The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-06-21 Emergency Meeting � �, EMERGENCY AGENDA CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 21 , 1984 AT 7 : 30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCATION: Council Member Jim Glynn City Council to consider City-instigated rezoning Item No. 35 (Parcel 104 , former Box property) , review development plan, and consider a subsequent ordinance, if applicable. III. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS AND/OR DISCUSSION IV. ADJOURNMENT �-� ;�, THIS EMERGENCY AGENDA WAS PREPARED BECAUSE IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NECESSARY TO INSURE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C.S, AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227 , ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING EMERGENCY AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 1984 AT 4 : 30 P.M. City Secretary � .� STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANri' CITY OF GRAPEVINE The City Council of the City of Grapevine, �exas met in Special Session on this the 21st day of June, 1984 at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers, 413 Main Street, with the follawing persons present to-wit: � William D. Tate Mayor Ted R. Ware Mayor Pro Tem Larry Oliver Council Member ,�, Marion Brekken Council Member Ron Dyer Council Member Jim Glynn Council Member Tcan Powers Council Member constituting a quonnn, with the follawing members of the City Staff: James L. Hancock City Manager Bill Eisen Assistant City Manager John F. Boyle, Jr. City Attorney Karen Spann City Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Tate. INVOCATION Council Member Jim Glynn delivered the Invocation. COUNCIL CONSIDERP,TION, CITY-INSTIGATID REZONING PAFtCII� 104, FORNNIE!!2 BOX TRACT '�`�� Mayor Tate announced that the City Council was to consider City-instigated rezoning Item No. 35 (Parcel No. 104, former Box property) , review the owner's proposed development plan, and consider a subsequent ordinance, if applicable. The tract in question is approximately 95 acres in size and is located generally between Mustang Drive and Timberline Drive and east of Oak Creek Estates, with same frontage on Highway 121 South. Mr. Bob Gass, President of the Chasew�od Co�any, current owner of the parcel, re�zested pezmi.ssion to give an extended presentation including slides. The general concensus of the Council agreed to hear this presentation, and Mr. Gass proceeded with a slide program. Included. in this program were pictures of the type of n�nalti-family product that his co�any builds. ��les of unit floor plans were also shawn, and he explained some of the details of a typical develo�nt. Mr. Gass then briefly rboted their requested land plan, reviewing the proposal for multi-family development east of the creek, which runs north and south the length of the property. They also proposed approximately 15 to 20 acres of ccamiercial uses along the north side of the tract, running southeast and fronting on Highway 121 South. The Chase�od Company also requested an "R-MF-1" Multi-Family designation on the west side of the creek to develop a meditIIn density, awner-occupied development. """"' Mr. Frank Graham continued the presentation by shaving slides of the creek area and its surrounding trees and brush. In past discussions, the creek had been considered as a buffer bet�neen land uses. Also presented by Mr. Graham � were slides of housing products currently on the market in the metroplex in a meditun density category. These pictures depicted both attached and detached, awner-occupied housing units. Mr. Gass then addressed density ca.lculations, which had been developed by Public Works Director Jim Baddaker follawing the public hearing on this property. He ccanpared Mr. Baddaker's figures to his own calculations and reviewed the proposals. (See �hibits "A" & "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof.) 06/21/84 Corm�.nts and questions from the City Council follaved. The discussion cen- tered around proposed densities and buffering between land uses. NOZ'E: Assistant City Manager Bill Eisen arrived at the meeting during this discussion. The follawing motion was then offered by Council Member Tom Pvwers and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ware: West of the creek to be zoned "R-7.5" Single-Family Dw�elling District; pro- .*�� viding for a 50-foot structural setback extending fran the centerline of the creek both east and west; East of the creek to be zoned "R-ME'-2" Multi-Family Dwelling District; and praviding for 20 acres of "CC" Co�nmznity Comr�ercial on ,,,�� the east side of the creek. Follawing additional discussion, Council Member Pcxaers and Mayor Pro Tem Ware agreed to amend the motion to include a 100-foot structural setback rather than a 50-foot setback frcgn the centerline of the creek. The m�tion failed by the ensuing vote: Ayes: Ware, Glynn, & Paw�rs Nays: Tate, Oliver, Brekken, & Dyer Additional Council deliberation predaninantly addressed buffering, such as where the buffer should be located, whether or not the creek is an adequa.te buffer between land uses, and whether or not a mediiun density zoning classification sl�uld be utilized as a buffer. Council Member Dyer then offered a motion to zone the property west of the creek "R-7.5" Single-Family Dwelling District; praviding for a 250-foot strip of develo�azt inm�diately east of the creek to be "R-3.5" 'ltu�-Family Dw�lling District; and zoning the remainder of the property east of the creek to "R-MF-2" Multi-Family D�elling District, excluding 20 acres on the east side to be designated "CC" Cc�rn�nity Comnercial. +'"'"''� The motion failed for lack of a second. �� Follawing additional discussion among the Council, Council Member 'Ibm Pawers made a mr�tion to pass an ordinance on first reading to provide for a 150-foot strip i�diately west of the creek to be zoned "R-3.5" 'Itao-Family Dwelling District with the remainder of the property west of the creek "R-7.5" Single-Fami.ly Dwelling District. In addition, there was t�o be designated a 75-foot additional structural setback iimiediately east of the creek, and zoning the land east of the creek "R-ME'-2" Multi-Family Dwelling District with provision for 20 acres of "CC" Canrn�nity Comrercial develo�tient. This motion was made with the condition that the pro�perty owner shall provide docutrents identifying each tract to be zoned prior to final passage of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Council Member Brekken and prevailed by the ensuing vote: Ayes: Ware, Oliver, Brekken, & Pawers Nays: Tate, Dyer, & Glynn ORDIlQANCE NO. 84-50 AN ORDINANCE AN�TDING ORDINANCE NO. 70-10, TFIE COMPREEiII�ISIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE '"'"�" CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME BEING AI.SO ��T(7WN AS APPE[�IDIX "A" OF � CITY CODE OF GRAPEVIlVE, TEXAS, GRANTING A ZONING Q3ANGE �,r� ON A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBID AS BEING A I�OT, TRP�CT, OR PAIZCEL OF I.,Ai�ID LYING AND BEING SIT[JATID IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PART OF THE J. R. SI�PHII�TS SURVEY, ABSTRACT N0. 1490, IN THE CITY OF GRAPE- VINE, TF,XA.S, MORE FUI�LY AND C0�'I�I'ELY DESCRIBID 1N THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; ORDERING A Q�NGE IN THE USE OF SAID PRUPEE�'Y FRONI "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY DWELZING DISTRICT UNDER ORDINAI�TCE NO. 70-10 TO "CC" 2 EXHIBIT "A" TO THE GRAPEVINE CITY COUNCIL MINL]'I`ES OF 6/21/84 Calcul��tions by Jim Baddaker 6-14-84 BOX PROPFRTY RESIDIIVTIAL USE ACREAGES & PRQ]�7CI� UNIT COUNTS Master Plan Designations �, Units Lo�a Density - 68.79 Acres - 275 Medium Density - 27.47 Acres - 302 High Density - 44.34 Acres - 842 Total- 140.6 1,419 units Average Density = 10.09 Units Per Acre The above unit count est�m�ates asstm� 4 units per acre in the low density area, 11 units/Acre in the medium density and 19 units per acre on the high density areas. Actual gross densities after street rightrof-ways could be s�newhat less than this in the t�ro multi-family categories, depending on the street layrout. MediLun Density Area, already zoned is 15.484 acres X 11 = 170 D.U. Single-Family area zoned & preliminary platted = 148 D.U. 318 D.U. Zoned Con�nrercial area in noise zone shows medium density on Master Plan blap = 6.2 acres � Ass�uning the boundary between the Co�t�rcial and Industrial uses and the residential uses is as drawn, 1140 feet south of and parallel to the � airport boundary, Tract 104 (item No. 35) measures 77.9 acres. Density Calculations to meet Master Plan goals of 1419 units on Box Tract 1419 - 318 1101 dwelling units = density of 14.13 D.U./Acre- Tract 104 Area between creek and new arterial location, 27.6 acres - The following unit counts would indicate two possible zoning alternatives which wr�uld meet the densities shown above. 77.9 - 27.6 50.3 Acres (R-ME-2) X 19 = 955 dwelling units 1101 - 955 146 D.U./27.6 = 5.28 D.U./Acre R-5.0 If the airport boundazy is shifted south, an additional 200' , south 9.4 � acres of high density area is eliminated from the calculation: 40.9 Acres R-MF-2 X 19 = 777 units `�,,, 324 units 324 = 11.739 D.U./Acre - R-MF-1 or R-3.75 27.6 EXEIIBIT "B" TO THE GRAPE'�IINE CITY COUNCIL MINUrl�ES OF 6/21/84 Calculations by Bob Gass CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ,�„ BOX PROPERTY Master Plan Acreage Estimates: Low Density 68.79 ac. x 4 = 275 Nedium Density 27.47 ac . x 12 = 330 (302 @ 11 u/ac. ) High Density 44. 34 ac. x 20 = 887 (842 @ 19 u/ac. ) Total 140 + ac. Total 1492 Dwelling Units Proposed Zoning: If assume 40 ac . RMF-2 East of creek: ""�"' Total Dwelling Units 1492 less 40 ac. RMF-� @20 units/ac . 800 � less R 7 .5 West Cheek-Sparger 144 less RMF-1 West of Cheek-Sparger ( @12u/ac) 185 Units available on 35 ac. 363 = 10 .4u/ac . If assume 45 ac RMF-2 East of creek Total dwelling units 1492 less 45 ac RMF-2 @ 20 u/ac 900 less R 7 . 5 West of Cheek-Sparger 144 less RMF-1 West of Cheek-Sparger ( @12u/ac) 185 Units available on 35 ac. 263 = 7 .5u/ac . Reduction from April ' s advertised 95 ac. total of 1900 = 400+ units � �