04/13/1989, Public Hearing Meeting Minutes1608
Kennedale City Council
Public Hearing - April 13, 1989
Community Center
Mayor Steve Radakovich called the public hearing to order at 7:40 p.m.
Members present were Steve Radakovich, Bill Abbott, Pete Kirkpatrick,
Jerry Mitchell, John Mallory and Mark Wright.
Mr. Buddy Helm gave the invocation.
The purpose of the public hearing is to receive citizens comments regarding
a Master Land Use Plan and Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Kennedale.
Ted Rowe informed Council that twenty-six (26) out of fifty (50) question-
naires were returned that addressed whether or not to include the Little
School Road area as commercial. Fifteen (15) citizens supported commercial
property and eleven (11) citizens opposed additional commercial property.
The following persons spoke at the public hearing:
Maurice Schwanke, a Land Use Planning Consultant of Arlington represented
some land owners on Little School Road. He said that Little School Road
will be the hearbeat of the city in the future, that's where retail should
be, small cities loose commercial businesses to larger cities, import/
export businesses are serviced by Arlington, and Kennedale will be loosing
tax revenue. If the area is designated residential, weeds and broken down
wooden fences would back up to the thoroughfare.
Bill Taylor, 106 Oak Ridge Trail, was against the commercial designation
and said that two much commercial real estate is not useable and the
property would be left vacant.
Charles Robeson, 105 Meadowlake Court, pointed out that the city purchased
property in the old town to keep the businesses in that area. He stressed
that Kennedale could not compete with Arlington and he mentioned the number
of bankruptcies by commercial builders.
Ron Kovach, 816 Shady Creek, reminded Council that an independant land
planner was hired for his professional opinion which was residential zoning
and suggested Council accept to his advice. Some commercial should be
allowed on Little School Road, but not the whole strip.
Lyle Brumley, 813 Shady Creek, wanted to know what percent of people surveyed
lived on Little School Road.
L
1609
Public Hearing - April 13, 1989, Cont.
Irene McDavid, 909 N. Little School Road, stated that they (property owners)
were just trying to rezone the first 500 feet and not bother anyone elses
property. She said that banks would not make a loan on the property because
they saw it as commercial.
Tan Boone, 908 N. Little School Road, reported that he had been a resident
for fifteen years and his property was not for sale now or in the near
future. He summarized how the Master Plan was started. He was in favor
of the camlercial use for the following reasons: 1) the need to increase
the tax base, 2) zoning ordin~.inces can protect the area to be developed
the way we would like to see it, 3) cannot sell their homes as residential,
4) sane of the property has been determined agriculture and is not generating
any tax revenue, 5) it keeps down residential property taxes, 6) it is
dangerous for homeowners to enter and leave their homes, 7) people cannot
sell their hares. To conclude Boone's carments, he stated that he wished
the Little School Road residents and Shady Creek residents could reach an
agreement on the land use.
Craig Campbell, 710 Shady Creek, said to listen to the person that was hired
and he doesn't want any duplexes to back up to his property.
Judy Corbeille, 810 Shady Creek, (Secretary of Shady Creek Haneowners Assn.),
invited Tom Boone and Little School Road residents to their May 2, 1989
meeting to discuss the land use plan for Little School Road.
Ted Rowe pointed out that the proposed Alta Mesa Thoroughfare traffic was
diverted through Kennedale to enhance the area as commercial. On the other
hand, if the area isn't going to be commercial, the traffic should be
funneled to another area outside of town.
Mike Monroe of Eddie Cheatham & Associates read extracts from planning texts
from "Citizen's Guide to Zoning" Stripping May Pay Off Some Place - But Not
In Zoning An easy trap in which to fall in first adopting zoning or even in
ordinance amendment is the one frequently set by property owners along
highways or major traffic arteries. The bait is the philosophy that no use
other than commercial is suitable for land along the sides of such roadways.
The result, if those involved became convinced of this, is miles and miles
of strip commercial zoning, 200 feet or so deep, on both sides. This is the
personification of the exploitation of a public investment for private gain
and has been one of the greatest contributors to poor zoning over the years.
The highway, street, or road came about because of a public need for the
movement of people and goods, was built by public money, and any value for
profiting from utilization of land for any purpose came as a result of that
public investment. That investment should be preserved and protected, if
not by access control, by the exertion of the community interest in the
public expression of what uses may occur and how development will take place.
1610
Public Hearing - April 13, 1989, Cont.
Far too little use has been made in our planning and zoning of the service
road concept or the reverse frontage idea of residential development as a
means of combating commercial strip zoning. Just because apiece of land
abuts a traffic artery does not give that owner the inalienable right to
exploit the existence of a public facility.
Succumbing to the plaint of real estate developers that "the highest and best
use" (meaning the use that can return the greatest profit for the owner at
the expense of the public is best) can lead only to proven woes in urban
development. Invariably, the first will be extensive overzoning for business
use. A surplus of commercially zoned land leads to speculation, hodgepodge
development, and ultimate deterioration. Landowners with residential property
will be hesitant to invest in upkeep, preferring to wait for the pockets-full-
of-money cannercial developer sure to cane their way some day! As lack of
maintenance and rehabilitation continues, character and values decline,
resulting in a further subsidy fran the general comrnznity being necessitated
in order to overcame the loss in the tax base.
From "Guide to Urban Planning in Texas Communities" Strip Zoning Strip
zoning is similar to spot zoning, except it refers to the elongation of a
use district along traffic arterials. It results bestowal of special benefits
to property owners to the detriment of other property owners. Non-residential
strip zoning is partly due to the mistaken belief that all lots on main
thoroughfares are potential.business sites. It also contributes to over-
zoning for business in the entire city. Over-zoning is unwise because it
leads to excessive land speculation, excessive public expenditures for improve-
ments, loss of tax revenue on unimproved property and tax delinquencies.
Ribbon commercial zoning is not an efficient way to promote business.
The existence of many curb cuts tends to interrupt traffic flow, and also
to result in more accidents. In many areas there is not nearly enough need
for commercial space to fill up all the space on such highways. When such
frontage is fully developed for commercial use, it tends to be appallingly
messy and ugly, in a different way. Moreover, where there is insufficient
demand for commercial space, the policy often results in substantial wastage
of land.
Monroe said the existing retail and carmercial area in the city is currently
65 acres developed property. The area that was originally suggested, not
the entire corridor, but taking in some of the existing zoning down by Sublett
Road would add about 48 acres, and based on the current rates of growth,
would be a 12 year supply of additional commercial in this city without
counting any of the vacant commercial that is along Hwy. 287 whether it
exists in any other place in the City.
i~
1611
Public Hearing - April 13, 1989, Cont.
If the commercial use is expanded in the whole corridor of Little School
Road it would add approximately 100 acres and would have nearly a 24 year
supply of vacant commercial land along the Little School Road corridor.
This would create a severe over supply problem in the area. Monroe
recommended limiting commercial along that corridor to the major inter-
sections.
Ted Rowe said that Kennedale by law is not allowed to have tax abatement.
Kennedale is a general law city and that is a right reserved for home rule
cities.
Bill Abbott said the city zoning ordinances need to be recodified. Jerry
Mitchell mentioned the need to widen Little School Road.
Motion was made by Jerry Mitchell, seconded by Bill Abbott, to adjourn
the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPRO D:
~~~
yor Steve Radakovich
ATTEST:
v
City ecretary
I
~~__J