Pleas to Get This Right Put Aldermen in the Spotlight
By Pauline Masson –
A proposed plan to develop a new industrial park on the Barb Alt property off South Denton Road has triggered a four-way discussion that could impact the future of planning and zoning in the city.
The property owner, the developer, neighboring property owners and the City all have vested interests, questions and concerns about the future of this 48-acre piece of farm land.
The big question here is can the interests of all four entities merge or meld together in a way that serves the city at large and future city planning.
For the neighbors, who are striving to slow the progress of changing the zoning for the property, concerns focus on increased truck traffic into the proposed industrial park and Pacific’s oldest nemesis – storm water runoff.
According to comments reported in minutes of June, July and August city meetings, the city wants what would be a new industrial park, neighboring property owners want specific plans in place to control truck traffic and water run off at the site before the property is rezoned and aldermen want to know more about the impact of carving up the crop land but are at loggerheads over engineered traffic study – opting to let staff do it.
At the June 28 P&Z meeting Dan Conway, Conway Contracting submitted an application for the property to be rezoned from agricultural non urban (NU) to M1 light industrial. Conway wants to develop an industrial park at this location east of Hwy N and north of Industrial Drive..
Conway plans to develop ten individual lots ranging in size from approximately 3 to approximately 4.75 acres in size with one 6 acre lot – and several water detention basins.
Conway said the proposed use would be office warehouse buildings with outside storage that fits the M-1 Industrial zoning.
Owners of the 48-acre parcel, which include Barbara Alt, John Timothy Alt, Diana Kathleen and Phillip Bradley Alt, wish to sell the parcel.
The city staff recommended approval of the rezoning June 28 saying the city has a clear need for additional industrial development.
But when the application came before aldermen July 5, neighboring property owners protested rezoning the property before a traffic study and water plan are conducted.
City Administrator Steve Roth said the issue was rezoning only and had nothing to do with a subdivision plan or development plans. He said the city would “encourage,” the developer to provide a traffic study ahead of city action on development plans.
“At this stage, it is not necessary,” Roth said.
Resident Mary Dorsey disagreed. She said she read Section 400.140 of the Zoning Code, which says the Board has a duty as elected officials to manage the zoning and development process that reasonably protects the interest of the surrounding property owners.
Resident Collin Kennedy also had concerns about separating rezoning from future development plans.
“Administrator Roth speaks to just the rezoning. We opposed this because we feel like once it is rezoned anything can happen.” Water is his biggest fear, Kennedy said.
Developer Conway said the conceptual plan for the industrial park includes putting in approximately five detention basins and follows the city’s current standards and codes.
“We are capturing the water, which is not happening now. There is a chance this development will improve the condition,” Conway said.
Meadows was not convinced. He questioned what will happen when the natural water flow is destroyed, saying water will back flow to his property, the property to the south, and then to Westlake. Any water they don’t account for will go to someone else’s property.
Anna Meadows also protested the request to push through rezoning without a valid storm water plan.
“The idea that this can be taken care of on the back end is a bit naive,” Meadows added. “ The developers have a way of not subdividing or doing things that fall within zoning that don’t require public hearings. This is the time to look at it hard and determine what needs to happen.”
At the July 17 board meeting Alderman Scott Lesh asked the city attorney for clarification of whether neighboring property owners fears could be realized. He asked whether once rezoning is approved if the developer could just go to the zoning and administration officer for approval of a plan. Attorney Bob Jones stated it is possible – that it could happen.
“If a permitted use is presented, no further zoning approval would be needed,” Jones said.
Alderman James Cleeve told speakers that he had once been in their shoes, protesting city action, and he wanted to assure them that he was listening carefully to their concerns. He made a strong push for a thorough traffic study showing what is there now and what will be generated by new industrial development but was unable to push through approval of a traffic study completed by a traffic engineer.
Cleeve said when the issue tabled July 19, the city didn’t have an action plan. He said what needed to be done was to get atraffic study to find out what the impact will be based on what the developer going to do, not what is there now, and definitely look at water runoff.
Roth said if the city wanted to impose a traffic study on the developer, “we can do that,” but in his judgement it was too early for the city to have that discussion.
Roth also said the city could take models that would give a basic understanding of what that impact would be. If the desire was to understand the existing traffic situation absent any new development, the city could do that but he said he was not sure of the purpose.
At the August 16 board meeting, aldermen were unable to come to an agreement on the scope of a traffic study conducted by a traffic engineer. They opted to have the city staff study the traffic.
Cleeve said he wanted to see capacity and what the city would be able to handle. Roth said he could pose that to the traffic engineer
“We have never engaged for a study like that,” Roth said.
The rezoning application was tabled at the July 17 and August 2 meeting and remains tabled at this time.
It’s worth noting that this proposed industrial park offers an opportunity for the city to assist the economy with new industrial development and at the same time protect city streets and neighboring property from damage as a direct result of the new development.
It is left to aldermen to craft studies that prevent trucks heading to the new industrial park from damaging residential city streets and prevent water disturbed by the development from flowing onto neighboring properties.
While the staff and hired engineers can and should provide background information it is the aldermen who are accountable to the people, they make the laws and the onus is on them to get this right.
The cost of an engineered traffic study and delay while a storm water plan is crafted seems not too big a burden for aldermen.
Aldermen have the capacity to regulate this development and will reap the accolades for its success or blame for failure.
No officials or interested parties were interviewed for this post.
my fear is that “it’s only rezoning” will burn the neighbors and the City as has happened in many towns. developers have a knack at slipping things in “because it is allowed’ and then walking away from any consequences of their development.
we need the jobs, the tax dollars and the increase in property evaluations, but the City must remain in control and not be bullied by a developer . if the City can tell me how tall my grass can grow they surely can can make a developer respect the surrounding land owners.
Hi I live on Candlewick and see everyday traffic from the industrial park we have now it’s terrible . We aren’t suppose to see truckers come through here but they do and it’s ridiculous ! All hours of the night and day ! They want to put more industrial parks back here then buy our houses then cause I sure the heck don’t want to see more truckers coming through every day n night ! No one can promise we aren’t going to see trouble with traffic n water till it’s already to late n then we will be on channel 2 news trying to find the developer who is sunbathing in Cancun. Why can’t we just have neighborhoods around the school and put the industrial courts further away where no one is around ? Thank you for letting me speak . 😊
Michelle, where would you put the light industrial park? This location sits between two heavier industrial parks and therefore seems to make sense. Those two industrial parks were there before the residential developments were. Much of the rest of the available land in Pacific is in the flood plain. So where do you think it should go?
Close Candlewick with a gate except for an emergency or flood access. dig new big storm water sew line (not ditch) to drain the whole area south east to the river( feds got lots of money) . build the industry with proper visual, light and sound screening. workers would just have to leave for work a little earlier.