Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dallas County planning panel approves rezoning to allow nine 3‑acre estate lots despite staff recommendation
Summary
The Dallas County Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3-1 June 16 to rezone a 37.5-acre Walnut Township parcel to allow nine suburban‑estate lots, after staff recommended denial because most of the site is designated farmland preservation in the county Comprehensive Plan.
The Dallas County Planning & Zoning Commission approved a petition June 16 to rezone 37.5 acres in Walnut Township from A‑1 (Agricultural) to RE‑1 (Suburban Estate) to allow nine residential lots averaging about 3 acres.
Staff member Larson told the commission the office does not recommend approval because 35 of the 37.5 acres are designated farmland preservation in the Comprehensive Plan, the request is inconsistent with surrounding agricultural land and the project conflicts with the plan's goals; Larson also said floodplain soils on the site will need to be balanced. The commission heard the staff report before public testimony and debate.
Developer Ben Schulte of Schulte Alliance LLC and engineer Tyler Tuttle of Bishop Engineering described the proposal as "estate‑type" living intended to provide larger lots close to city amenities and to act as a buffer between the city and agricultural land. Tuttle and Schulte said Waukee and Grimes had communicated support and that Urbandale provided a list of requirements should annexation occur.
Neighbors Al and Kelly Lorenzen, who own a 22‑acre horse range immediately north of the site, spoke in favor of larger lots and said a low‑density residential subdivision would be more compatible with the area than a future high‑density subdivision.
During commission discussion, member Miller asked whether roads would be paved; Schulte said the nine‑lot subdivision would include a hard surface. Member Taylor voiced concern about setting a precedent given the Comprehensive Plan update is underway; chair Michael Hegarty and staff Larson responded that proposals are reviewed on a case‑by‑case basis.
Member Steigleder made a motion to deny the rezoning, but the motion was not seconded. Member Miller then moved to approve the rezoning; Member Taylor seconded. The motion carried 3‑1. Recorded votes were Miller, Taylor and Chair Hegarty in favor; Steigleder opposed.
Next steps identified at the meeting included technical requirements to address floodplain soils and any conditions the county may impose during final platting; the commission did not set an effective date during the hearing.
