The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPZ 1970-07-23 Minutes . . . CALL OT OIllEtl C OI'!SIDER.ATIOI~ OF l·fINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS 11EET I}JG R OLL CALL 8TllFF PRESEI'JT: ITEr'':;S or~ J\GENDli FOR rìEGULAIi PLi\JJI'·JIIJG ¡\rill 20 IJII'~G I':-ooT II'JG ~ 1lINUTES OF THE I-TEETII'JG Ol~ THE PLAIll'JING j\.}JD ZONII'JG COI',j}TISSIOI,J OF TB~ CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND II ILLS , TEXAS, HELD ./1.T TI-IE CITY H.ALL, 4101 1·iORGA1'J CIRCLE, TIIDRS- DAY, JULY 23, 1970 - 7:30 P.l~·. The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning ConIDission was called to order by Vice Chairman, Dr. Hager lIotion of approval was made by l/lrs. Shaunty, seconded b~l· I-':r. Peters. T-Iotion carried unani- mously. PRESENT: Vice Chairman Secretary Dr. Charles Hager }æs. J.W. Shaunty II.F. Peters Louis E. Rinn A BSEI\JT : Chairman, vl/m. l~. Ratcliff C.R. Ballenger, Director of Public 11orks, Betty Terrell, City Clerl-c PZ 70-18 Request of lIre John Barfield to rezone 62.3849 acres frOEl its present classification of tf¡\griculture" to a proposed classification of "IF-7 One Family IÀvellingH. I'lr. Barfield carne forward to present his case to the Cormnission. lIr. Barfield explained to the Commission the location of the property, and pointed out the sur- rounding zoning. I<Ir. Barfield stated that he was the o'tvner of approximately 35 undeveloped lots previously platted and dedicated to the City of Smithfield part of vrhich vlas encompassed in this application in tIle Sunn~7 l·Ieadow .Addition. This addition is partly de- veloped "'lith 110Ines comparable to those asked for in this zoning request. IJr. Barfield stated that the market denland at this tirne 'tvas for 11orf.1es selling for ~)18,OOO.OO or less. He explained that a potential buyer would need to have a net income of $9,000.00 per year to qualify for these. Dr. Hager asked what the monthly payraent would be on these homes. I·,Ir. Barfield stated they would run from ~t;150. 00 to 4;160.00 per D1ontl1. Ì-Irs. Shaunty asked if he was building under the 235 progr~ll. lJr. Barfield stated that tllese hornes would be built a11d finaced under the nor- n1al 203B prograrn, but further stipulated that in very isolated cases one might be sold under the 235 progrron. ~ . 1< r. I5a.rfield then explained tIle difference in the two pro- grams at tIle request of the Commission. tlr. Barfield stated that he would provide homes in llOO square foot bracl-cet, and pointed out trlat he presently l1ad a Building Permit. and presented a plan for a home in the Sunny lIeadow l\ddition. He pointed out that he was not building a sub-standard house, or using a sub-standard lot as the IF-7 classification was provided for by ordinance, and he considered this the highest and best use of this property. Dr. Hager asked if there were those present who 11Ïshed to speak for or against the pro- posed zoning. lJr. tToe 13arnett of 6000 Davis Blvd. came for- ward. lIre Barnett represented hil11self and his father 1vho o~m property witl1in 200 feet of tl1e tract in question. I1r. Parnett ash:ed ITr. Barfield when the title 't'las closed on the property. lIr. Parfield stated approximately ltugust, 1969. ITr. Barnett stated this "tvas not the highest and best use of the property, and that the lots and homes would be sub- standard. He further stated the contiguous property would be depreciated, and sighted other situations in the City of Fort liorth, as well as the ulterior motives of project developers. Dr. JIager asked }Tr. Barnett to confine his remarks to the situation at hand. l'Ir. Rinn asl{ed J..1r. Barnett if he vTould oppose a 11igher classification of zoning. He stated he would not. Dr. l~ger asked if there were others "tvl1o wished to speak. lir. Kermeth hTheatly came forward point- ing out to the Coræmission that the brick construction, two car garages, three bed rooms, central air and heat proposed, vlOD.ld not lend it-self in support of I'eir. Barnett f s statem.ent of sub-standard houses. These homes were in fact to be larger and of a higher type construction than was required by ordi- nance. He pointed out to the Commission the national trend and presented the Conwåssion with copies of a news week article relating to this t~.rpe of zoning. 1-Irs. Shaunty asked if IF-9 zoning would be con.sidered by rfr. Barfield. He stated he wou.ld accept IF-9 zoning if he could place 1100 square foot house on the lot, or he would accept IF-7 zoning and guarantee an llOO square foot house. After discussion the Commission said they could not do this. I-irs. Shaunty asked the difference in densit:y bet"Vleen IF-7 and IF-9. lIr. Bar- field's Engineer stated approximately 15%. Ì'Jr. Peters asked the difference in lot sizes. IJr. Ballenger informed the Com~ássion that IF-7 required 60 foot width; and IF-9 re- quired 70 foot vridth. Âfter due deliberation and on a motion oJ' I·Ir. Petercj, seconded by lIrs. Shaunty the Commission 'voted 3-0 to recommend denial with Dr. Hager abstaining. ÌvIr. Parfield then asked the Comrxission to please state their reason for denial. lIre Peters stated that population and density was the reason for his motion of denial. This was agreed to b:r t11e other members of the COnIDlission. . . PZ 70-19 Request of lIr. Dock Dutton to rezone 0.446 acres out of the TI.E. Odell Addition from its present classification of IF-9 One Fann1y Dwelling to a proposed classification of Com- raercial. }Ir. Don Prator, J~ttorney came forward to represent IT. Dutton in his zoning request. lTr. Prator presented to the Cow~ission a petition signed by property o~mers with- in the 200 feet or invfiediate proximity of the property in . . PS 70-7 . ~ question, stating they had no objection to Lots 27 and 28, Block 2, being zoned COl111ilercial. l:,Jr. Prator pointed out tllat this 'vas in fact zoning in reverse, in as much as lTIOst of the land fronting Davis Blvd. was either zoned Con~ercial or being used non-conforming for COITmercial purpose. fIe stated this information had been secured frOIn Cit:y Jlttorney, I"~r. Dennis liorrovT. l:Tr. Dutton has o'tmed one lot since 1955, one lot for approximately five years, and has operated a garage on this location for that length of t~ne. He considered this the highest and best use of the land and wished to obtain perrnanent zoning so that he might do extensive improvements to the propertJr. lIre Prator point- ed out t11at T'~·r. Dutton l1ad purchased at great expense material to accomplish the improvements and this material was on the property ready to be used pending the outcome of this zoning and obtair~ng a Building Perm1t. Dr. Hager questioned the small triangular tract sho'tvn on the plat. It was pointed out this was owned by the Texas State High- way Department, and was not a part of this request, but lire Dutton had permission for its use. l'c:r. Dutton proposed to pave the parking area, improve the garage building, in- stall a screening fence, and generally improve the property. }'·ir. Peters asl\:ed if I,iI'. Dutton vias aware that COrmTlercial zoning would not allo1v a 'Wreclcing yard. lire Dutton stated that it 1vas not l1is intent to operate a vlrecking yard, that 11e had disposed of several old vellicles that had been park- ed on the premises, and that any parts removed from the re- maining cars would be used as replacement parts for his garage operations. Dr. Hager asked if there were those present ~Tis11ing to· speal\: in favor of this zonLl1g. IIr. D.C. i1.11en of 8217 Odell carne forward, stated l'lr. Dutton l1ad operated this garage for 12 or 15 years, used it to Inal(e his living, and stated he felt that },w. Dutton should be allo,^,ed to do so. lIre Dave Roden o1ring Lot 30, Block 2, on Odell Street stated he ""vas in favor of the zoning. lire Billy Bob Allen ovming property at 2225 Odell Street stated that he 1vas in favor of the zoning, and tllat Ì"Ir. Dutton should be allo'Vled to continue Ilis operation. ÌcIr. Ballenger advised the Comnrissiol1 that 1-Irs. Jester owning property across Davis Blvd. from the tract had called stating they vlere in favor of the proposed zoning change. lIre Allen stated he was speaking for the other ovmers of property notified in this case, and pointed out they were all present in the audiance. Dr. I-Iager complimented lIr. Dutton for the cooperation of~ Ìlis neighbors. llfter due consider- ation, I'·Ir. Peters made a motion to make the petition a part of the record, second vlas made by }'Ir. Ilinn. I-lotion carried unaI1.imousl;l. On a nlotion by 1-Ir. Peters, seconded by lIrS. Shaunt~T the Cornrnission unanÌ1110usly voted to re,com- rrrend approval of this case. Request to replat Block 42, llichland Terrace l-lddition. lire C.rerald A. Curtis Caine forward to present the case to the COITLrrission. lIre Curtis stated tl1at the purpose for replatting was to dedicate Cloyce Drive, Short Street, and to further idenfy the property. The installation of Short Street and the drainage 1'lould be accomplished . . . PS 70-8 o ill BUS I1JESS \" ) .ADJOlfRJJI-IENT .flh ^ - r-) ~OÆ<-~ ~ . ~ prior to obtainL~g building PerDits. Letters from all utility companies approving the replatting were noted. A t1~ year I~intenance bond from the date of completion of Clo:lce Dri ",,,re 11as ~Jeen furnished the City, and vias so con.firrned b¿T lIr. IJallenger. lifter due deliberation motion of approval ~ras made by lIrs. Shaunt~r, seconded by l-.ir. RL.'tJIl. l;-otion carried unanirJously. Itevievl of Prelin1ina~l Plat n,odnlan-Farrell Inc. tIre Balle11ger ED:plained to t11e Commission that the Preli-rrrinar3T Plat \!ra.s received after the agenda 11ad been prepared. lIr. Pearl Starnes~ consulting engineer carne forvmrd represent- ing the o-vmers. lIe suggested to tÌle Commission that they accept tlle plat as a Prel:iJ1ri.nar3T. lIr. Peters questioned the R.O.11. easement for 30 feet of street on the East side of the propert:y rwming I.Jortll and South. lIr. I3allenger advised the Com~ssion that he had been in con.ference \iÏth the City Engineers tl1is date regarding said easeJl1ent. He suggested to the Comnission that this plat be tabled to allo't'l a conference betvteen tl1ese propert¿t o'tmers and propert~r o'tmers to tlle !Jorth and SOUtJl in conjuction ,vi t11 the City Engineer and hi~self to discuss the routing and R. o. VI. requirements regarding this road. i,lotion to table vias .made by ]\Ir. Peters, seconded b:r lIrs. Shaunty. l~otion carried unanimously. None J<otion to adjourn 't1as lnade b:)T l-:~r. Peters, seconded by I:~r. Rinn. LIotion carried unanirnouslJT. l~eeti.11.g adjourned 9: 20 p .I~. Jul:l 23, 1970. ~-' . . . ¿tZA:~ "¡'Ä,,.F~/ iT e ChalrJJan {-