The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-02-244,IAI k JWN The Planning and Zoning Com ssion of the City of Grapevine, Texas met in a special workshop session, Thursday, February 24, 1983, at 7:00 P.M. in the Conference Room of City Hall, 413 Main Street, with the following Commission members present, to wit: Sharron Spencer Chairman Ron Cook Vice Chairman Harlen Joyce Member Ann Glynn Member Tom Powers Member Klee Hawkins Member Gerald Norman Member constituting a quorum, with no absences and the following City Staff, to wit: J.R. Baddaker Steve Richardson Joy Welch OLD BUSINESS Director of Public Works City Planner Secretary The first item on the Commission's agenda was for members to discuss the City Code relative to reverse frontage lots as requested by the City Manager. Mr. Baddaker addressed the Commission saying that although the City Council had accepted the reconTnendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the Regular Meeting, February 15, 1983, the City Manager had requested that more consideration be given the recommendation. The motion, relative to reverse frontage lots from Commission Vice -Chairman Ron Cook was worded as follows: ... "should adopt all amendments(as set forth in that set of Minutes -2-15-83) except the amendment pertaining to reverse frontage on corner lots which should remain unchanged in the ordinance, and side yard setbacks should not be shown on subdivision plats." The insuing discussion pertained to the possibility of amending the motion to allow a flat 15 foot side yard setback on reverse frontage lots. The general consensus of the Commission was to retain the original recommendation as it was presented to the City Council February 15. The first item of new business for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission was an amendment relative to the thoroughfare plan. The Director of Public Works said that there would be several property owners involved in the City's land acquisition for the thoroughfare extension to align with Dove Road. In speaking with Jerry Brite of the Corp of Engineers relative to crossing Corp property, Mr. Baddaker said that although there should be no problem for the City relative to necessary Corp land for the thoroughfare, it would take time and as long as the City does not disturb parks land or bring fill material in to inhibit drainage in the flood plain area, the Corp should not object. P & Z Minutes 2-24-83 Page 2 Mr. Baddaker further advised that Jessie Woods had been in touch relative to selling property needed for the thoroughfare. He said that he intended for the city to have first option. Mr. Baddaker said that Mr. Langley who owns property where the thoroughfare would connect to Main Street, had also been contacted. The Public Works Director said that he intends to make a package presentation which land would be for sewer plant expansion, a City Shop facility and the land needed for the thoroughfare realignment, all for the City Council's review at the meting of March 15. Following a short discussion, Member Tom Powers made a motion to recommend that the City Council amend the present thoroughfare plan to realign it north of Shadybrook to connect to Dove Road. Gerald Norman seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn, Powers, Hawkins and Norman Nays: None wk- kjannfttl Ago Le k, Ke) I V 1Q 1, F-A%"VV21WWA• The next item for consideration by the Commission was methods for compliance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Richardson outlined several methods commonly used to encourage or insure master plan utilization. (1) A site plan could be required at the time of application and/or for rezoning and reviewed by the City Staff and Planning and Zoning Commission. Currently, in Grapevine, the site plan is not seen until application is made for a building permit. In this manner, it would be possible to determine what would actually be built, not just the intent of the builder. If this requirement were also applicable at the time of public hearing, adjacent property owners would be afforded an opportunity to more accurately picture the proposed project and voice approval or objection at that time. (2) utilization of a grandfather clause; (3) projects not completed within five years, should be phased out. Yet another suggestion from members of the Commission which would encourage utilization of the new zoning ordinance was that more density would be permitted for such compliance. Chairman Spencer remarked that there should be some input from the City Attorney concerning site plans being required to have public hearing. MISCELIAMOUS REPORTS AND/ OR DISCUSSION Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Comparison Relative to 7010 and 82-73 The Commission reviewed the R-1 or R-7.5, Single Fan -Lily checklist, mem- bers questioned if the height of 35' or 2 1-2 stories had been established as final and if required parking spaces were to remain as is. It was determined that the correction had been made. In reviewing the R-2 or R-3.5, Two Family, it was determined that everything was correct. In the R-3 or MF -1, and MF -2, Multiple Family classifications, it was the general consensus of the Commission that maximum density allowed should be twenty units per acre. In determining the density of a tract, no area within the flood plain shall be included. The density requirements would pertain to buildable area only. No parking shall be allowed in the flood plain. There was no discussion of the MH or R -MH, Mobile Home section. In the C-1 or C -N Neighborhood Commercial Districts pros and cons of addressing garbage storage, mechanical equipment storage, landscaping and masonry requirements were discussed with a consensus that these items should be addressed. In regard to the C-2 or C -C, Community Commercial section, there was a discussion pertaining to where to allow veterinary clinics where pets would be kept enclosed overnight. The general consensus of the Commission was to require such a use to be allowed in Ordinance 82-73 under Site -Plan. It was mentioned that P & Z Minutes 24-83 Page 3 mechanical equipment and garbage storage, landscaping and masonry requirements should also be addressed. The I-1 or ML, Light Industrial District was discussed with the general consensus of the commission being to add an outside storage requirement, mechanical and garbage storage and landscaping requirements. Commission members requested that the City Planner determine what percentage of current building is I-1. Discussion of Possible Pro -Rata Fee Increase Mr. Baddaker advised the Commission of possible changes that would be needed for pro -rata charges in the near future. In discussing the situation with the engineering firm of Freese and Nichols, they informed him that if pro rata fees are increased, it would be unlikely to need utility rate increases for the next two years and more projects would be possible without selling bonds. Mr. Baddaker also informed the Planning and Zoning Commission of budget status at the present time. After a short discussion, the Commission's general consensus was to request that Mr. Baddaker formulate the final changes in the Pro -Rata Cost Table to present to the Commission at the meeting of March 15. Technical Review Ccnn-Littee Zoning Case Checklist Mr. Richardson led a review of the newly formulated Technical Review Committee Checklist. The Commission advised that two changes be made in the checklist: (1) The word "proponent" should be changed to"applicant" and (2) there should be a space at the end of the last page for "Staff Comments." After these changes, the general consensus of the Commission was to accept the checklist. There being no further business or further discussion to come before the Commission, at approximately 9:30 P.M., Vice Chairman Cook made the motion to adjourn. Harlen Joyce seconded the motion which prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Spencer, Cook, Joyce, Glynn, Powers, Hawkins and Norman Nays: None Chairman 1WKO