Loading...
09.24.1992 PZ MinutesPage 391 MINUTES OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 24 1992 - 7:30 PM. COMMUNITY CENTER Vice- Chairperson, Roger Hurlbut called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Members present were Bill Cromer, Chuck Gray, Cliff Hallmark and Roger Hurlbut. Janna Brimer arrived at 8:00 PM. Members absent were Glynn Cavasos. Staff in attendance were Ted Rowe and Kathy Turner. ITEM NO. 1 - Approval of Minutes dated June 18, and July 23, 1992. Bill Cromer moved to approve the minutes of June 18, and July 23, 1992 as submitted, second by Chuck Gray. Motion carried. ITEM N0. 2 - Consideration of Preliminary Plat - Burns Addition. Kimberli Burns was present and stated she was in the process of purchasing the property behind her in order to build a storage building on. Ms. Burns said it would be for residential use to store a boat, antique cars, and odds and ends. She presently pays for storage and feels it is useless if they can build something permanently at their home. Chuck Gray asked where the line was that demarked what the Burns' already owned and what they were purchasing. Ms. Burns stated that their property ends at the iron pipe on the north property line. Roger Hurlbut addressed the easements that surrounded the property. He suggested the utility easements be labeled consistent throughout the plat, and distinguish if the easements are existing or not. Bill Cromer made a motion to accept the Preliminary Plat of Burns Addition. The motion was amended by Roger Hurlbut to include the following stipulations: (1) An appropriate written legal description with proper ownership volume and page, and required dedication statements need to be added to the plat, and (2) Since the building is encroaching across the building line and is existing, we suggest a variance be granted if deemed necessary and (3) Show P.O.B. on plat and note acreage on drawing and in legal description, and (4) Note width on R.O.W. dedication on plat, and (5) Utility easements need to be described as existing or not, and spelled consistently throughout the plat. The amended motion was seconded by Cliff Hallmark. Motion carried unanimously. ITEM N0. 3 - Consideration of Final Plat Steeplechase Section Three, Requested by Mr. Ralph Shelton. Rusty Di Sciullo with Di Sciullo and Terry, Inc., was present and explained the following easement changes were included on the Plat: Increased easement from 10' to a 15' Drainage and Utility Easements between Lots 23 & 24, Block 1, Added a 15' Drainage and Utility Easement between Lots 3 & 4 and Lots 7 & 8, Block 3. Deleted 15' Drainage and Utility Easements between Lots 13 & 14, Block 2, and Lots 3 & 9, Block 3. Page 392 Roger Hurlbut inquired about the drainage plans. Mr. Rowe replied Cheatham and Associates were in the process of reviewing them. Mr. Di Sciullo stated that a complete set of drainage plans would be submitted to the city council with the final plat. Mr. Di Sciullo also said that they were in the process of upgrading the preliminary plat and it would incorporate all changes that have been made. Janna Brimer noted the acreage total was not accurate, and Mr. Di Sciullo said it would be corrected. Chuck Gray questioned the procedures of submitting a final plat before accepting a corrected preliminary plat. Mr. Rowe said that there were no guidelines in our ordinances that state that it has to be done that way but it was up to the P &Z to request an updated preliminary plat. Roger Hurlbut requested Mr. Di Sciullo to put it in letter form and list the pieces where the preliminary plat had been changed so that when council reviews it, they do not have to study it for a long period. Mr. Di Sciullo said that would be no problem and could have it ready by the next meeting. Roger Hurlbut questioned sidewalks. Mr. Gray stated the problem with sidewalks was that they were not requested for Section One or Two therefore, they would not be required for Section Three. Council requested that the ordinance be rewritten because it did not make any sense. Mr. Hurlbut said that on Section One, P &Z requested that sidewalks be installed and left it to City Council to make the final decision as to who puts in the sidewalks. Mr. Rowe said that when Section One was approved Council voted that the builder was responsible for putting in the sidewalks but that is in violation of our ordinance requiring the developer to install them. Whether or not the developer should be responsible should be resolved; maybe our ordinance should be rewritten and require that the builder should be responsible. Roger Hurlbut pointed out the fact that when P &Z approved Section One, it was requested that sidewalks be installed at the development stage. Mr. Rowe said that was correct but Council made the builder responsible instead of the developer and it didn't work. Mr. Hurlbut then asked if that therefore relieved the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Rowe replied that there could have been ways to make it work but it did not work out. Mr. Hurlbut's final question was has P &Z completely written off all the lots simply because of the glitch in the first section. Mr. Rowe said basically what Council wants is a sidewalk requirement - where are they appropriate and where are they not appropriate? Council felt that this wasn't a problem area and shouldn't have sidewalks. Mr. Hurlbut stated that by having that application glitch in the first section, the city council is now saying the rest of the phase should not have sidewalks. Mr. Rowe said that was only part of it, and that the other part was whether it is appropriate to have sidewalks. Mr. Hurlbut stated that the way the ordinance is written it has to have sidewalks, and if City Council wants to go through the process of amending the ordinance - have they just dropped the ball on that or they waiting on a signal from the P &Z Commission. Mr. Rowe said they are waiting on the rewrite of the whole ordinance. Janna Brimer questioned in the past, if sidewalks were shown on the plats. Rusty Di Sciullo stated that sidewalks are usually on collector streets or thoroughfares, and are not usually required on residential streets. Mr. Di Sciullo said they are not shown on the plans for Kennedale because the city does not have any requirements for them, and he also recommended that the builder be responsible for sidewalks rather than the developer to eliminate the double expense of repairing sidewalks after concrete trucks back over Page 393 them. Mr. Rowe said it was already in our codes and the responsibility was up to the developer. Mr. Di Sciullo said that when they build a collector street which will be on the west side of the creek, then sidewalks would be put in by the builder. Roger Hurlbut's over all decision was that P&Z should make a recommendation to Council to consider sidewalks. Janna Brimer replied sidewalks were addressed in the present codes so why should P&Z make a recommendation to City Council. Bill Cromer made a motion to accept the Final Plat of Steeplechase Section Three as submitted. Janna Brimer amended Mr. Cromer's motion to include the comments from Cheatham and Associates letter dated September 9, 1992 which are: 1. Recommend Glenbrook Drive East-West Section have a different name than the North-South Section to eliminate confusion on house numbers. 2. Plat needs to be sealed by surveyor. 3. This plat does not conform to the preliminary plat we have on file. 4. The preliminary plat we have shows a connection to Joplin Road and also a proposed crossing of the channel. 5. The drainage system will also need to be revised from the original preliminary study. 6. We recommend a -30,'ft.wside-yard be provided on Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 22, Blpck,1' to eliminate the job in building lines. 7. Wren Court appears tobe a' low point cul-de-sac requiring drainage system between lots. 8. The easement between Lot 31 and Lot 32 of Block 1 will need to be a drainage and utility easement. Note - Items 1, p, T and -8 have already been met: Roger Hurlbut amended the second amended motion to include sidewalks. His amended motion died due to a lack of second. Cliff Hallmark seconded the original motion by Bill Cromer to include the amending motion by Janna Brimer. Janna Brimer, Bill Cromer, Chuck Gray and Cliff Hallmark voted aye. Roger Hurlbut abstained. Motion carried. P&Z also requested Mr. Di Sciullo to update the Preliminary Plat and have it ready for submission along with the final plat. ITEM NO. 4 - Briefing by Governmental Service Agency, Inc. on the Re-write of the Zoning Ordinances. Kirk Franklin with GSA, Inc. was present and presented P&Z with a tentative schedule for preparation of Kennedale's Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Mr. Franklin stated that they, have been gathering surrounding cities zoning ordinances and understanding what Kennedale is abutting up to, and what Kennedale is doing at this time. Mr. Franklin showed P&Z an aerial map showing the surrounding cities with the different zoning categories highlighted on it. GSA reviewed the Master Land Use Plan and stated there shouldn't be any conflicts with the surrounding cities. Mr. Franklin discussed the residential districts in Kennedale and surrounding cities. Kennedale has three districts as to Arlington, Fort Worth and Forest Hill who has eight or more districts. Mr. Franklin said they were going to work and try to present a few samples on the residential districts by the next meeting. He also presented a survey that will go out to businesses and citizens throughout Kennedale. Page 394 Chuck Gray replied after reviewing the tentative schedule he was concerned that the tentative schedule shows project completion two months late to the contract schedule and the tentative schedule did not include all of the milestones shown in the contract. He asked if GSA could provide a better schedule. Janna Brimer questioned if GSA, Inc. would have all their information ready by January in order for P&Z to hold their public hearings. Mr. Franklin replied that it would be ready at that time. Roger Hurlbut suggested adding developers to the list, real estate brokers, school board members, and senior citizens. Mr. Hurlbut then asked in what type of form would this come back to P&Z. Mr. Franklin replied that it will come back in letter form. Kirk Franklin advised that he would meet again with P&Z on their October 15th meeting and have the proposed residential districts and discuss the commercial, industrial and special purpose districts and discuss the questionnaire results. ITEM NO. 5 - Discussion of P&Z Interfacing with City Council on Budget WorkiSessions., Ted Rowe reported that P&Z did interface because the emphasis P&Z put in for code enforcement, Council discussed in part of their goal process. Chuck Gray stated that they have a long way to go. We may have a half code enforcement officer and animal control officer but the city doesn't have much of a code for them to enforce. The city has to go through a process to get that fixed. Mr. Gray feels that if the P&Z does not set-up a committee or a every month agenda to get themselves prepared, then they will be sitting there next year wondering what they are supposed to be doing to help the city council with the budgeting process. Mr. Gray recommended that P&Z figure some way to plan ahead because as far as he could see P&Z did not do anything for the budget process this year. Roger Hurlbut explained P&Z has never put in any input into the Council's budget and this was the first year they have attempted. Mr. Gray said all he knew was that the ordinance states P&Z is supposed to help so all he did was ask what is he supposed to do. Mr. Hurlbut replied that it was a great idea and that they are a small group and what can be done is form a sub-committee and ask the sub-committee to report back each month as to what they are accomplishing and ways of recommendations to next year's budget. Bill Cromer questioned when Council starts working on the budget. Mr. Rowe replied that Council is fixing to start working on the five year budget plan by updating it every two months. Mr. Gray said we can't do anything in a vacuum. If P&Z is going to have an input they have to be a part of the process. P&Z needs some mechanism so they can communicate effectively between P&Z and City Council during that process. Mr. Gray stated in order to be effective they need to know what, Council's goals are because they have to work within those goals. If P&Z has a strong feeling about additional goals then P&Z needs to figure out how to communicate those recommendations to,,Zouncil., Mr. Gray stated that he felt City Council did not want P&Z attending the Council work session because they have never done it before and he feels this is because of a lack of communication. Ted Rowe stated thathq-woUld,make,sure P&Z received a, copy, of the Council's goals. Page 395 Boger Hurlbut replied that P&3 had discussed this within the lest year and one solution was to have a P&Z Commissioner at the Council meetings so that they could report back to P&Z each month. Chuck Gray stressed. that P&Z should think about this and schedule it for next month's agenda and try and figure out how to put something together. Chuck Gray and Roger Hurlbut volunteered to attend the October 8th Council meeting. They will decide between the two of them which one will attend. ITEM NO. 6 - General Discussion. There was no general discussion. Cliff Hallmark made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 PM. Second by Bill Cromer. Motion carried. APPROVED: ��� ^*^=u°vv^^==`, � /, /992 ATTEST: Planning Zoning Secretary / / Roger Hurlbut Vice Chairperson