer have the right to place
poles, guy wires and braces in or ul-on said above described tract of land., but said CITY OF LU"130CK
shall have the right to construct, operate, naintain and repair electric trarisn:ission lines over and
across said tract of land, as hereinabove provided, in lieu of an original power line easement,
executed by said EVERETT E. KEY to the CITY OF LUBBOCK, recorded in Volume 482, Page 282 of the Deed
Records of Lubbock County, Texas; and, the execution and acceptance of this amended power line
easement and indenture :.nstrwyent by the CITY OF LUB"OCI'. shall and the same does hereby constitute
a full and complete release and relinquishment by the C;TY OF LUBROCK to the said EVE-11T E. KEY and
wife, JOY KEY, their heirs and assigns, of any and all rights of the CITY OF LUBBOCK, under said
original easement which are not included in this amended easement and indenture instrument.
WIT11TESS OUR HAi'.DS at Lubbock, Texas, this 3rd day of January, 1956.
ATTEST:
/s/ Lavenia Lowe
City Secretary -Treasurer
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK �(
/s/ Everett E. Key
/s/ Joy Key
CITY OF LUBBOCK
BY: /s/ Murrell R. Tripp, Mayor
FOl i APPROVED:
/s/ Vaughn E. ,lilson, City Attorney
BEFORE i,',E, the undersigned authority, a I.otary Public, in and for said County, Texas, on this day
personally apI_eared EVERETT E. KEY and JOY KEY, his wife, both known to me to be the 1-ersons whose
names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that t l.ey each executed the
same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, and the said JOY KEY, wife of the said
EVERETT E. KEY, having been examined by me privily and apart from her husband, and having the same
1 7
fully explained to her, she, the said JOY KEY, acknowledged such instrument to be her act and deed,
and she declared that she had willingly signed the same for the purposes and consideration therein
expressed, and that she d_d not wish to retract it.
GIVEN UNDER I_Y HAIN-D iE D SEAL OF OFFICE, This 3rd day of January, 1956
/s/ J. A. Maynard
(SEAL) Notary Public, Lubbock County, Texas
THE STATE OF TEXAS 0
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK 0
BEFORE Iv , the undersigned authority, a Rotary Public in and for said County, Texas, on this
day personally appeared ATURRELL R. TRIPF, known to me to be the person whose nacre is subscribed to
the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same as the :act and deed of
the CITY OF LUB-OCI< and as T AYOR, for the purposes and consideration therein expressed, �-u�d in the
ca7_acity therein stated.
GIVER' UNDER EY HAND AND aEAL OF OFFICE, this 4th day of January, 1956.
/s/ Arlan ;,omble
:rotary Public, Lubbock County, Texas
(SEAL)
%-14-389-876
Notion by Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Baker, motion carried , Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize an ordinance
to be prepared for consideration by the City Commission to call an election in connection with the
Canadian Rive=• ALuni.cipal Water Authority'coritract between the Authority and the City of Lubbock.
56-14-389-877
Mr. J. B. Cassel, Certified Public Accountant, appeared before the City Commission and presented
report on examination of accounts of the City of Lubbock, Texas for the fiscal. year, October 1, 1954
through September 30, 1955. After examination of Mir. Cassel's report, motion was made by Commissioner
Baker, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, motion carried, iSayor Tripp and Commissioners Baker,
Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize acceptance of the Audit report and to
authorize pa;;,ment to i4r. Cassel in the amount of $7,000.00, for said audit.
56-14-389-878
Motion by Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Baker, motion carried, Iviayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to aut':orize the City
1lanager to renew fan rental contracts between the City of Lubbock and the f ollowin,; tenants, said
contracts to be effective January 1, 1956, through December 31, 1956:
1. Culver Austin - Texas Land and P ortgage Company , - 260 acres
2. F. W. Austin - Texas Land and I ortgage Company 124 acres approximately.
3. 0. A. �'iebb - Lawson Land - 160 acres
4. R. L. lcGuire - Studebaker Land - 640 acres - approximately
5. W. D. Oates - Cemetery Land - 70 acres - aplroximately
6. B. W. Lawson - Lawson Land - 286.15 acres
56-14-389-879
Iviotion by Corimi.ssioner Daker, seconded by Commissioner Forrest, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize temporary water
service to be extended from the slater main in 50th Street to serve property ovned by Gene Elackburn
located at 2219 50th Street. The temporary extension being authorized because of this property .:eing
located within the area conter-plated to be used for t'r e 5.;th Street expressway.
-14-389-880
Preliminary plans were presented to the City Commission for addition to and alteration of the
present Park Department Building located at 407 East Broadway. Estimated cost 10,000.000 exclusive
of architects fee. Motion was made by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, motion
carried, Mayor Tripp and Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea none voting--fato
approve the preliminary sketches as presented and to authorize employment of Arnold Itaekerof ,
1203 College Avenue as architect on this project.
56-14-389-881
1,otion by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize employment
of Arnold �aeker of 1203 College Avenue as architect to prepare plans and specifications for
construction of Fire Station in >>Jest Lubi,ock. Said ;_laps and specifications to be presented to the
City Commission for consideration.
5 6-14-389-882
Notion by Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, motion carried, ivayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting i�ay, Ordinance No. 1821 was passed
on first reading.
ORDINAiCE NO. 1821
i
AN ORDINANCE GRAI,TTING TO THE FORT WORTH AND DENVER RAILI;AY COI,�'A,,TY ITS A�SSIC3�TEES, SUCCESSORS APTD
LESSEES, THE RIGHT, TOWER AND FRIVILEGE OF LOCATING, BUILDING, ERECTING, CONSTRUCTING AND PROPERLY
I AINTAINING ONE RAILROAD INDUSTRY TRACK AND TO 0I ER-- T_ Li Tr � i' CAR, AND TRAINSTHEREOI?, UPON, 0 ��,
AND ACROSS LOCUST AVEI UE IN LUBT-iOCK TEXAS. j;
56-14-389-883 Motion by Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, motion carried, Layor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, Ordinance ,o. 1822 was passed
on first read _ng.
ORDINANCE NO. 1822
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO THE FORT WORTH AND DENVER RAILWAY COIJ1-11I y, ITS ASSIGNEES, SUCCESSORS AND
LESSEES THE RIGHT, POT. -MI AA:D PRIVILEGE OF LOCATING, DUILDI-TG, ERECTING, CO1dST1iJCTING AND PROPERLY
MAINTAINING ONE RAILROAD INDUSTRY TRACK, AND TO OPERATE ENGINES, CARS AND TRAINS THEREoy, UPON,
OVE: AND ACROSS Load STREET IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS.
6-14-390-$84 Motion by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Forrest, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize the City
Engineering Department to prepare.plans and spe6ifications and advertise for bids on furnishing of
four water pumps and Piotors for water wells 99, 107, 108, and 109 in the Shallowater ?later Well
Field. Estimated cost of this project including engineering is 39,600.00, payment hereby authorized
to be made fron-. the cater Bond Funds.
6-14-390-885 Motion by Commissioner Forrest, seconded 'oy Commissioner Baker, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize the City
Engineerin:; Department to prepare plans and specifications for construction of quaker Avenue Storm
sewer. Estimated cost of said project is 4170,000.00, payment for said construction hereby
authorized to be made from Storm Sewer Bond Funds. Installation of said storm sewer to be made by
City Forces. This storm. sewer to extend from 39th to 28th Street.
6-14-390-886 Motion by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Forrest, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize the following
expenditures to be made from the Water Bond Funds to complete V.-e development of City of Lubbock
water wells Nos. 99, 107, 108 and 109;
1. Approximately vv24,000 for the naterials and installations of well collector lines. I..aterials
are to be purchased on purchase order and installation is to be done by City Forces.
2. Approximately U600 for the purchase and erection of four metal well houses.
3. Approximately W00 to connect the pump to the water collection system and to connect the
motors to the electric syster,.. ;fork to be done by City rorces.
-14-390-886A Motion by Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Baker, motion carried, Kayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize bites to be
received for purchase of a five yard elevating scraper and a tractor for use by City Departments.
Estimated cost of this equipment - w9,000.00.
-14-390-886B The City Commission considered an analysis of various methods of distributing paving costs for the
purposes of assessment of abutting property in the City of Lubbock and motion was made by
Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, motion carried, Mayor Tripp arid
Commis;ione:-s Baker, Carpenter and Forrest voting Yea, none voting Nay, that Plan .'o. 2 in the
analysi: be ado_-ted for the 1956 paving I.rogram. The analysis of the method is set out below.
See photostat of analysis on pages 390 A 0 E G I
AN ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS METHODS OF
DISTRIBUTING PAVING COSTS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF ABUTTING
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCKJEXAS
Arti-:Ie 1105b of Vernon°s Annotated Civil Statutes of Texas give the
governing body raf any City the authority to assess property for curbp gutter and
paving improvements within the following limitations*,
all Assessments against property or owners thereof abutting on
the highway or portion thereof ordered to be improved cannot
exceed nine -tenths of the estimated cost of such improvements
exclusive of curb and gutter but including intersections
�2) Assessments against abutting property or owners must not ex-,
teed *,he special benefits to the property and the owners thereof;
and, `
(3) The portion of the cost of improvements on each portion of high-
way ordered improved to be assessed against abutting property
and owners thereof shall be apportioned among the parcels :f
abutting property and owners thereof on the Front Foot Plan,
unless the City Commission finds that such plan is inequitable,
It is within the power and discretion of 'the City Commission to make
the detlermiriation as to the special benefits to the property and as to whether
the Front Rule Plan is equitablep and their findings will not be set aside unless
arbitrary ar.,t,ion or fraud is shown.
Seven methods of apportioning paving cost have been considered and
the net resiiits of each of these plans are given on the attached chart. Each of
the plans con8ider that the property owners are assessed for all of the cost of
curb and gutter improvements and for varying percentages of the paving costs.
The tihartp based on 63.5 blocks of the last. City paring projectp shows
for each plan of cost distribution a "thumbnail sketch" (Columns 2 and 3) of the
percentages of participation by the City and Property Owners in four general'
portions of paving exclusive of what is known as nroperty owner q — gag- These
portions are front, pavingp side paving, extra width ':n R.O,W. streets, and street
and alley intersections. The Droperty owner.curb �:2pt which is excluded from
these perient:ages is indicated on the chart as "P.O. Curb" and consists of the
curb and gutter which abuts the entire length of the property footage and for
which the property owner is assessed 100 percent. This cost is excluded from
Columns thru 7 of the chart for purposes of study in regard to the second
statutory :requirement as previously set forth in this report, but the "P.O. Curb"
cost is ino"uded in Columns 8 thru 11 of the chart for purposes of study in regard
to the actual overall cost distribution and total assessment rates.
P'an Number One - Present Policy m Under the present policy of paving
cos* distribuxtion, the City°s participation is limited on non - R.O.W. streets
to 10% of the paging costs exclusive of "P; 0. Curb" on front streets and 40% on
side streets with the cost of the street intersections and/or alley intersections
being distributed to the City and to the property owner in the same manner as the
side and 'r 1*�ft-ont paving of each unit on which said intersection is included.
Each .individual street improvement project is placed in a unit and the property
owners "pa -wing" assessment is determined by dividing the total cost of the unit,
inclusive of intersectionsp less "P. 0. Curb" and less the City°s portion, by the
property owner footage abutting the proposed improvements. Because the units con-
tain varying amounts of alley and street intersections this plan gives a variable
front foot rate and a variable side foot rate for each width of paving as indicated
in columns .7 and 11 of the attached chart. This plan applied to this as
results in the City paying approximately 27o75 percent of the total paving Cost
exclusive of "P. 0. Curb" and approximately 18.9 percent of the total paving
cost inclusives of "P. 0. Curb". These relatively high percentages of City
participation as indicated on the first line of each plan in columns 7 and 11
include the City°s cost of extra width on R.O.W. streets. If no R.O.W. streets
were in the project, the respective percentages would be as indicated in the same
columns on the third line of each plan, 16.31% and 10.55%.
1
This policy was approved by the City Commission first January 25, 1951.
and reaffirmed on Mar:h 26, 1953. In addition to establishing the percentage of
City participation as stated above, the policy also stated that the City would
pay the entire cost of pavement widths on R.O.W. streets in excess of the cost
of fifty-five (551 feet in commercial and industrial zones and/or in access of
thirty (300> feet ?n residential zones. The City participation on R.O.W. streets
in residential zones will be revised in the new paving policy so that the City
will pay for -the cosy: in excess of thirty-six (361) feet.
Plan. Number Two is exactly the same as Plan Number One or the present
plan ex,ept that all of the same width streets are placed together in one group
for es+ab ",01ing the front and side foot rates of paving for each width. This
plan .res, is in the name percentage of City participation as the present plan,
and has the advan age of establishing equal front and side foot rates for equal
width. stree7.s i. aAiy one paving project. It has several disadvantages. For ont,
thing, -the Ci}y saps not participate the same amount in each construO ion area.
Not only 3_s there a danger of it being interpreted that the City does not meet
the sta":ui ory ,re!;uirement for not assessing more than 9/10 of the paving i�ost,
exclusive of "P. 0. ,curb", in a block of paving or in a kcal area of pav_,;.-,
but since -the property assessments are made in favor of the paving Contractor,
there is the danger in some instances that the assessments in a ].orjalized e.°onstruc-
tion area or in a block will exceed the actual oontract costs and the contractor
receive mo--- money than he is entitled. The City°s legal department has stated
that thp.y c o- believe that, this problem (sonfl-icts with the law, that the wntire
project• an be )nsidered as one unito
This brings up another probl.emo What would be the legal stattus of the
assessments when the project is considered as one unit if portions of the project
could not be signed? Such omittal would not as such invalidate the assessments
in other portions of the contract, but it appears that the project would have to
be completed as far as possible and be accepted as a whole and final assessmente
determined on the basis of the total project actually completed in order to be
,gboolutely ,.amain that the final assessments were made entirely in accordance
with the cost distribution policy as set up by this plan. If° the cost distribution
did not have to be rigidly followed on making final assessments and $f statutory
requirements are met, it would be possible to accept each block or local construc-
tion area ascompleted and to turn the properQ,y assessments over to the contractor
upon the completion of each sucsh area, but; the City would have to withhold its
participation until the entire project was completed so that necessary adjustments
between the amount, of work contracted and fare amount of work finally completed
could be made. Please note on the chart in Column 5 on the third line of Plan 2
that the city°s portion of the paving cost less "P. 0. Curb" with extra width of
R.O.W. Streets omitted is still. a very legal 16.31%. It is not likely -that on
the final adjustment that the City°s portion of the paving cost less "P. 0. Curb"
would have to be under the legal requirement of 10% in order to avoid overpayment
-to the contractor. However, it is not absolutely foolproof.
If the protect, as a whole, has to be completed before the final.
assessments are made and turned over to the contractor, the contractor's .loss of
interest on his assessments would be a serious loss and probably would cause a
serious increase in bid prices. 6imilarly, it is expected that merely withholding
the City3s portion of the improvements9 particularly where the extra width on
R.O.W. streets is involved would cause an increase in bid prices.
The following plans Nos. 3, 4, 59 6 and 7 are on a unit by unit basis,
and thus from an administrative standpoint provide the flexibility necessary to
be workable and still provide for equal assessments on the same width streets on any
one project.
Plan Number Three is based on the present City participation of 10% front
paving, 40% side paving and 100% of extra width on R.O. W. streets, plus all of the
cost of street and alley intersections. This plan has no legal nor administrative
drawbacks, but it increases the City°s participation in the paving cost exclusive
of "P. 0. Curb" and including extra width on R.O.W. streets from the present 27.75%
to 39.22%, and it increases the City°s participation in the total project cost from
the present 18.90% to 26.67%.
2
a—:� a 1 rj .-!sga-. and
1� -; - �.
t)u p c.r.) h e. i- r e i/O 57 57% i.,.
pa-vi-ng e w LO. ri 10N. Z C..l
j. Tv ra
ln:-j t,
pi- e r I n h, e 1-p-�7tralll'
.. -�;% C)
r pa g l
r 1 " " I-. r. Y -L C TI, P, on :;.!I t J - -
-J-p� " I - - - t �l �-
St_reE!-1 -. ^- r a
f -F -1 T"y it rl P,
i�
a -a V
oa°:.-', ng
)%
he
e.,x; r,3
COS!. 11,2 1
ll,�r! n g
F a,5 e p
C! c, c; to 0 f pr Oj,.
L !,I!- s to,
t.Z, e ;a Lq Cl LI-L 5
i:) n at, 1. c. E2 w
•
Ia r
& j h s 'nine cer-5 pei
7,
.Cc N xr, b S-r Z, f_t,jp - P zL v s z�zq)t
-th a f ; C'iw' -F
n
LIA
�j 1;
L
t
T t--. P ,red e T
r e S 11 no x -r
t t
r 3 g
0 S -W -c-A
of a r
and
.,I u il r a
L ;,
foot Ar�;—
cr
- L
1 S a woul
-3 PF-
- A povccxLtagea� t1n.js quired vou aLicn 1-a
rid h e - el' o h cl C 1,ty a particlpal(. iorl
r?
it, vo-al.d h,qvt?
0n
!� T�13e,
-
C fft Lr7Ili:.r'% d th. umits, WOU
i.n he C Li ;D
r -U,�
a
f'r� WTI
p,J a I ",a a --.r. Y
�Ft.i ':) , i , I I c
L: n."'A r
Om.
pt:
f n
hl p v-�Su, t S j,
p,j, (.,m, F::;- a C, ty por i c. n f 1'1
2
a
ely
- %v M- C I de f
,
c-.. - ri a Lrn-alj orlit., by wn] t, a.-B. there might be Et rrmnt,hoct i.sing 6ub-a-cp
ii,, ter !3.-mtcA ic),n, :aA x--ra ur
P, ar. 11c, be grouped w4th -tm- t�,�j 11 .11 h. U6
- . I V-- & 0 -- tangular,
i,r -pply t�ie- same ratt,:. C,
, bl*:-k-i ao ,-; the other 1--11---, In e- i., c�i Ol0:,uD
tig
D-�iz03an-t. under LziTt No, 6 uIdlie F,a7ro h.a11cIe
1lg
Plaa No '26
SE:ven.. bc -h qjda qjjli n-c..m, pa.-vi i-llc pri -1 p a b
and T`C,E: PaY,; tje ip_-x!,ra 141t3th rT--
-)r reg�.,
I "or 1 an -
- pro is che 3xile as on lie 3
howeVl' e� t �-re WOUI 0,� p,
r S -e �,,t -."L,:) 1
0 pa-vi ng as Tim s-� s I d a 1:--1 I t rl a -3 1 1. .-� 1 !; -
'L7 r;--�Jn the
-se in the aide r3t
I-.. e c., s --_-n cl a;, is irt the increa
u ..- %.) 1
P z.cot rO Per foat� natu.-ally d c s v
J. J-1
i-�;16 p! au-1 ,S On y
off'E' itY i n,-j a e note th.:'A
L�
hi. pres
m
analysis Of Savp'r.1 P-Laas, of ass - sSm�ii" a&
z3 rj J L,J of .Lass , P-AT, ing pl-,.,l e c- t reve 91 th R f 11. 0 - S
plan with. �'.ac.h tin't c,)mpL:a-e-d az,' hal-VO-z-1-d separa;'�'
The prese .nt. i I -L - I jy
is a wc-rkable, Bimp-Le arran.Lgei-aerit and leg-a".1-Y -5,owna� bui
Z�
in a differe-n-11- rate for each wnit. ot p--:i'v-in9,,
2. The group paving pl,,.,--. of 11,1pping al"',. .11ke uriatshs a6
shown e -),-Li the as P'Lan, Noo '2 p-r*?w-
rate for equal Width streets vith -the remaining
equa..L to the present percentage,. Y.'.3 S plan S -'-.dk;w,-tcrd frcnm an
a-dmA r- e
istrative viewpoirfb az)d woiild add to a dmin s --a-i-1v:oats
and al'sn would caul; a v. lncre-ase '.d -_s due 1--,:. 'n
There s,)Me at,o 4.4!
wfthholldi rig of City-93 cc,-�Sts.
ns 1 0,1 art a- c
PEArtic-ipation being me. in some P:o
3. Plan Nos. 3p .4 and are wor: alble as the-V are J.
t)asis and 'result irt the desllced d "I, h-
st-E-et�s, bact they the City a 1111�i;---,y pc)-- -�t i on -u pa rt i pa-z ic-, ri
a,vreraging 25�6% or the 1 . -S It:Joabt as -6:.
.,ega:*-,. part.ir.i.pation requiremie..nt-s
4. Plan No. 'D is perhaps the most. desirab."— 27:-om LL11
V Lm-it '
whether -I�wo rat -es are emp-10j,red b- ]awl:
whether one rate tort ea 7':h wi d t t-i i s ^(N -3 13.t'
PIUyt,'I.A. V t
unit ba.-sis. The '30 % side particip.a-,ion -i5hoij.1d tD i
25,75% a- indIcated In. the. 'he
L - J.,
City' s t-;ve-ral"11 partiz-i-ipa"i'd-on it,c:."cLasf:'S P.! at,
5. Plan. N-, . '? wo ii! d be M O,r e d e s " L- a b.t e t h -a i i P 'N 6 ex Zz e P
that it would d-ist'.,,--urage the. p-si-ing of S.Lda
,
�,
r-1
�
i
1
O
O
r-i
D
A�
co
ED
s. UA 1
J
G E-L,
c0•
EZi71'
O
•p
I
's �sucpttL�ctl
Cr.
L
C7,
M
�C:G:7
C-^
•r
C'1
lh
1p
U t�
o
M�
N I
H O 0
N
f E-+
`"
1
r,
C
�•
H
��
,u
r:
t•,
C
��
rp
•
i
i L)
!
1
1
r�••
I3
c`
C�
4
ya ox. S
i� 7tdF..L —rid 1'zN1�
ID
�
�!
gGoo IY'4r,.-T,
V
`•
(]
1' 09
,r
4;
\
�
-f
w
OE�
[
1
rti
� �
U
0`
Ml
ND
LC`
C
JI
C;!
j N
Il
- - - - -
�
1
_
'A
tv1.�
••SJ S�
C:7•ci
�
i LJ
�
•�+
<•1
t \
ri
m
CD
w
r�
t\
w
.O
Gl
�;^, L'�
k
r
,i
in
r•n
�
i- i-1
C
•rid.
eF�
��
I'
I
�u0.:ra
l�
_j cr
G7
c
f
El s~
q PT
c
C
gTTC.:,!-
{I
�r
M
G• c•, CO
�
to \�
�i'r•I � M
C''1
M r`,
Ur
'n
ryi
�+
ON,
r-i
to
to
tri.
No
O
r0
,4
ON S)
tO
to to
to
C-
Q
O
N
Lr\
ihl
ti`
'.-
lr
rr r
llw
r;i
v:
O
•D
CT
ri
r-i
N
-i
S
ff
r
ti�
to
4\
ir•
H
` •
a`
r,
i'1
t--
�7
O
M
M
r^
V�
to
w
NO
r,
in
n
i
t
n"\
MI \O
C,-,
C1
crJ u�
ao� L
t-
to
G, Cn
rr
C7, C
t-1
ON
r--1 to
No
ri Cfl'rl
�'J
r-I
w
O in
Lr
w
O 'n
Lr,
w
o
Lr\ !-
N
L,'\ CC-
N
Li \
N' N
1
N CQ
1
N
S
ON No
m
i
i
to
14
--
rN
to
v'
d7
C,
-1
C,!
C\!
1
�l
'
•A i
r-1 CC 1
ri ON
QJ • ri
M
�O
C•:
C'rl tn�
C�\
1 O
r'-
[T
M
O4 to
NO
NJ
4
w
01
N
-1 Ln
N
I
n
NO
rNI
tiJ 1fl
Cr (Y\
r,
CT n,
C•,\
to
'O
C", eC\
.'\
CJ it\
LC\
U, C-
N
n11
N
I
1
N 01
�
t
I
to
No
e•\
M
0
1`JI
—
cq
ND
N
N
N
Mll O�
O
r--I i ri
r"i
to. \+
C•\
r{
+, O
r,
MI C\I
�
•
r • cT
M
ri` to
No
n
r-
tv1
0
(n
to
M
-.O
r• �
M
M
M•
G\
ri
to
ND
w
O
wl
Ln
L\
o
tin
C-1
tr,
N
C11
1
N
i
;.
tf\
Cl)
C,
Cil
G
t•'\
LC\ co
tr
i t\
•
90
•
to
r I
O
r i
— f
1
f'{
!-{
I
-I 1-�-
T{
r+1
1"�
�\i
T'-i
f"-I ri
!•-I
I
— r•'j
r�
—1--'I
C•[
-�
- C�
_ —_
I
c \
C I
T
\D
01
\9
J
ON
NO
tiG G�
10
t0
Ln
to
tr)
v\
W
I
U^,
(n
tT
M
.N
CS
C+
G`
C 1
C:•
N
ri
' N
H
N
ri
H C'1
-i
N
CV
N
f `!
N
N
r 7
S)
c !
O
-0
~!
C
.O
C\t
tJ .x7
([
O
�D
n!
0
.O
c{
M,
(n
-;
M
try
-
M
n
`+
C^. r,
M
P•'1
r-,
C•\
N
:^1
M
pp
C V
I.�
trJ
t•�
•.O
C�\
CJ7
r-i
M
a
r-i
O
.
I
L—
C)
L'\
El
1
NO
H
J
to
• C�\i
M
N
M
N
M
NM
Li
l
=-
No
Cc
M
LC\
II[f
C"l
r--i
L: ` C-: r
0
rl
C''1
Co
�
:v'
r-!
G7
C+\
1
•'
..1
I
ri
C'
i�
C•l
C•1
L'-
- •�
M
C7
r�i
r\
CA
p•
`0
`7
to
C)!
y
:'
-<
CT
10
0
r-i
GIN
to
cY•
NO
in
N
C\7
4-�
M
1i
C�
�
LC\
r
t {
+: �
C'1
L.h
\
N
Lri
r--
Ln
CI
N
i
N
^y
S1
N
\�
L4 F
-
-.
Lf.
N
M
r%
n!
N
•F7 --`jj
.+1, 2)
�ti
-f�"�
?'' ri
-ice �i
i{ •ri
Zi
iMI
LJ •Cj
•rl
r{
r-{
�3
r,�
r-i
`
c•,
r•i
C
c
U
11
C'\
[3••
N
M�
C�
N [r5
Q�
(IlitY\
G:
N
r^
v N
CT
N
:+
C�! r
��
N
N
�
N
-
v
CI.,
Lc\
CT
r, r
U\
M
kn
G`
r^
to
C,
"\ ;
Lr.
No
ro
GN
to
-<
+0 {
to
14)
to
NO
to
4'1
ri
�•
U\
r1
11
1 r`-
LC`•
-i
L'\
r'i
\
rn
-'
L
U\
r-i
^J
:O
tQ
C 1
tiO
LG
N�
J]
co C,
S)
$:,
�0
to
,
tip
r•i
{
r{
t-i
1
r-I
ri
1
r1
r� 1
r-i
r-:
1'1
H
Ir
N
I
G'
J
CJ
C
O
0
CJ
C.
r,
C'
,
u
r�
J
O
Ol
O
-
-
ram—
- --
---
r=
-- -
ID
J
-P
o)
m
i
i'•
H
C:
•r
�
•�
r
ram.
cn
i-�
s:
•-i
CJ
_7
C�
•.)
_
i , -
Fz
c
c
.0
o
REGULAR MEETING
Lubbock, Texas
January 12, 1956
The City Commission of the City of Lubbock, Texas, rivet at 1:30 P. K. in Regular Session, at the
regular meeting place in the City hall, the following members thereof being present to -wit:
Mayor Murrell R. Tripp, Commissioners Lennis Baker, Hurley Carpenter, S. S. Forrest and Lucian
Thomas, City Manager H. P. Clifton, City Attorney Vaughn E. ,1ilson, City Secretary -Treasurer
Lavenia Lowe.
Absent: None
and hearing postponed until Jan 12
56-14.-391-gg7 Hearing on zone case 541-A having been advertised for December 20, 1956,4the hearing was called
at 1:30 P.M. on this date. The following persons appeared for the hearing:
Hugh Anderson
Nat 'Williams
James H. Milam
Doyle Justice
D. J. Thomas
Geo. W. Dupree
Leo Gibson
W. T. Hayden
Mrs. W. T. Hayden
Mrs. Irwin Jarett
Irwin Jarett
Ray Pace
Tom Cherry
K. D. Leftwich
A. M. Leftwich
Wm. 0. McLe od
Mrs. Dewitt Elmore
Nolan Swain Jr.
Yr. Jim Lilam appeared representing hr. Leo Gibson who made the request
stated to the City Commission the various reasons why it was felt by Mr.
should be changed as requested in the notice. 1�x. George Dupree,
appeared and presented the following in connection with the zone change.
FEDERAL HOUSING ADKI':JST.RATION
December 20, 1955
Er. Leo Gibson
Lubbock, Texas
Re: P_onterey Heights
Lubbock, Texas
Dear hr. Gibson:
for zone change, and
Gibson that the zone
Attorney for Mr. Gibson
On Septercber 27, 1955, this Administration agreed to accept applications for -ortgage Insurance on
individual properties in the subject sub -division.
Prior to issuing the sub -division report, a study of the location was completed to determine the
degree of Mortgage risk introduced in a Mortgage transaction because of the location and present
plans for future development of residential dwellings, commercial centers, and traffic systems. The
analysis also considered the possible influence of the Leftwich Development on adjacent projects.
It was determi-
ned that, in our opinion, the development of the project as presented to the Federal
:lousing Administration would have no value destroying influence on residential 1,roperties in
adjacent projects.
Yours very truly,
/s/ James h. Ashby
Director
SUr'G1E1STEJD OUTLINE OF SOIfC POINTS
ON MONTEREY SQUARE, INC. SITE
APPROVAL HEARING
Lubbock is a City of Good Planning
1. This is evident from the wide streets and the major street artery plan, its park system with
locations for future development, its outstanding school system with buildings planned for the future.,
and its utilities and water system projected and being developed based upon future growth, more than
, present needs.
I�
2. with the guidance of the City Council, the local newspaper and the Citizens' Committee, the
voters of the City of Lubbock have overarhelminrl.y recently endorsed through city and counts, elections,
special bond issues for the immediate development of the 50th Street artery, which is definitely a
program designed for the future growth of Lub-ock e-..d not necessary for its present size. This
endorsement of the views of the leaders of the City definitely sets'a pattern of breadth of vision and,
optimism for the continued rapid growth of the City of Lubbock.
3. Lubbock has been recognized throughout the state for its good planning. The State �Iighway
Commission realizing the extent of the development of the City and that its future growth, is paced
and motivated by this broad visionary viewpoint of its leaders and citizens, has endorsed the program
for 50th Street development and has set up the first segment of this road in its program for the
next biennium, which fact partially was based upon the opening of the new Lonterey High School and to
a lesser extent on the representation of its planners that a major regional shopping center would be
located on the site here involved for consideration.
4. The Planning Commission is the duly designated and legally authorized responsible forum -f lead-
ing citizens, established under state statute and city ordinance, with the responsibility to plan for
the City's future development and to specifically determine if a private citizen's use of land would
fit into an overall future development's plan which they have envisioned for the City in keeping with
the will of the people. Such a Planning Commission, with an able staff of technicians and engineers,
has been in great part responsible for Lubbock's orderly development and growth.
Application of Monterey Square, Inc.
The application of Monterey Square, Inc., which is here under consideration for review, is based
on the developer's faith in Lubbock's growth as set by the pattern of the Planning Commission and
expressed by Lubbock's leading citizens in their outlook for the future of this city. The applicant
is a local Texas corpQration, 80% of the stock being owned by local citizens of long standing (the
three Leftwich brothers), and the other 20% being owned by two parties who were brought into the
proposed project by virtue of their known successful experience in developing shopping communities
in Tulsa and,Igichita, Kans. One of these latter parties has now become a citizen of Lubbock and
purchased a home and other real estate in the City in reliance on the encouragemnt received from
prominent local merchants, local bankers and civic leaders who were interested in the projected
major shopping center proposed for this location.
Preliminary studies of the proposed future business center were developed by a national site
planning engineering firm and have been reviewed by major merchants and national store representa-
tives, as well as national planning experts at a preliminary conference held with Community
Builders Council (national Consultative Board on business communities' development) and through a
series of conferences with representatives of Lubbock's city planning staff and engineers.
These r-,reliminary studi -s with modifications suggested by these experts were approved by the city
planning staff and by the Planning Commission in August and September of 1955. Thereafter, the over-
all elan Por the development of K.onterey Heights Subdivision which included this proposed shopping
center site was submitted and received it.s preliminary approval by tkie Planning Commission which
included specific requirements,for utilities and drainage plans which would be required for the
overall development in view of the shopping center proposal incorporated in it. The land was
annexed to the City and a residential subdivision program for the fixst 60 acres adjoining the
shopping center site was submitted in complete detail and approved by the staff and the City Planning
Commission.
The specific proposal of the zoning of this shopping center site was submitted -to the Planning
Commission in accordance with the schedule of presentation required by Planning Commission
regulations. The proposal for t':is zoning has been duly considered by the Ilanning Commission staff
at its preliminary meetings and conferences and by the Commission with public hearings accorded
in accordance with proper requirem?-.nts and after all such considerations, the Planning Commission,
with certain agreed stipulations gave unanimous approval to the zoning request.
PROPOSED =, IO-AL 3USINNESS CO!,2-UN=TY SITE
The size of a projected business community must be determined initially for its expansion and
growth is normally uneconomic and unwise beyond its initial planning. This is particularly true of
a major business community as conceived and planned in keeping with the best experience and expert
viewpoint of today in view of two major factors;
1. A suburban shopping center to serve the needs of a community, must provide abundant,
adequate and convenient off-street parking.
2. The arrangement of the buildings in accordance with a planned pattern depends on the size of
the location, its depth and arrangement of parking and cannot be easily changed at a later date.
Strip building developments with parking in front of them, like narrow public streets,does not allow
for adequate parking, proper flow and control of street and pedestrian traffic, and does not permit
the grouping of the stores in such fashion that convenient parking is available to the greatest
number of stores. This is only possible through development of a business community where the stores
are located in the center of the parking area, so that cars may park conveniently all around the
stores and shoppers can walk a short distance to any store in the center.
3. This concept of a reasonable proposed business community is a long-range project of private
capital which, if determined by market analysis and economic studies Lo be justified, and which would
not be undertaken otherwise (preliminary interest of major local merchants and national concerns
confirris the belief of developers that the proposed project of ti:is size and type in this central
location is in the trend of the growth and in keeping with sound future planning and developers,
therefore, are willing to devote their time and expense to further studies and enjineerin�_ and
planning fees, architects' fees, etc.)
Proposed Center would represent, if fu4 completed in the years to come, an investment of
aprroximately $3 mill -ion in buildings by the developers and several additional million
dollars in fixtures and merchandise by the stores, thus adding materially to the taxable
property which would support the bonds designed -to provide facilities for the future growth
of ttie Cit;,.
This proposed Center would provide a planned business community in keeping with toda;,T's
expert opinion and not yesterday's, and such a communit-r would serve the shopping needs of
11
this section of -the city and of the territory around Lubbock adequately.
A proposed regional business co--rrunity would combine in an integrated plan competitive
merchandising of all the needs of the people in a runner to serve the shop_ ing requirements
of the area conveniently.
Insurance companies and banks, as well as experienced architects and land planners, have
recognized that a large regional integrated shopping center, if planned in accordance with
economic needs and the growth of an area., is representative of the best possicle planning of a
community.
Nearly every progressive community in the United States has interested private capital in the
development of such major centers, either for completion immediately or for the drafting boards
of architects for future development. examples may be found at Amarillo, where centers of 20
acres, and even 55 acres, are currently being planned in Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, Tulsa,
Austin, San Antonio, Oklahor.ja City, Wichita, Kans.; such centers are either being located or
being planned for develo_rent. in addition, of course, cities like New York, Washington, Detroit
Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, all have pro.ecL-ed rranmouth suburban business communities
being built or projected on their outskirts.
J
Li
Summary
Failure to approve this proposal would not be in'keeling with modern day thinking of planning
for the future. Inadequate parking or improper location of buildings, cannot be readily changed
later and must be provided for now. Arangement of buildings in a square and with parking all around
provides best possible screening and protection for residential property nearby and for control of
pedestrian and automobile traffic within center, and in addition, allows adequate and convenient
parking, whereas contemplated nearly 80% of land would surround the stores and would be available
f or parking.
Is the city Council, therefore, even loin. to cons=.der repudiating:
1 - The judgment of the City Planning Staff of trained experts;
2 - The Planning Commission, composed of outstanding citizens who are unselfishly devoting
their time as a sounding :-joard for public opinion and who have unanimously passed on
this proposal as beinc; in accordance with the major planning for the future development
of the growth of Lubbock in providing adequate shopping facilities for the Southern area
of Lubbock;
3 - The program approved by the citizens of Lub',ock under Lhe guidance of the Council for
streets, schools and utilities for fixture development of Lubbock;
4 - Is the Council going to say to these applicants that they and the major interested
merchants cannot :'.rivest their capital in this location on a business development planned
in keeping with modern day thinking; for the future convenient and growth of the City of
Lubbock and its citizens;
- Is the City Council going to be motivated by the resistance of'a few residents who are
not objecting to the location of the Center but merely to its size, and who are not
willing to recognize the trend of today's development of business communities as
requiring a different design and plan for parking and location of buildings than that of
yesterday?
Mr. hugh Anderson, Attorney, appeared oppossing the zone change and presented petitions containing
approximately 175 names. The petition oppossing the shopping center reading:
FETITION OPPOSING SHOPPING CENTER
REQUESTED IN CASE I10. 541-A
TO THE HONORAELE ZONIPIG COIYJSSION
of the City of Lubbock, Texas
-�e, the undersigned property owners in the vicinity of the area bounded by 50th Street on the North,
Gary Avenue on the "vilest, 54th Street on the South and Elgin Avenue on the East, respectfully express
our opposition to a change of the zoning of such area from a residence zone to a business zone. This
opposition is based on the fact that the request seems "excessive" in area, being almost forty acres,
and the portion lyirig South of 52nd Street "cuts deep" into our residential zone. Other points of
si,Tificant importance are:
A. Creation of traffic lazards and congestion in the area of 50th Street,and interfering with
our children'6 access'to I_onterey High School.
B. Resulting decline in values of our properties in the area since it cuts deep into our
residential section, increasing the ex;osure of our property to commerce.
Mr. Clyde Mote of 53rd and. Canton Avenue appeared at the meeting and stated that he is apposed to
the zone change, that in his opinion a shopping center located between 50th and 54th St. and Elgin
and Gary in the Leftwich Monterey Heights Addition would be a traffic hazed to the residences located
in this area of the City.
Mr. Prat Williams, Superintendent of Lubbock Schools, appeared at the hearing, stating that the School
Officials are not in favor of a shopping ce:iter being located within two blocks of any l:ublic school.
Kr. ;'illiams stated to the Commission that he was representing the School Board at this meeting.
I
Mr. Ray Pace, 4201 45th St. stated to the City Commission that all the resident property owners residing
in this area of the City object to the zone change; that commercial zones in residential areas
create traffic hazards and that Loan Companies particularly H.O.L.C. have stated that they will not
make full loans on property in this area, after four blocks of shopping center is constructed. I•,r. Pace
ask that the Commission, in the event they did grant a zone cue, allow the shopping center to
cover only that property facing on 50th Street.
Irwin Jarett, 2704 54th St., protested the change of zone, stating to the Commission that he had
understood that the policy of the City Commission was to allow shopping centers to be constructed only
at one mile intervals.
No action was taken by the City Commission in regard to the change of zone of case no. 541-A. I
56-14-393-888 Mr. Judd Estep appeared before the City Commission offering to sell his property located at
4322 41 st Street to the City of Lubbock for a con sid erat ion of $14,218, said amount being the
refer to al -praised value of said property. Tir. Estep stated to the City Commission that the City has told him
page 394 for that a portion of his property is located in the proposed quaker Avenue light-ohray and that
letter from only a forty-five foot lot would be left after the City widens Quaker Avenue. After consideration
Lubbock of Mr. Estep's proposal, motion was r:ade by Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Baker,
Real Estate motion carried, Iliayor Tripp and Commissioners Baker, Carpenter, Forrest and Thomas voting Yea, none
Board regard -voting Nay, to authorize purchase of Lot 11 , Block 11 ,Sunset Heights Addition for a
ing this consideration of 414�218- Payment hereby authorized to be made from 1955-56 budgeted Funds,
motion, general appropriated funds.
i-14-394-889 Request was received from Grady West and First Christian Church that a traffic signal light be
installed at avenue X on Broadway. After consideration of this request, motion was r-.ade by
Core-issioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter, motion carried, 4ayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest and Thomas voting Yea, none voting Nay, to REJECT the
request. It being the opinion of the City of Lubbock Traffic Department that a traffic light is not
needed at this location.
i-14-394-890 Motion by Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, motion carried, Yayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter, Forrest and Thoi:!as voting Yea, none voting Ray, Ordinance N'o. 1823
was passed as an emergency measure.
ORDINANCE NO. 1823
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A LOADING ZONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 18TH STREET, B_ EGI'?KIII G 66 FEET EAST
OF AVENTUE J, AYD EXTENDING EAST FOR 32FEET; ESTABLISHING A LOAD.PiIG ZONE ON TIE 4ORTH SIDE OF lOTH
STREET, BEGINNING 92 FEET EAST OF TEXAS ATv7A UE AND EXTENDING EAST FOR 20 FEET; REPEALING ALL CON-
FLICTING ORDINANCES; AUTHORIZING PAINTING OF CURBS; AND DECLARING AN EL:]RGENCY.
>-14-394-891 Motion by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Co; y!:issiorier Thomas, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter, Forrest and Thomas voting Yea, none voting Nay, to grant the
request of Edna G. Dean and authorize the front paving rate of $3.9129304 as assessed in paving unit
No. 1710 against the South 175' of the North 180' of the East 132.5' of the West 457.5' of Tract 2,
Block 2, Witt Acreage Addition to be changed to the side rate of paving at a cost of �f3.1086202.
This property being located on the Southeast corner of the junction of 42nd St. and Detroit. Said
property �_a.s not as yet been platted, and the owner claims that the 42nd Street side of the property
will be used as side property, not front property. Authorization being hereby given for final
estimate of this paving as approved and accepted by the City Commission on 11ovember 10, 1955, to
be changed as follows:
1. Decrease the payment to be made the City by Edna G. Dean in the amount of 1,J06.58.
2. Authorize payment of the City's portion of the increase cost.
3. Authorize payment to Kerr and .Tj_ddleton in the amount S106.58 as additional payment due the
contractrby the City on this paving.
-14-394-892 Motion by Commissioner Baker, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioner Baker, Carpenter, Forrest and Thomas voting Yea, none voting Nay, to approv6 payment
of an additional 5?122.32 to West Texas Construction Co. Inc., this being the City's increased
portion of paving on Elgin Avenue between 42nd and 44th St., unit 'No. 1627. Additional amount due
because of property at this location having been changed from front foot to side rate paving,
authorization having been given by the City Commission for the side rate paving on April 6, 1955•
This paving was accepted by th, City Commission on June 23, 1955.
-14-394-893 Motion by Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, motion carried, ivia.yor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter and Forrest and Thomas voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize
purchase from K. Richardson for a consideration of S2,250, tract 3, Block 14 Alta Vista Acres
(Re- bkvision of Crump Five Acre Tract), this approximate five acres to be included in the K. N.
Clapp area, payment hereby authorized to be made from Park Bond Funds. Authorization being also
hereby given for the City to provide its own abstract and to pay the taxes due on this property for
the year 1955 in the amount of: School tax . . . .-$'146.23
State and County Tax. .�44.63
City Tax. 7.77
5-14-394-894 Aiotion by Commissioner Forrest, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, motion carried; Mayor Tripp and
Commi-- sioners Baker, Carpenter, Forrest and Thomas voting Yea, none voting 1iay, to authorize
settlement of lam suit No. 23238, 72nd District Court, Lubbock County, Texas styled Richard R. Gentry
vs. the City of Lubbock. Authorization being hereby given for pay-ment by the City for -paving laid
on Avenue G from 34th to 35th-Street, which had been assessed against Mr. Gentry in the amount
$858.08 plus accrued interest from August 22, 1953 to date. The remaining portion of paving on Avenue
G from 35th to 36th Street, abutting Mr. Gentry's property will not be assessed against Mr. Gentry
until 120 days have elapsed after dismissal of this law suit. This settlement conditions upon
Mr. Gentry's dedicating for street purposes the .East 25 feet of Avenue G from 34th to 36th Street,
which is the entire side distance along this property. Mr. Gentry is to pay all court costs to date
on this .suit. Authorization being also hereby given for all legal documents to be drafted to complete
this transaction as set out as herein.
>-14-394-895 Motion by Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, motion carried, Mayor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter, Forrest and Thomas voting Yea, none voting Kay, to authorize p
construction of a 450 sq. ft. addition to the existing animal shelter buildings in Southeast
Lub.iock and an additional 800 square foot of animal pens to be constructed to this location. Said J
addition to ]provide for waiting room office and the additional animal pens. Estimated cost is J
-�5,500, plus 10% engineerin; fees and contingencies.
f�
>--14-394-896 plotion by Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Corr�r_issioner Thomas, motion carried, i'layor Tripp and
Commissioners Baker, Carpenter, Forrest and Thomas voting Yea, none voting Nay, to authorize the
1955-56 City Budget to 13 uprlemented in the amount of 45,500.00, from unappropriated funds to cover
construction costs; l engineering fees of the animal shelter additions. Payment for said construction
to be made from account L°o. 19-Y-1.
------- Refer to page 393, item 888 regarding Mr. Judd Estep for notion regarding letter below. i{ -
AP1 RAILSAL
LUB 'OCK !ZEAL ;,STATE i'OA?D
i
October 1, 1955
City of Lubbock
City Hall
City
Gentlemen: Re: Lot 11, Block 11, Sunset Heights Second Addition to the City of Lubbock,
Lubbock County, Texas, located at 41st street and quaker Ave. Judd Estep. E
We submit the following appraisals of the above described property: i
As of today. $14,218.00. After a 15 ft. strip on
west side has been appropriated by the city for widening (quaker Avenue. $12,418.00
The fee for these appraisals tall be 0'17.50.
�I
LUBBOCK REAL ESTATE BOARD
BY: Isl Robert W. :,Jri;ht
Isl Tom Sawyer
Isl A. T. Cocanou�;her
.Ad PR.AISAL CO:-] .ITTEE
NO RJRTHE14 EUSINES" COMING UP FOR CnNSIDERATION, THE CITY COMYlSSION RECESSED
TO I-EET JANUARY 13, 1956 AT 10:30 A.M.
READ AVD AFFROVEn THIS THE 31st DAY OF January 1956.
MURRE fiF
!:
venia Lowe, City Se retary-Treasurer