HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Agenda Packets-9/13/2004
city or
l'exas
AGENDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
City Hall Council Chambers - 100 Main Street
Monday, September 13,2004
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Bruce Kelly, Earl Swift, Jeff Byerly,
Dave Dudziak, Luann Edwards, Denis Duffy, Thomas
Dolan
INVOCATION
Commissioner Dolan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Case P-04-034 - Final Plat of Rockrimmon, 12.15 acres located in the 100 block
of West Glade Road
2. Case G-04-020 - Review and discussion of regulations for private streets and
entrance gates
STAFF COMMENTS. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
The following items were received on the last case submittal deadline:
. Zoning change from AG and CC1 to PUD-C on 1.28 acres located at 6405
Colleyville Boulevard
. Zoning change from R40 to PUD-R on 9.91 acres located at 908 W LD
Lockett Road
. Final Plat of Tuscany, 9.56 acres located at 5850 Colleyville Boulevard
. Site Plan and Landscape Plan for Luxor Custom Jewelers, located at 75 Main
Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
Agenda - September 13,2004
Page 1 of2
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS AND REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Posted: Friday, September 10,2004,4:30 p.m.
ca-~d
Clayton Husband AICP
Development Coordinator
Planning and Zoning Commission
Agenda - September 13, 2004
Page 2 0'2
.~
Texas
p~mG&ZONmGCOMMffiMON
AGENDA BRIEFmG
Agenda Date:
Subject:
September 13, 2004
P-04-034 - Final Plat of Rockrimmon, 12.15 acres located in the
100 block of West Glade Road
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
RSD Development is the prospective developer of 12.15 acres of land located on the
north side of Glade Road, across from the Mill Creek subdivision. The developer has
submitted a Final Plat of the property for review and consideration by the City. The plat
contains 13 lots for the construction of new single family residences and several open
space lots.
Zoning. The property is currently zoned R20 Single Family Residential. The proposed
lots meet the requirements of the R20 zoning district. The minimum lot size in the
subdivision is 26,297 square feet, and the average lot size is 29,763 square feet.
Number of Lots. In the R20 zoning district, the Land Development Code restricts the
number of lots on a cui de sac to 12 single family lots. The proposed development
contains 13 single family lots. As part of the approval of the preliminary plat, the City
Council approved a waiver of the number of lots on the cui de sac to allow 13 lots for
this subdivision. A copy of the resolution that approved the plat, Resolution R-04-2378,
is attached.
Gated Community. The owner proposes to make this development a private gated
community. Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code contains requirements for the
development of private gated communities. The street within the subdivision will
become a private lot owned by the homeowners association, which is responsible for
maintenance of the street. The gates will be operated by an automatic opening system.
While the Land Development Code requires a minimum of 20 lots for a private gated
community, the approval of the preliminary plat included a waiver of the number of lots
for this subdivision.
Open Space. Though not required by the R20 zoning district, the plat contains open
space areas along Glade Road, within medians on the private street, and in the
northern portion of the development. The plat provides 36,910 (0.85 acres) square
feet of open space area (7% of the development) for use as landscaping areas and
storm water detention purposes. The homeowner's association is required to maintain
the open space areas and detention ponds.
Agenda Item No.1 - Page 1
Right-of-Way Dedication. Glade Road is classified as a Minor Arterial roadway on the
Master Thoroughfare Plan. The developer is dedicating 20,415 (0.47 acres) square feet
of additional right-of-way along Glade Road. The Master Thoroughfare Plan requires a
total right-of-way of 75 feet for this portion of Glade Road.
Sidewalks and Trails. The developer will construct a 10-foot wide hike and bike trail
along Glade Road as part of the public improvements to this property. Each
homebuilder is required to construct a 4-foot wide sidewalk on each lot as houses are
built within the subdivision.
Perimeter Street Improvement Requirements. Perimeter street improvements are
required for this property since Glade Road does not meet the current roadway
standards of the Land Development Code. The developer is required to construct one-
half of the street or provide an equivalent amount of cash escrow for future
improvement by the City before the issuance of any building permits.
The owner's surveyor has addressed all Development Review Committee comments.
Since this final plat contains more than four lots, this plat also requires the approval of
the City Council. The proposed development appears to satisfy the development
requirements and platting standards contained in the Land Development Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
ATTACHMENTS
· Location map
· Plat
· Development Review Committee Memo
· Applicant Response Letter
· Resolution R-04-2378
Prepared by:
~
Agenda Item No.1 - Page 2
~j-Tl
"\J$~ ,y .
~ -
~ : :---'
-
...... .,. '\.t. ,.,
.
I 1
[C
<
.~
f77
"'""
t
9- 7r--
I
.
,
ill
:.
...--
l.;........... ~
J J.....-.-"~,iF'
~.. \..t.~t~
~
\ -;.l
.-
~
~
E
Location Map
--. "'f 1 I I .\ I I I I
~ 1
\
.....
;
~
11
.
. ,
...
.;;
\ ""......-
~.
;'
I
r'"
i
~n1 II ,_.~I
v....r l:
T r-
I /;-
U '1 "1
'\
""-
-< I-
f I-
vt? ~ ~
1!1t
i,:i
",.lil
IU'
hi
i.,1
III: '
il'i., .~
.1 ,
i'J1. !
"'1 f .
nlJ i i
--- HI' d 1
! H~llii1 .:
~Hhl !
" Ii, ! I,th I I I., " 1 'II" ,11
,! l!llf ' ~i ~ f .I!:i 1 :~ ll~ hi I Hul'l'lft
Ii illl. 1 I! ~ !1!lifll i ~I ,!i Ihl i intl!l!.11
11 ~1!t1 i It 'i i'iUu'\II!1 {II ;:1' ! 11jfliJiUi
I it iOh ! i! II H:iI!!l~ }1 if Iii i: i f~ iiiltl~~:i~
~ III !IH! I ;: t{ !ifIIJfl'I'~t II' ~1 ,11,i !th 111'lf;JllIJI~1
~ .' "I~ 't i;. ,- '1 'ff.1 I I "'I ! (f II Ie,'
f!lldi I! ~I II fllf~ll~fl Ii f f I:: !111 !S ftitls,III:,
· I "HI '!!! II ht : 'II :1 fl, ,'I II', 'II iilll~lf 'I
I it ;im i: ill ;i itJ,HI.! ii, l'lI!li Iii I!! "j :dii!lf~(i
!'ll'lh :1 ill ;1 dlhl'llf ~ :. ~I.J : II ~ dfll~nhll
~ ~tltu: ~ I~ ~ ~~ II th ~i ~H :,11 :lili ~i :m:lut~ f
J It fIll i fi' f I'" fd) I "f) ~J '-;,U 'I I 11 'I1'lf'I.1
! l'l! i! ':1'1:1 i'ISIII1! 1,3 UIIII1III"I:1 f II (! .'I.t rill'
I II I Ii' U" Ii '" IS I " If ~,'I,I I'I I,' i! I- 'Ill 11&. '
I ii ~ ij; iliil)! i~jm:~i~! !,mm!!l. Ii!!, !I Sf h!l:,lil'f!!
I Ji~f- I" ~!~;"I ~:H:'I~I;II ijm'IIU~U'I;i ;1 ;1 1}1 !.:tIU
I ~: 1 !II ,:I!l!- '~lhn,li" fllil'ldUlll' "I I' tlill'I'lln .
, - II' 111'-1 . It.'h ,I .' I"'I~II J , I.' I II
I ;11t '1'1 ,; :1;. 1:.11'1"11;1; ',)-ftJh~ .,- 'i' 'I ,) '1 :'1'1111'1:' ]1
I " fl h,!~' ',Ii '.1.' I'll.!. I I" I, n II f t,. I '
i ~!J III jl1ilf! m!i!!~lil RP~rlilr; il 11 H I fd~I~IU l !
i ;Ijl niIIU~h) liii~lnhf~ nil!f;,!UU! I~ Itlll i jifiiiJ~f!li I ~ ~I ~I
--j II ih I m: Umi~ ij~'i!~il;ii UIJli'1iljhif iu hi j! j !!liI!hI1i: : I
!. ~Ht "!; !!'m~1 !iI~Jnhh~ !idl:ll;l!lJI !H !if !i t Ifl'~,~r.I)H ! J I
II J I,. h I!u hll!1lf HU~li~;d J[Mllll,!JI~ JIi Js~ J, J ,I tll!fhl1J II t t
I tk;~~~~~k;;'~~~~~~;b';;';;;;~
· _~nn~~nn=.="~lltili'l;nn,
= mmmmmtUmmmli
I ~~'~..j;~'~j;k'~m~~8_"ml:~l;
~ '="~!nl!U;II'''''''''''UI
~k~b'~b.bbm"kbkmk'k'k";
i ~~i~~~mm~~~:~:~:~~~~~r.:~
1_______
. kl:nnn"k8l;l.innnl;in.n
~ .:'.,;~!!!i!!iiii!Ii:'Ii.t.li,;i,;lidi
. ..nn!:,;~n
~ Uli:iti;;i~"
..........-.....
! mm:i;tt:
; ~;~m;;mm:~;!;~;~;!;~;!~ = nnmmn
-,.,T,,"'..O-!!"..!.....2-tot..el..ct I ;:~~~~f_-::t_1':!, =,',
""u...........~ovl:~.:.~~~~Z~~.:.~.:.tZ~.:.~l.:. ----- - -
~
~h
~~
H
. -
;i
~i
d
;
~6jiii ;
~ '
g:
:: .:
. .
:: w:
tw -::
iB ::
'"
4,~~
~aw
1;. ~
~ w .
~ ~ !
~ ~ :!
:;. ~
~ ~ i
~
~ !
8.;
..; ~
-;
~
\
.
!i
. ~
u
~i
I ~
to-- CD I
\C') :
to-- I
~ I \J
(f) ~ o. ~.
I. o~__ w........1
~ ZON Z (f):! .
G < -' N ~ ~ UJ <[ iil r~ a .
:",. I Z U -'x ~ ~ ~
f.-..r::::~~~~UJ<=~ -I'~"
~~O<[ UJ:I:a::> )...1
'~-'<>.coen~~>-. ""'-
~~ (f) <[ enUJ>- :::;;:.
C(~~ CDUJZ~-'~.. 9:::
r-....-z-en- c5~~ ~i f
:"".. t- L&J en 0 .. U 0 - ""J t
,,\..:Z<>. -UJUJ>- u~ ;
~~UJOCDa:~UJ~ .,~:
~'"'OZ C)<>o~z ~X
''-'-i-=UJua:: z- "i
'r-....en 0='>-<["
ll.........UJ ,enco-,en~a::e ~~
a:: RI-o en C) U ~ = ~ ~
I<')~Oen Z 1-0'" ..
~~~ 8 ~
~ >- ~
-...: ;
..
i:i..
:...
::;~
-::til
t~~*
;!:~
,. .
ilh
.t:
l~~~
i!~:
,Ii!
!I;~
'1..
i.ij
;ii!
...; .
'-1--
i:.i":
..,-..
il~i;
~,;HI
.
W
I. I !i
'!!~"::I~ II
dllii"i.~
Di2"'~ hi
k..hl.2
:1!!!~liil.
!11~~II;'I~1
'IJI'; -!e
l i~i;
Dlh IO!
RiiolD;: It
,= i ~i:~:i.~!!1
~~
o
.
I I =
i ; I ~
:1 I I ~
~. I I ~
..... I II ..J
~ ~I I ~
i~1 i~ ~
ir-!iil!
o
~
i
!
i
u
i
a I
~i
!"
-=
I.
. ;
~w
u
I~
D.
I~
_11
.;
i~
~~
I ~
, .
ci.
.,.
I<')
o
I
.,.
o
I
Cl..
..
a::
UJ
~
='
Z
UJ
Ul
<[
U
>-
1-0
(.)
~
!
i
I
I
I
i
i ;:
I !
I ~
i ~
~ I ~
I I
;:! I."
3 E.! 'I
~ 11:1,
~ l;g!!:-
i i;Uil
I
.----
I
I
I
/
/
o
I
r---
I
I
I
I
II
~
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE August 26, 2004
FAX TO
FAX NO
RSD Development
817.485.7111
~
Jackey Fluitt
817.306.1555
FROM Clayton Husband, AICP, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT P-04-034 Final Plat - Rockrimmon
The Colleyville Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed your plat request
submitted to this office. The following comments are for your consideration.
PLAT DRAWING
1. The street lot for Rockrimmon Court needs to be labeled as an "access, drainage and utility
easement" .
2. A detailed drawing, to scale, of the gates and entry area must be submitted with the final plat
so the relevant requirements for gated communities may be evaluated. A separate permit for
the gates is required. Contact Jeff Jones, fire marshal, at 817-488-6277 for permit information
and requirements
3. A portion of the entrance street will need to be dedicated as public right-of-way. The exact
dimension of this dedication will be provided upon the review of the detailed gate drawing.
4. The islands/medians proposed for the street should be shown on the plat and labeled as private
open space. Each island/median should be given a lot number.
5. The recording information for the proposed off-site drainage and utility easements and deed
references must be added to the plat prior to the plat being recorded.
6. Label the 7.5-foot easements adjacent to the rear of Lots 8-16 as a drainage and utility
easement.
7. The plat indicates a 40-foot front building line on the lots. The R20 zoning district only
requires a 30-foot front building line. The building line indicated on the plat will be the
required setback for all new residences constructed in the subdivision.
8. Since the plat is proposed as a private gated community, the Conditions of Approval listed at
the end of this memo must be included on the final plat.
100 Main Street - Colleyville, Texas 76034 - 817.503.1050
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
P-04-034 ROCKRIMON
9. Revise the title block as shown on the marked-up print. The title block also indicates four
open space lots. Which lots are considered open space lots? It appears that only three open
space lots are shown on the drawing.
10. Revise the approval blocks as shown on the marked-up print.
ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION PLANS
Engineering construction plans are being reviewed by the Engineering Department, Fire
Department and Public Works Department. The applicant's engineer will be notified when the
marked-up plans are ready to be picked up. Questions concerning the engineering construction
plans should be directed to Chad Bartee at 817-503-1090.
TREE PRESERVATION
Trees not located within the right-of-way must be preserved during the construction of the
subdivision. Before construction begins on the site, protective fencing must be installed around all
preserved trees located outside the right-of-way. The fencing must be located at the dripline of the
preserved trees. The protective fencing may be comprised of orange vinyl construction fencing,
chain link fence, erosion control fencing, or other similar fencing. The fencing must remain in
place during the entire construction period.
OTHER INFORMATION
1. PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES. Parkland dedication fees are due at the time of approval of the
[mal plat. The fee for residential uses is $1,802 per dwelling unit. An assessment of parkland
dedication fees will be provided upon approval of the final plat.
2. PERIMETER STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS. Perimeter street improvements are
required for this property since Glade Road is considered an unimproved street and the plat
contains more than one residential lot. The owner is required to construct one-half of the
width of the street adjacent to this property, or provide an equivalent amount of cash escrow
for future improvement by the City. An estimate of the cash escrow amount can be provided
by the Engineering Department upon request. The actual escrow amount may depend upon
the specific plans for construction or other arrangements provided for by a City-Developer
Agreement.
3. IMPACT FEES. Water, sewer and roadway impact fees are due at the time a building permit is
issued for a new structure on a newly platted lot. The fees listed below are intended to provide
general information on the fees that could be assessed for this project. The actual fee paid
may be different depending upon the specific plans for construction or other arrangements
provided for by a City-Developer Agreement.
ROADWAY
$1,589 per dwelling unit for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL uses. Details are available in
Chapter 13 of the Land Development Code.
PAGE20F5
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
P-04-034 ROCKRIMON
SEWER
$2,666 for a I-inch meter. Actual fee depends on water meter size and/or if a new meter is
installed.
$200 for a I-inch meter. Actual fee depends on water meter size and/or if a new meter is
installed.
WATER
4. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. This property is subject to the provision of the Colleyville Pathways
Plan, which requires construction of hike and bike facilities along Glade Road. The Pathways
Plan requires a 10-foot wide trail along Glade Road. The developer is required to construct
the trail as part of the improvements for this property. The internal sidewalks must be installed
when any new residence is constructed on the property. The internal sidewalks must be at
least 4-feet wide.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Planning & Zoning Commission:
City Council:
Monday, September 13, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
Tuesday, October 5, 2004, 7:30 p.m.
RESUBMITT AL REQUIREMENTS
A marked-up print is available for pickup in the Community Development Department offices, if
needed. Once you have completed the changes to the drawing, please submit the following to our
offices:
. 16 folded copies of the revised Final Plat drawing
. one 8Y:z" x II" reduced copy of the revised exhibit
. a written letter addressing each comment stating the comment has been addressed or offering
reasons why the requirement should be modified or waived
The revised drawings must be submitted no later than noon on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 in
order to make the scheduled hearings. Please contact me at 817-503-1054 or
husbandc@ci.collevville.tx.us if you have any questions.
I c: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
PAGE30F5
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
P-04-034 ROCKRIMON
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR GATED COMMUNITY
1. Lot --' Block _ denotes the private access and private drainage easement owned by
the Homeowners Association (HOA) of . No building
permit will be issued for Lot ~ Block_.
2. The landowners and any subsequent owners of lots shown herein (the "Lot Owners"),
jointly and severally, shall be responsible and liable for the construction, operation and
maintenance of any private common areas or facilities in the addition created herein (the
"Addition"), including but not limited to private streets, private entrance gates or
structures, private walls and fences, private pedestrian access, private storm drainage
systems, private lake, private open space and landscaping, and emergency access.
3. A HOA shall be established by the subdivider or developer to operate and/or maintain the
aforementioned private common areas or facilities.
4. The City of Colleyville, Texas (the City) shall not be responsible for maintaining any of
the aforementioned private common areas or facilities. The City will maintain only the
public water and sewer systems in utility easements accepted by the City.
5. The HOA, lot owners, and landowners shall not seek maintenance from the City except
for the aforementioned public water and sewer systems in utility easements accepted by
the City.
6. Any public utility entities, including the City, shall have the right at all times of ingress
and egress to and from and upon the utility easements shown herein for the purpose of
construction, reconstruction, inspection, patrolling, maintaining, and adding to or
removing all or part of its respective systems. Except for private storm drainage systems,
private streets and related entrance gates or structures that are approved by the City, no
buildings, fences, structures, trees, shrubs, or other improvements or growths shall be
constructed or placed upon, or across said public utility easements. Any public utility
entity, including the City, shall have the right to remove and keep removed all or parts of
any buildings, fences, structures, trees, shrubs, or other improvements or growths which
may in any way endanger or interfere with its respective systems within said utility
easements.
7. The City shall have the right at all times to remove and keep removed any vehicle or
obstacle that impairs emergency access in the emergency access easements shown herein.
8. Any governmental entities, including the City, shall have the right at all times of ingress
and egress to and from and upon the private access easements shown herein for any
purpose related to the exercise of a governmental service or function.
PAGE40F5
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
P-04-034 ROCKRIMON
9. If the HOA or lot owners fail to maintain reliable access to any public utility or
governmental entities for purposes stated hereinabove, the City may enter the Addition
and remove any entrance gate or structure which is a barrier to access at the sole expense
of the HOA or lot owners on a pro-rata share formula.
10. The construction, reconstruction or repair of any private streets within the Addition must
meet the approval of the City Engineer and comply with the specifications of the City for
public streets at the time of construction, reconstruction or repair. The construction,
reconstruction or repair of any entrance gate and structure for the Addition must meet the
approval of the Engineering Department and Fire Department of the City.
11. The installation or replacement of all traffic regulatory signs along the private streets must
conform to the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
12. The HOA and lot owners agree to release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City,
its officers, agents, licensees, servants and employees, from and against any and all claims
or suits for property damage or loss and/or personal injury, including death, to any and all
persons, of whatsoever kind of character, whether real or asserted, arising out of or in
connection with, directly or indirectly: a) the reasonable use of the private streets,
emergency access, utility easements, entrance gate or structure by the City, its officers,
agents, licensees, servants and employees; b) the condition of the private streets, private
entrance gates or structures, private walls and fences, private pedestrian access, private
storm drainage systems and emergency access; or c) any use of the addition by the City,
its officers, agents, licensees, servants and employees for any purpose stated hereinabove,
whether or not caused, in whole or in part, by alleged negligence or officers, agents,
servants, employees, contractors, subcontractors, licensees or invitees of City. The HOA
shall be responsible for carrying liability insurance to meet the requirements in this
paragraph.
PAGES OF 5
~
GSWW, Inc.
Civil/Environmental Engineers. Planners
Dallas. Fort Worth. Midland. Austin
Predecessor Firms: Gutierrez, Smouse, Wilmut & Assoc., Inc.
Washington & Associates, Inc.
September 7, 2004
Mr. Clayton Husband, AICP
Development Coordinator
City of Colleyville
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
Reference:
P-04-034, Final Plat
Rockrimmon, Colleyville
Dear Clayton:
We have addressed the City Staff comments dated August 26, 2004. We are providing a
detailed drawing for the gates and entry area as requested.
If you have any questions please contact our office.
RECE~'/:D
SEP ":u04
l Per .............
3950 Fossil Creek Boulevard, Suite 210, Fort Worth, Texas 76137 . 817.306.1444 . 817.306.1555 Fax. www.gsw-inc.com
RESOLUTION R-04-2378
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ROCKRIMMON
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1.
THAT the preliminary plat of Rockrimmon is hereby approved, subject to
the following conditions:
a. The maximum number of single family lots allowed on the cui de sac
shall be thirteen (13) lots.
b. The number of lots required for a private gated community shall be
waived.
AND IT IS SO RESOLVED.
PASSED BY A VOTE OF ....j A YES1
THIS THE /J'*' DAY OF (.:)
~><L~~
Cynthia Singleton, TRMC
City Secreta ry
tIC NAYSAND 0 ABSTENTIONS ON
2004.
.~
Texas
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA BRIEFING
Agenda Date:
Subject:
September 13, 2004
Case G-04-020 - Review and discussion of regulations for
private streets and entrance gates
During a recent discussion of a proposed gated development, the City Council
expressed concern that the gated development regulations should be reviewed to
determined their appropriateness and long-term impact on the community. The City
Council subsequently requested the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the
regulations for private-gated developments and offer any recommended changes to
improve the standards.
For your information, I have attached a list of the gated developments in Colleyville.
The standards for developments in Colleyville with private streets and entrance gates
were established with the approval by the City Council of Ordinance 0-98-1105 on
October 20. The regulations establish minimum criteria for the creation of a gated
development during the platting phase of a new subdivision and for modifying an
existing public street subdivision into a private street/gated development.
The regulations for private streets and gated developments are contained within
Chapter 10 of the Colleyville Land Development Code. Attached is a copy of these
regulations.
I have also attached a copy of a memo sent to the city manager in 1998, which helps to
explain why the current regulations were adopted.
There have been numerous articles regarding the pros and cons of gated
developments. I have attached a couple of such articles to this agenda briefing.
Prepared by:
Agenda Item No.2 - Page 1
Subdivisions with Private Streets
SLlbdivislon..Name .Jo\(;~~ .. Nl.lmberof Status Area. ()fPrivate
-
Lots Streets
Beldon Hollow PUDR 16.12 16 Under Construction
Clairemont R20 50.38 86 Developed
--------
Hills Of Central Park R30 27.03 26 Developed
--
Lakewood Estates PUDR 30.67 85 Developed
Montclair Parc R20 64.33 78 Developed
Rosewood Villas PUDR 14.76 53 Developed
Sapphire Enclave R20/R30 7.36 32 Developed
Shalimar PUDR 19.07 31 Developed
-~
Spril1JLGarden PUDR 6.68 45 Developed
Strathmore PUDR 8.43 14 Pending Construction
---
Tanglewood PUDR 25.96 12 Developed
Thornbury (Brook Meadows) R20 195.80 248 Developed
Tiffany Park PUDR 7.16 25 Under Construction
Villas at Caldwell's Creek PUDR 11.56 43 Developed
Woodland Hills (Block 20) R20 - 27 Developed 86,747
Totals 485.32 821 86,747
Area of Private Streets in Square Feet
TO:
FROM: TV MANAGER
DATE: MAY 29, 1998
SUBJECT: PRIVATE STREET SUBDIVISION POLICY
Councilmembers Carroll and Thibodeaux have requested that I place on a future
Council agenda a policy for private streets (i.e. gated) subdivisions. The staff prepared
an ordinance regarding this issue in 1996. The City Council elected not to adopt the
recommendations. I have attached the ordinance that was proposed and some staff
comments concerning the ordinance.
We plan to forward an ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review
and comment at their June 8 meeting.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
,.,~..
". .:\.:.....
' .'
Memorandum
To: Bob Stripling, City Manager
From: J, Doug Henderson, Community Development Director
SUbject: Private street subdivision policy
Date: January 22, 1996
With the City Council facing an increasing number of requests for secured private
street subdivisions, you asked me to draft a policy regulating such developments. All
the cities in the metroplex with written policies regulating private streets have chosen
to adopt those regulations in the form of development ordinances. Borrowing heavily
from the City of Mansfield and the City of Piano, I drafted the proposed ordinance 0-
96-1016 to meet our needs as defined by the Development Review Committee (ORC).
The DRC then modified it before presenting it to the City Council. Even then it is still
very similar to the ordinances in Flower Mound, Southlake, and Euless, as well as
Piano and Mansfield.
In accordance with our policy the ordinance was presented to the City Attorney when
the City Council agenda for the first reading was prepared. After a review of this
ordinance Ross brought up some valid issues that we may wish to study before we
adopt the ordinance. I have not asked my counterparts in the other cities how they
deal with these issues.
1 . Do we need an ordinance or a resolution ?
Plats are approved by resolution. The private street policies could be placed on
the face of each plat as determined on a case by case basis. In fact, Exhibit B to
the ordinance is a complete list of all the notes which DRC would like to see on
private street subdivision plats. The nature of the Subdivision Ordinance is that
the City Council has a lot of discretion in the adoption of development standards
for any particular subdivision. Ordinances are necessary when we plan to
enforce something which brings me to the 2nd issue.
2. Can we enforce this ordinance ?
We have several references to homeowners association {HOA} papers which
can't be amended without our permission. Ross feels this is rather unusual and
catching an HOA in an "illegal" amendment might be impossible. The municipal
citation process might technically work, but in some cases a lot of damage could
be done before we could gain control. There is also the fact that we have
limited staff to deal with these issues.
3. How would this ordinance effect other ordinances ?
There are several City Codes that reference "the public street." It has been my
understanding that private streets would be treated the same as public streets
as far as other traffic, sanitation, nuisance, and zoning codes are concerned.
This may not be the case. Certainly, we need to decide which ones are
important and fix them if we need to.
4. What will really happen if we revoke a private street permit ?
Ross believes we can't put enough protection into an ordinance to insure that
streets can revert back to the city without cost to the city. If a development fails
there are more problems than the City ordinances facing the HOA.
You may wish to ask the Council how they feel about these issues before we go any
further. .'
..'
~
AGENDA BRIEFING i
nee
Texas
DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT:
MEETING J AGENDA #
01/16/96 J 4
0-96-1016 - Amending Chapter 9 (Subdivision
Regulations) of the City Code regulating
developments with private streets and entrance
gates
I
J
-
-
Januarv 16, 1996
..
First Reading and Public Hearing. Ordinance 0-96-1016
BackQround
~.
Since there have been several recent inquiries regarding the approval of private street
subdivisions, the City Council has asked the Development Review Committee (ORC) to
..; discuss and draft a policy for the regulation of subdivisions with private streets and
security gates. If the City Council wishes to approve such developments, the ORC
711 recommends the adoption of a strict policy.
The attached draft ordinance would:
1.
2.
-.
-
3.
4.
5.
-
;
6.
regulate the design of the streets and gates;
require homeowners associations (HOAl's to create street maintenance
funds;
provide for City indemnification;
provide a method for revocation of Yprivate street permits.;
provide a method for HOA petition to return streets to City at HOA
expense;
require City approval of HOA documents.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance and recommended
- that the mandatory sinking fund include maintenance as well as reconstruction
responsibilities.
Recommendation
Adopt a policy for the development of subdivisions with private streets.
~
j
"
'!tW
~~~/
CITY MANAGER
, - r ~ , " . '''' I . I ~.,-" . ..-. .., ....- .' ,- .-.'. . - ............. . ,".
t
j
'1;'
SEPTEMBER 1993
AMERICAN
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
II
f
co
ii
i
Home, Safe Home?
By Jim Schwab
Americans seem uneasy these days about the security of their
neighborhoods. In major cities. rising crime and random violence
have made many families jirrety--even when they live in the
suburbs. These concerns are being reflected in the marketplace for
new housing as some developers are using walls and gates to provide
a sense of security. In addition, inner-city communities are seeking
to limit access to their neighborhoods with barricades and street
closures. But walls. gates, and barriers can radically change the
character of surrounding buildings and neighborhoods. Such
securi[)' measures can also have social impacts by creating a visible
barrier dividing those who can afford them from those who cannot.
Urban Enclaves
It would be a mistake to assume that the desire for security is
limited to the residents of tony. high-income communities like Bel
Air. Middle-class neighborhoods in Los Angeles have been clamor-
ing for street closures in a bid to seal our the racial tensions and
gang warfare that have plagued the city in recent years. Their
petitions for "withdrawal of public rights-of-way." processed by the
Bureau of Engineering in the public works department, so
overburdened that staffs capacity to handle them that the depart-
ment early last year drafted a new policy. It proposed to distinguish
between "nuisance closures." which would be undertaken to
prevent a threat to public health and safety (often illegal dumping),
and "convenience closures." undertaken primarily to benefit the
requesting neighborhood. The public would bear the cost of
nuisance closures, while petitioning neighborhoods would pay for
convenience closures. The department estimated the cost of
processing a typical convenience closure to be $6,500. The
neighborhood would also be assessed the cost of whatever physical
installations were needed to close the street.
The policy, however. was based on the erroneous assumption
that the city could undertake such measures without public notice
to the surrounding residents and without public hearings to
establish that such closures were justified by public health and safety
concerns. says Leon Dayan. an attorney with the L.A law firm of
Hall and Phillips. Dayan's firm. along with the Center for Law in
the Public Interest, brought suit last year to halt the gating of
Whitley Heights. a hilly, single-family enclave near Hollywood.
The Whitley Heights Civic Association (WHCA) had won ci[)'
permission to erect eight gates on public streets entering the area,
leaving the residents of multifamily apattments at the bottom of the
hills outside the gates and without access. Those residents. who
learned of the plan only after work began. first won a stop-work
order because the fire department had never been notified. They
later filed suit as Citizens Against Gated Enclaves (CAGE).
Ruling for CAGE, the court cited the lack of any authority in
the California Vehicle Code for cities to erect such gates without
first vacating the streets. Under WHCA's agreement with the city,
the city retained ownership and responsibility for maintenance of
the gated streets and retained the right to reopen the streets at any
time with prior notice ofWHCA. The court noted that its ruling
derived from a line of California Supreme Court cases that also
restricted cities' rights to limit street access under the vehicle code.
One of those, RumfOrd v. City of Berkeley, in 1982 found no express
authority for partial street closures. The California legislature
subsequently broadened some language in the vehicle code to
permit closures "consistent with the responsibility of local govern-
ment to provide tor the health and safety of its citizens." But it
enacted orhcr provisions to codifY aspects of Rumford and the basic
findings in City of Lafayette v. Contra Costa COII/10' (1979). which
found no authority for selective gating of public streets.
The coun's Februaty ruling in CAGE 1/. City of I os Angell's,
tlnalized in May, resulted in a moratorium on "about 40 or 50"
applications for neighborhood street closures, according to Gene
McPherson, the engineering bureau's director ofland development
and mapping, In the meantime, WHCA-but not the city-has
appealed the decision. According to Dayan, 'Wl1CA is also suing
the city for damages for its failure to notif)' the association of the
need to notil}! the fire department bdore ir started work.
These rypes of street closures are not a new idea, says Oscar
Newman, president of the Institute lor Community Design
Analysis in Great Neck. New York. In his 1980 book Community of
Intemt, Newman described neighborhoods in St. Louis that had
secured permission to erect street barriers to impede through traffic
and criminal activity. These racially mLxed enclaves, according to
Newman, helped to preserve a middle-class presence in areas
<Juickly being converted from single-tamilv to multitamily housing.
The barriers, which limited access to the neighborhoods to one or
twO points, allowed !ami lies to reclaim the s~reets as public
gathering places, "almost as an extension of their lawns," Newman
says. This also facilitated the easy capture of fleeing crimi nals,
Newman wrote, and thereby encouraged residents to call the police.
Newman's survey of these neighborhoods reponed higher propeny
values and lower crime rates than in adjacent blocks.
lvlore recently, Newman has consulted with neighborhoods in
Davron, Ohio, ~ll1d Forr Lauderdale. Florida. Davron, he notes, is
ab~ut half black ;:md half white, with a similar spiit between single-
lamily and multitamily housing. The J.reas t1Ut were enclaved were
all about three-quarters of a square mile in size. Newman compares
the resulting enclosures to suburban superblocks. which contain
internal networks of residential side streets off exterior traffic
arteries. The concrete street barriers are often landscaped and
beautified with shrubbery. The COSt, he says, is "peanuts." In
Plantation, a small community just outside Fort Lauderdale, it
cweraged "53 a year in property ta.xes" to pay for the special
assessment. In Dayton, he adds, the cost was $3 to 55 per house-
hold, but the city paid the tab.
N"ewmJ.n also notes that these enclaves do not create the traffic
problems many people feJ.r because most of the traffic that had used
these neighborhoods as shon curs remains on the treew.ly. In one
instance, he says, traffic that ciry engineers teared might rise by 600
percent on adjacent streets instead rose onl;' 20 percent. Newman
charges that some of the previous traffic consisted of suburban com-
muters "stopping on their way home for drugs and prostitution."
After street closure, he maintains, these people skip the area entirely.
Reactions to Newman's proposals have varied. In Dayron's Five
Oaks neighborhood. he says, the city embraced the idea in an et1:ort
to preserve an enclave of desirable housing lor city and hospital
employees who work downtown. The city has even made housing
improvement loans available on a priority basis and implemented
the plan within just six months.
Fort Lauderdale officials, however, loughI' Newman's proposal
lor Riverside Park, arguing that it allowed the neighborhood
association to comrolland use and become its own zoning power.
Eventually, however, residents won the city's support. Nt.'wman says
that plan was attacked as "apartheid" but charges that the critics
were slumlords who were letting their housing deteriorate. Noting
that their suit to block the project tailed, he declares, 'The chatge of
racism bJ.s become the last refuge of scoundrels." As tor the obvious
question of what becomes of adjacent communitic's "outside the
gates," Newman simply suggests, "they can do the same thing"
One critic who might beg [0 disagree is ~1ike Davis, a Los
Angeles an.:hilccl. In City OfQiUlrtz, published by Vintage Books in
1990, Davis describes the trend towatd srreet enclosure and tight
security in Los Angeles as a torce thar is sreJ.dily destroying, nor
enhancing, what remains of community life in that city.
Newman's thinking has changed on one point. In St. Louis,
he notes. private neighborhood associations rook over responsi-
bility for collecting the equivalent of the t<L'( tebates people
Below, the allq 111ld garage.\' that fOrm the ,',1stI'm edge ,ifAtltmtis Group:' Hawthome COllrt. On the
front cover, note tliffirence in ,'xterior between Htlwthome (right) ,md Park Lime (upper middle). In
the kwer middle and kft photos are Afiami encltwes-one gated, one barricaded.
2
\I'
" .\
.. ..,..'
.
received for maintaining their own streets. But such associations
wax and wane over time, he says, and maintenance suffers from
the difficulties of entrusting fee collection and street repair bids
to voluntary officers. The result has been a gradual decline in
street maintenance. Today, he says, he would advocate keeping
maintenance responsibilities in ciry hands while letting residents
pay for the physical barriers that limit access.
Ungatlng the Entrance
The idea of urban enclaves as a form of new development took hold
in Chicago in 1985 with Atlantis Realty Group's 80-unit
Hawthorne Court On the North Side. That development bunched
10 townhouses around each courtyard, with a fenced gate providing
common entry. Harold Robinson, president of Atlantis, says the
project sold out quickly and was well received by its neighbors (who
even brought pies and cakes to a community presentation) because
they realized it would probably increase property values. Those
increases have resulted in higher taxes, however, and Robinson says
he would not expect the same reception today.
In both Hawthorne Court and a subsequent townhome
development, Park Lane, Atlantis had to resolve concerns about
increasing the allowable density from the previous wning for single-
family homes on individual lots. Atlantis also encountered problems
with the local post office, which lacked enough numbers to
accommodate the individual units with separate street addresses and
wanted a single dropoff point, such as it would have in multifamily
apartments under federal postal regulations. Robinson describes the
approval process for such developments as a "tremendous P.R. job>>
in which the developer must ease concerns about traffic and
ourward aesthetics before gaining site plan approval, "Neighbors
like to.see trees,>> he notes.
It is clear that Robinson's philosophy about the security of
enclaves has changed. Hawthorne Court, he admits, "turned its
back>> to adjacent industrial land uses and is very inwardly focused.
Visitors must gain entry by first reaching residents through an inter-
com system. But at Park Lane, he says, "we decided that the visibil-
ity>> of the central park around which the townhomes were built was
sufficient to deter crime, although each unit still has its own security
system. Outsiders, however, can walk freely through the entrance
into the commons, at the center of which sits a small fountain.
Other Chicago developers have also joined the enclave trend,
offering townhouses and condominiums priced from $150,000 to
$750,000. The Atlantis units range up to about $300,000.
According to Robinson, the buyers are mostly young families with
preschool children who value security within an urban environ-
ment. Because of the poor quality of the city schools, Robinson
says, these young couples rend to move to the suburbs when their
children reach school age.
The Good Life
The Chicago enclaves and the newly closed urban meets represent
the moderate end of the spectrum of security concerns. The upper
end may be found in the Southwest and in resort communities
where, in many respects, government has been privatized. Commu-
nity associations collect fees and take responsibility for a range of
services provided elsewhere by the city, such as internal street
maintenance, garbage collection, and varying levels of security.
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, and Palm Springs,
California, both were incorporated as municipalities after many of
their gated communities were built. In the former case, notes
community development director Stephen G. Riley, the result has
been a notion of "limited town government.>> In both cases, gated
communities are not the exception but the norm.
"Gated communities we kind of take for granted,>> says
Richard Patenaude, the assistant planning director for Palm
Springs. As a result, the city does not deal with them separately
in its zoning ordinance. Started as a desert resort, Palm Springs
has low density and few traffic problems. Patenaude says the city
largely relies on its well-honed sense of aesthetics to evaluate
architectural plans on a case-by-case basis. He defines that sense
of aesthetics as "preserving views of the mountains>> and "not
being intrusive on the landscape.>>
Interestingly, the aesthetics of nongated communities drove the
incorporation of Hilton Head Island, according to community
development director Stephen G. Riley. Such high-class resort
developments as Sea Pines set the standard early in the 1950s for
later gated communities, he says. But as Hilton Head's population
grew from a few thousand to nearly 20,000 today, concern grew
that development outside the gated communities was not maintain-
ing the same standards. Since many of the residents of nongated
areas are black and poor, incorporation and wning became in part a
class issue, he rotes. Many of the town's longtime residents also
resent being steadily priced out of their own community by
developments for wealthier newcomers.
Neither of these communities report any contention over issues of
taxation and city services. For the most part, Patenaude and Riley
say, the residents of gated communities do not mind paying property
taxes for services that are more fully used by other residents while
they also pay association fees for similar services. They largely view it
as a reasonable cost for the privacy they cherish. There is, however,
one issue that may cause future problems, in Riley's view. Should a
major hurricane hit the area, he notes, the town might be severely
restricted in its ability to aid the gated communities because, under
federal rules, using public funds to aid such privatized communities
could cause the town to forfeit disaster assistance from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. In addition, residential commu-
nity associations in some states have lobbied for property tax rebates
for the cost of services they have provided themselves.
Hilton Head Island also faces unique problems of traffic conges-
tion that produced a failed growth management initiative in 1985.
The dozen gated communities that span the island make it impos-
sible to establish a complete parallel road system to augment the
Cross-Island Expressway, the one main artery that traverses the
island. By their very nature, gated communities channel traffic on to
main roads through limited enrryways. This may not be a problem in
a sprawling desert suburb like Scortsdale, Ariwna, whose gated
communities, according to planning director Robert Cafarella, host
many retirees and telecommuters. But it can be a serious problem on
a coastal barrier island with heavy seasonal tourist traffic.
Riley says the town is attacking this problem in two ways. First,
it has drafted a wning code amendment that would block any
development whose traffic increase would create at least a GO-second
delay at local intersections or increase the highway's volume-to-
capacity ratio above 1.0. The 1985 referendum, which Riley
dubbed "a lime extreme," would have halted all development on
the island if traffic fell below level-of-service D, a more stringent
requirement. Second, the town will require new hotels and motels
to locate within a short distance of eating accommodations in order
to reduce tourist traffic.
One aspect of the town's wning code has caused problems that
Riley says, in hindsight, probably could have been avoided. In
adopting the code, the town "pretty much just recognized" the
gated communities' existing master plans, which were never
consistent in their level of detail. As a result, detailed and specific
master plans now handicap the developers of some communities
when they seek wning changes, while others have a freer hand to
3
C (( I M t?~l.lIl ,.lIt (J tJ
alter their original planned uses. "It works to the advantage of those
Who were less diligent," Riley notes, observing that residents watch
proposed changes closely. "If we'd thought about that, we would
have asked them to update those plans and make them conform to
a single standard. "
'lite Illusion of Security
There is little question that the security precautions of gated and
endaved communities all along the spectrum add some measure of
safety, both real and perceived, to the people who live in them. In
the most upscale communities, particularly in resorts, residents are
clearly seeking exclusivity as well.
While there are zoning and traffic-control issues associated
with these communities,. planners and public officials also must
think about the larger questions of crime and personal security
that these communities cannot resolve. Gated communities and
urban enclaves function within the context of all the problems of
the cities and metropolitan areas within which they are devel-
oped. While they can ameliorate some outside influences, they
cannot eliminate them, nor do they make life easier for those left
outside the gates.
For perspective, it may be worth considering a recent article in
Harpers ("Home, Safe Home," November 1992) about Green
Valley, Nevada, a large corporate development neat Las Vegas. The
president of the community association, the story says, was arrested
for allegedly burglarizing a model home. According to a local
newspaper, he ran to his own home, dropping his loot "piece by
piece" until he hid in the attic. The ceiling cracked, and he fell into
the midst of the waiting police. Sometimes, this story might have
said, when we meet the enemy, it is us.
Zoning lor
Mlcrollre1llt'.rles
Recently, the Planning Advisory Service has been getting questions
about zoning for microbreweries, the latest trend in the beer
industry. Though a visit to the local brew pub does not carry the
same panache as a trip to Germany for Octoberfest, it definitely
ranks a cut above the doIlardraft sold at the local watering hole.
Microbreweries let patrons taste good, locally brewed beer in a
casual, pub-like establishment. Most also serve food. Brewmasters
take pride in their brews and often compete with other microbreweries
around the country. These places seek to capture the market of beer
drinkers who are willing to spend extra. money on taste. They often
attract tourists who regard the beers as samples of local culture. Most
have helped the local economy, with little or no adverse impact. To
Zoning NtwJ is a monthly newslener published by the American Planning Association.
Subscriptions arc available for $45 (U.S.) and $54 (foreign).
Israel Stollman, Ex(:cutive Director; Frank S. So. Deputy Executive Director.
Zoning N~ws is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Michael Barrette, Luke Bogash,
Fay Dolnick, Michelle Gregory, Becky Maroot, Marya Morris, Amy Van Doren,
Reporters; Cynthia Cheski, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
Copyright @1993 by American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, lL
60637. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776
MassachusettS Ave., N.W., Washingron, DC 20036.
All rightS reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or uti'lized in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical. including photocopying. recording. or
by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
American Planning Association.
Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber
and 10% postconsumer waste.
(j
4
7::0
.r:
;,~~
learn how they are regulated, we. mailed a request for information to
cities we knew to have microbreweries. The results:
San Diego has a number of microbreWeries but has no specific
provisions for them in its code. Most are classified as accessory uses
to restaurants or entertainment facilities. The city has not yet
experienced any problems specific to these facilities. Parking
standards are determined by the restaurant's square footage.
In Toronto, beer brewing falls into more than one category. The
typical "brew pub" is defined as a restaurant where alcohol and
meals are served, and, as an accessory use, beer is brewed on the
premises. Parking standards are not specifically addressed. Toronto
treats a "brewery" (something that does not provide a restaurant
service) as permitted in most of its industrial districts. In this type of
facility, the parking standards for a "manufacturing plant" (one
space for every200 square meters of floor area) are applied.
Toronto has also seen the rise of a new beer industry that can be
described as phased beer processing. First, the liquid beer extract is
prepared off site at an industrially zoned facility. Then it is brought
to an outlet, where it is blended to the client's specifications with
yeast and hops to make a five-gallon drum of liquid ferment.
Finally, the clients bottle and label the fermented beer themsdves in
their own establishment. This is how many house beers are
produced. The city had difficulry deciding how to classify the
second and third phases of this process. Because adding yeast and
bottling the product occur on site, but the extract is actually
produced elsewhere, these types of establishments can be permitted
in commercially roned.areas.
In Denver, breweries are allowed only in the 1-2, heavy industrial
rone. The ciry currently has two small breweries, both located in 1-2
wnes. Denver's code also allows the "brew pub" in its B-5 (down-
town), B-7 (lower downtown), and B-8 (intensive commercial zone)
districts. Denver defines a brew pub as "An eating place which
includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. No more than 30
percent of the product, either in bottles or kegs, may be sold to off-
premises customers. NotWithstanding more restrictive provisions of
the chapter, such accessory use may occupy up to 20 percent of the
gross floor area of the eating place." Denver has four brew pubs, and
parking standards correspond to the restaurant's square footage.
In Carson City, Nevada, microbreweries are basically restau-
rants. A brew pub is defined as a retail business with restaurant use
being 51 percent of gross floor area and the bar and brewery use not
exceeding 49 perCent of the gross floor area. Parking is based on the
size of facility.
Portland, Oregon, considers microbreweries either as "manu-
facturing and production" uses or "restaurant/tavern" uses,
depending on their location. It allows them in employment and
industrial zones as 'well as most commercial zones, where square
footage must be between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet, depending
on the intensity of the zone. Most of Portland's microbreweries
are located in its "Pearl" district. This is a historic warehouse
district that h<iS recently undergone a wave of rehabilitation to
higher~intensitj uses. The microbrewery buildings, along with
other buildings in the area like art galleries and: loft housing, are
subject to historic design review.
Parking requirements for Portland's microbreweries are one
space per 750 square feet of floor area for manufacturing and
production uses. These facilities are also subject to Portland's Off
Site ImpfUts Code, which specifies maximum noise, odor, vibration,
and glare levels. If the microbrewery use is classified as a "restaurant/
tavern," it must provide one space for every 250 square feet. Some
microbreweries are located in Portland's commercial and central
service zones, which require no off-street parking.
~
Michelle Gregory
Please fence me in I csmonitor.com
Page 1 of 4
.
Cl ri{I~Tr:\,'l Sun<cr l\.\U~ITOR csmonitor.com
.
from the August 06, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.coml2003/0806/p11s02-Jihc.html
Please fence me in
The allure of gated communities is built on a simple premise: Gates keep criminals
out and desirables inside. It's an idea that has appealed to many. But is it valid?
By I3Q~$Atkin I Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
PONTE VEORA BEACH, FLA. - For visitors to Marsh Landing development, stopping by
to see a friend involves more than driving up to one of the large, expensive homes.
The first stop comes at a gatehouse, where a guard checks the day's list of expected
guests. Unanticipated visitors must wait until the guard calls the homeowner and gets
clearance. Only then are approved guests issued orange passes that allow them to enter
this private 1,1 DO-house neighborhood.
The limited-access, or gated, lifestyle of Marsh Landing is one chosen by routlY half lli,e
residents in this reqion southeast of Jacksonville, Ea. The allure of such deve opments is
built ona simple premise: Gates keep criminals out and desirables inside.
It's a concept that has appealed to many over the years. Nationally, the number of people
building or buying behind gates grew rapidly in the past few decades to about 4 million
today, according to some estimates, with maybe twice as many behind walls or fences that
give the appearance of being gated.
And builders continue to construct gated communities. After all, by putting a gate on a new
project, a developer can quickly and inexpensively make a statement with a memorable
entrance.
But gating has now lost some of its original cachet. Since gated communities are no longer
new, tb~y are not so special anymore. And they don't necessarily deliver the increased
~~fetv that attracted buyers In the first place.
Urban planners and academics are also raising questions about the long-term social
impact of gated neighborhoods: Will privatizing traditionally public spaces lead to an
erosion of civic engagement? Will gates that clearly delineate neighborhood boundaries
heighten the sense of social, economic, and racial divisions that already exist in society?
And will children who grow up in gated communities come to depend on walls and gates
for a sense of security?
Questions like these hang in the air, waiting to be studied, as first-generation gated
communities mature and new ones are created.
Do gates provide safety?
What has been answered, so far, is the question of whether gated communities provide the
level of safety that has long been implied. The answer: not really.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0806/p11s02-lihc.htm
6/17/2004
Please fence me in I csmonitor.com
Page 2 of 4
There is no definitive study, for example, that proves gating significantly lessens crime. The
fact is, upscale communities like Marsh Landing generally are in areas that already enjoy
low crime rates. What crime does occur here is limited to things such as vandalized
mailboxes or garage thefts that insiders, including teens and contractors, are as likely to
commit as anyone else.
Living behind a gate does provide residents with a perception of greater safety, however,
and it does discourage some criminals.
"Just having the gates, psychologically, is going to deter some burglars," says Chris
McGoey, a California-based security consultant. He acknowledges that the real focus in
these places is on discouraging drive-through robberies, speeding, and unwanted traffic
and solicitors.
r Regardless, many residents still say that they feel more secure, because the gates protect1
LJhem in ways that are not immediately apparent. J
Seniors such as Cali McClure, a resident of Lake Barrington Shores in Lake Barrington, III.,
appreciate the presence of friendly guards at the entrance. "As a single woman, it's nice
when you drive in late at night," she says. "It's just like somebody greeting you when you
come home."
And as Marcia Hodgson of Marsh Landing points out, the gates do provide more privacy.
1 ("You don't have people selling you vacuum cleaners or magazines or trying to talk you into
their religion," she says](And if somebody like the Girl Scouts come to your door, you
know it's a kid from the neighborhood~ 4"'" cl:> ? )
For Dan MacDonald, a retired salesman from New York, Marsh Landing appealed because
of "the landscaping standards and the look of it." Unlike unzoned areas where stately
homes may sit alongside double-wide trailers with abandoned cars in the front yard, the
subdivision, with its lagoons and carefully laid out green spaces, has the feel of a
manicured private park.
Even as gated subdivisions have lost their sense of newness in most parts of the country,
they appear here to stay. This is partly because of their inherent appeal in a security-
conscious culture, and ~rtlY because they project an air of exclusivi~, Which sells well in a
society that imitates the wealth'i..
(But while gated communities have not lived up to the hype, they may not deserve some 011
the criticism they have gotten, either. J ~
(For instance, some experts have wondered if these communities might rally their residentSl.
l.to vote against tax hikes to fund needed community services and to pay for schools. J
Observes Bruce Maguire, a county commissioner representing Ponte Vedra Beach, "If you
live inside a gated community, you have to ask yourself, 'Why would I want to pay anotherJ 'i1
. $500 a year in tax~, because [the local government wo ' in for my streets, my ?- q. ~) L
park, my landscaping, so w a e getting.'" J river
Even so, Mr. Maguire says he has not seen the gated communities he serves acting as a
monolithic voting bloc.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0806/p11s02-lihc.htm
6/17/2004
Please fence me in I csmonitor.com
Page 3 of 4
Some governmental resistance to gates exists, but whether it constitutes a real
countermovement is hard to tell. The main thing for some jurisdictions is to ensure that
gated communities have sufficient reserves, lest they become overwhelmed by
infrastructure repair costs and turn in desperation to public funding to bail them out.
"Local governments are looking at these things and saying, 'If we allow these communities
to have their own streets we may be inheriting a burden in the future, as the community
ages,''' says Edward Blakely, coauthor of "Fortress America: Gated Communities in the
United States."
Another concern about gated communities has been that people who lived in them might
disengage from the rest of the world. As Steven Bodzin of the Congress for the New
Urbanism puts itCGated communities are seen as the ultimate manifestation of a lot of bad
trends in American real estate, including increased segregation by income, the loss of true
public space, the loss of the commons, where democracy is supposed to flourish.:J
Part of the American dream?
But Sharon Aardal, who lives in the Blackhawk development in Danville, Calif., disagrees
with that assessment. She enjoys "access to all kinds of things right outside the gates. I
don't feel isolated in that sense at aIL"
[The main drawback she sees In living In a gated communfty Is the perception otllers hav~
and she once did, that residents are snooty. "That was my reluctance," she acknowledges,
"but I found it's not that way at all. This is a delightful community."
The American dream, says author Blakely, is to find a great neighborhood "because we
really are a communal people. There's this urge to find the dream place, the dream house,
the dream neighborhood. Gates give the illusion that somehow you can control this."
Historically, walled cities were built to protect those in power and their communities. They
can be traced, according to "Fortress America," to the Romans, who erected walled
communities in England in 300 BC to maintain order.
In the United States, gating dates to two periods of high immigration, says Blakely, who
suggests that the influx of new peoples leads to efforts to insulate established residents.
The first occurred in the late 1800s, when cities were industrializing, and the second was
after the Vietnam War. Planned retirement communities in the 1970s helped drive gated-
community development focused on lifestyle, prestige, and/or safety.
Today gated communities are most prevalent in the Sunbelt stat~ - Arizona, Texas,
Florida, California.
In Marsh Landing, people get together at individual homes or the golf club, where putting
greens, not town greens, facilitate much of the social interaction.
{-one resident without golfing privileges concedes, "We're living in a very nice place, bu0
~ometimes I feel like I'm living on an island." :.:...J
FulltlTML,.YersiQILQtthisstQIYWhJGh~.rnCly..iDG11.I<:1e2hQtQs.L.9@QhicsJlml_LeLClte<1linlss
htlp:llwww.csmonitor.com/2003/0806/p11s02-lihc.htm
6/17/2004
land Develooment Code
City of Collevville. Texas
Section 10.1 Purpose of This Chapter
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish regulations for gated subdivisions with privately owned streets.
Section 10.2 Authorization for Adoption of This Chapter
The regulations contained in this Chapter have been adopted under the following authority:
1. Chapter 212 - Municipal Regulation of Subdivisions and Property Development of the Texas Local
Government Code, which authorizes a municipality to adopt rules governing plats and subdivisions of
land within the municipality's jurisdiction.
2. Chapter 51 - General Powers of Municipalities of the Texas Local Government Code, which
authorizes a municipality to adopt ordinances, rules, or police regulations that are for the good
government, peace, or the trade and commerce of the municipality.
3. The Home Rule Charter of the City of Colleyville. which authorizes the City Council to exercise all
powers granted to municipalities by the Constitution or the laws of the State of Texas.
Section 10.3 Variances and Appeals
Any person seeking approval of a development as required by this Land Development Code may request a
waiver from a requirement contained in this Chapter, or appeal a decision of an administrative official by
submitting a request using the procedures described in Chapter 1 - General Provisions of this Land
Development Code.
Section 10.4 Definitions
Definitions applicable to this Chapter may be found in Chapter 2 - Definitions of this Land Development
Code.
Section 10.5 Council Authority and Procedure
to.S.A AUTHORITY
The City Council, after receiving recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission and
holding a public hearing, may grant a variance to allow approval of a plat or replat of a subdivision which
includes private streets and entrance gates, provided that the subdivision complies with the minimum
requirements listed below plus any other requirements deemed necessary by the City Council in order to
protect public health and safety. The terms "private street" or "private streets" shall be inclusive of streets,
alleys, storm drainage systems, entrance gates and structures.
lO.S.B PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUIRED
A request for a subdivision with private streets must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council with each body holding a public hearing. Written notices of all such public hearings shall
be sent to all owners of real property lying within 200 feet of the proposed subdivision with private streets.
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10 - 1
land DeveloDment Code
CIty of Collevvllle. Texas
Such notices to be given not less than ten (10) days before the day set for hearing, as listed on the last
approved City tax roll. Such notice may be served by depositing letters properly addressed and postage
paid in the City Post Office. The applicant will be sent notice by registered mail. The Planning and
Zoning Commission will act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in this matter. A subdivision with
private streets and alleys is permitted only after a final decision has been made by the City Council to
issue a private street permit.
Section 10.6 Conditions of Approval
lO.6.A PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Streets shown on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Colleyville must not be used,
maintained or constructed as private streets.
2. A subdivision with private streets and alleys must not impede or cross an existing or proposed
street as shown on the City's most recent Thoroughfare Plan or approved preliminary or final
plats.
3. A subdivision with private streets and alleys must not disrupt or disconnect an existing or
proposed City of Colleyville public pedestrian pathway, hike and bike trail, or park as shown on
the City's most recent Park Plan.
4. The perimeter of a subdivision with private streets and alleys must include a minimum of eighty
(80) feet of contiguous frontage upon a public street.
5. The proposed subdivision with private streets must be zoned for residential purposes in
accordance with the Colleyville Land Development Code, and contain twenty (20) single-family
lots or greater.
lO,6.B PUBLIC ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the above conditions of approval, the Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend
denial and the City Council may reject a request for a subdivision with private streets if in the
Commission's and Council's judgment the private streets would negatively affect traffic circulation on
public streets, impair access to properties or future developments that are either on-site or off-site to the
subdivision, impair access to or from public facilities such as schools, parks and libraries, etc., or delay
the response time of emergency vehicles.
lO.6.C PRIVATE STREET AND DRAINAGE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
Private streets must conform to the same standards regulating the design and construction of public
streets. These standards shall include, but are not limited to the concrete street standards, engineering
design guidelines and construction standards and details, street naming and addressing policy. The
drainage system must meet all the requirements of public facilities, including sizing to carry upstream
loads, metered discharges, etc.
lO.6.D TRAFFIC SIGNS
All traffic regulatory signs along private streets must conform to the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.
lO.6.E HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS (BOA) REQUIRED
A subdivision developed with private streets must have a mandatory HOA which includes all properties
served by the private streets. The association shall own and be responsible for the maintenance of the
private streets and appurtenances. The association's document must indicate that the streets and
drainage systems within the development are private, owned and maintained by the association, and that
Page 10-2
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
land Develooment Code
City of Collevville. Texas
the City has no obligation to maintain the private streets and drainage systems. The documents shall be
filed of record prior to the approval of the final plat. Lot deeds must convey membership in the
association and provide for the payment of dues and assessments required by the association. The
association must not be dissolved without the prior written consent of the City. Np portion of the
association's documents pertaining to the maintenance of the private streets and assessments thereto
shall be amended without the written consent of the City.
10.6.F RESERVE FUND
The HOA shall establish a reserve fund for the maintenance and reconstruction of the private streets,
drainage facilities, and related appurtenances. The reserve fund should be accounted for separately from
other funds maintained for annual operating expenses of the association in order to better demonstrate
that the amounts deposited therein are intended for capital improvements. The HOA shall, no later than
January 31st of each year, submit to the City a copy of the reserve fund statement for the preceding
calendar year. The annual contribution to the reserve fund shall be a minimum of $75.00 per lot, or as
otherWise determined by the City Council. The City shall have authority to inspect all streets, drainage
facilities, and related appurtenances on a periodic basis to determine the need for repairs to these capital
facilities. The City requires that the HOA employ an engineering firm to estimate the cost of replacement
based on inflation, original design and construction and the age of the facilities. The HOA shall repair all
drainage and street facilities when instructed to do so by the City, subject to appeal to the City Council.
Failure by the HOA to make repairs to streets or drainage facilities which impact drainage up or
downstream from the development may result in the' completion of needed repairs by the City with an
assessment of all costs plus interest accrued from the time the City installs the improvements until all
funds are collected. HOA documents must detail this City authority and shall not be amended without
City approval.
10.6.G PRIVATE STREET LOT
Private streets must be constructed within a separate lot owned by the HOA. This lot must conform to the
City's standards for public street and alley right-of-way. An easement covering the street lot must be
granted to the City providing unrestricted use of the property for utilities and the maintenance of same.
This right shall extend to all utility providers including telecable companies operating within the City. The
easement must also provide the City with the right of access for any purpose related to the exercise of a
governmental service or function, including but not limited to fire and police protection, inspection and
code enforcement. The easement shall permit the City to remove any vehicle or obstacle within the
private street lot that impairs emergency access.
10.6.H CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE COST
The City shall not pay for any portion of the cost of constructing or maintaining a private street.
10.6.1 CITY UTILITIES
Water, sewer, storm drainage facilities placed within the private street and alley lot shall be installed to
city standards. After completion and acceptance of such facilities, the water and sewer facilities shall be
dedicated to the city. All storm drainage facilities in the subdivision shall remain within the ownership and
maintenance responsibilities of the HOA. All city regulations relating to infrastructure financing,
performance bonds, developer cost participation and capital cost recovery shall apply to developments
with private streets. Any and all city executable maintenance bonds covering subdivision construction
shall be transferred to the HOA upon approval of the private street subdivision by the City Council.
10.6.J PLANS & INSPECTIONS
Proposed subdivision with private streets must submit to the City the same plans and engineering
information required to construct public streets, utilities and related appurtenances. Requirements
pertaining to inspection and approval of improvements prior to the City's acceptance of the subdivision
shall apply. Fees charged for these services shall also apply. The City shall have the right to inspect the
private streets and related appurtenances at any time, and require the HOA to provide the repairs needed
Page 10 - 3
Chapter 10- Private Streets & Entrance Gates
land Develooment Code
City of Collevville. Texas
to ensure emergency access. The City Council shall be the final judge of whether such repairs are
needed.
10.6.K ACCESS RESTRICTIONS
Guard houses, access control gates and cross arms may be constructed. All restricted access entrances
must be manned 24 hours every day, or provide an alternative means of ensuring access to the
subdivision by the City and other utility service providers with appropriate identification. If the HOA fails to
maintain reliable access as required to provide city or utility services, the City shall have the right to enter
the subdivision and remove any gate or device Which is a barrier to access at the sole expense of the
HOA, subject to approval by the City Council. The HOA's documents must contain provisions in
conformity with this paragraph which must not be amended without the written consent of the City.
10.6.L RESTRICTED ACCESS ENTRANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
Any private street which has an access control gate or cross arm must have a minimum uninterrupted
pavement width of 24 feet at the location of the access control device. If an overhead barrier is used, it
must have a minimum height above the road surface as required by the Fire Code for fire lanes. The
design of all gates, cross arms and access control devices, including automatic opening systems and
manual backup systems, must meet City guidelines or policies and must be approved by the City prior to
installation. The gates, cross arms and opening devices must be tested and accepted by the City prior to
being put into operation. Gate designs may incorporate one or two gate sections to meet the required
minimum width of 24 feet. If the entrance is to incorporate a median, guard shack, or similar structure
that necessitates a divided gate arrangement, the gate and street pavement widths may be reduced if
approved by the City, but in no case shall any single gate or street pavement have a clear opening of less
than 18 feet in width nor fourteen (14) feet in height. (0-00-1261/12/19/00)
All restricted access entrances shall be equipped with the Opticom gate opening system. The system
shall be maintained by the HOA in good working condition at all times.
10.6,M VISITOR ENTRANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
At least one entrance per subdivision with private streets must be equipped for visitor access. In addition
to the above Restricted Access Entrance Design Standards, said visitor entrance must be equipped with
a call or code box located at least 50 feet from the boundary of the subdivision to provide for visitors
calling in and automobile queuing. The City reserves the right to require the developer to provide a
detailed study to determine if the traffic generated by the proposed development will warrant the call or
code box to be set back greater than the 50 foot minimum requirement in order to ensure sufficient
vehicle storage or queuing space. A turn-around space with a minimum outside radius of 30 feet must be
located between any call or code box and access control gate or cross arm to allow vehicles denied
access to safely exit onto public streets in a "head out" position. A sign must be erected next to the edge
of such turn around space to prohibit vehicle parking in such space. Residents entrance used in
combination with a visitor entrance shall comply with the requirements of this paragraph.
10,6.N RESIDENT ONLY ENTRANCE DESIGN STANDARDS
In addition to the above Restricted Access Entrance Design Standards, an access control gate or cross
arm that requires residents to use a key, card or code to gain access must be set back a minimum of 50
feet from the boundary of the subdivision to provide for automobile queuing. Resident entrances
equipped with an electronic opener that allows residents to remotely open the control access gate or
cross arm and enter the subdivision without having to stop are exempted from this requirement. A sign
must be erected next to any resident entrance that does not meet the 50 feet setback requirement of this
paragraph and does not provide a turn-around space with a minimum outside radius of 30 feet to indicate
that it is for resident use only and not for visitors.
10.6.0 HOLD IlARMLESS
Page 10 - 4
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
land Develooment Code
City of Collevville. Texas
The subdivision final plat and the HOA's documents must contain language whereby the HOA, as owner
of the private streets and appurtenances, agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
City, its officers, agents, licensees, servants and employees, from and against any and all claims or suits
for property damage or loss and/or personal injury, including death, to any and all persons, of whatsoever
kind of character, whether real or asserted, arising out of or in connection with, directly or indirectly: a) the
reasonable use of the private streets, emergency access, utility easements, entrance gate or structure by
the City, its officers, agents, licensees, servants and employees; b) the condition of the private streets,
private street lights, private entrance gates or structures, private walls or fences, private pedestrian
access, private storm drainage systems and emergency access; or c) any use of the subdivision with
private streets by the City, its officers, agents, licensees, servants and employees for any purpose related
to the exercise of a governmental function or service, whether or not caused, in whole or in part, by
alleged negligence of officers, agents, servants, employees, contractors, subcontractors, licensees or
invitees of City. The HOA shall be responsible for carrying liability insurance to meet the requirements in
this paragraph. Those portions of the HOA's documents pertaining to the subject matter contained in this
paragraph must not be amended without the written consent of the City.
10.6.P REVOCATION OF PRIVATE STREET PERMIT
The City Council, after giving a sixty (60) day notice to the HOA, its successors or assignees and after
holding a public hearing, may revoke a private street permit issued to a subdivision with private streets if
the Council finds that the private street permit was obtained by fraud or deception, or if the HOA fails to
provide reliable emergency access. The revocation of a private street permit shall give the City the right
to inspect the private streets and levy an assessment upon each lot on a pro-rata basis for the expense of
needed repairs. Said assessment shall constitute an assessment lien upon the lot against which each
assessment is made. The City Council shall be the final judge of whether repairs are needed. The City
shall also have the right to require, at the HOA's expense, the removal of guard houses, access control
devices, landscaping or other aesthetic amenities located within the street lot. If the permit is revoked,
the HOA will forfeit to the City the remaining balance of the reserve fund established for the maintenance
and improvement of all streets and utilities within the subdivision. If the reserve fund is insufficient, the lot
owners will be assessed the difference for appropriate maintenance. The HOA's documents must
provide for the City's right to require said assessment and removal of improvements. Those portions of
the HOA's documents pertaining to the subject matter contained in this paragraph must not be amended
without the written consent of the City.
10.6.Q PETITION TO CONVERT TO PUBLIC STREETS
The HOA may petition the City Council to accept private streets as public streets and right-of-ways upon
written notice to all HOA members and upon receipt of the notarized signatures of 100% of the HOA's
membership indicating approval. However, in no event shall the City be obligated to accept the private
streets as public. Should the City Council elect to grant the petition, the City shall have the right to
inspect the private streets and estimate the expense of repairing the private streets and removing gates,
guard houses, access control devices, landscaping or other amenities located within the private street lot.
The City shall be the final judge of whether repairs .are needed to the private streets prior to acceptance.
Before approval by the City Council, the petitioners or their designee must contract with the City for
payment of 100% of the City's estimated expenses.
10.6.R PETITION TO CONVERT TO PRIVATE STREETS
The homeowners may petition the City Council to convert public streets to private streets upon written
notice to all the neighborhood's members and upon receipt of the notarized signatures of 100% of the
neighborhood's homeowners indicating approval. A subdivision petitioning to have private streets must
have a mandatory HOA which includes all properties proposed to be served by the private streets.
However, in no event shall the City be obligated to convert public streets to private streets. Should the
City Council elect to grant the petition, the City shall receive documentation of an acceptable plan
whereby a reserve fund of the appropriate amount is set up for implementation by the HOA.
10.6.S CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10-5
land Develooment Code
City of Collevville. Texas
All HOA's documents must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney to ensure that they conform to
this and other applicable City policies prior to being filed of record at the County. The developer of a new
subdivision shall pay for the cost of the City Attorney's review.
10.6. T SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS
The plat dedication certificate and conditions of approval shown in the attached Exhibits "10-A" and "10-
B" must be provided in all final plats for subdivisions with private streets."
10.6.U PERMIT FEE
To defray the cost of processing the application, and maintaining City owned electronic emergency
equipment, a partially refundable fee of $700 shall be presented upon application for approval of a
private street subdivision. If the application is denied by City Council, $500 shall be refunded to the
applicant. "
EXHIBIT "1 O-A"
PLAT DEDICATION CERTIFICATE
NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT:
THAT ' acting by and through the undersigned, its duly authorized
agent, does hereby adopt this plat designating the hereinabove described real property as
, an addition to the City of Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas,
and does hereby dedicate to the public's use the emergency access and utility easements shown thereon
subject to the conditions of approval stated herein.
\
WITNESS MY HAND at Colleyville, Tarrant County, Texas, this
day of
,199_.
(provide name and title)
EXHIBIT "10-B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Lot 1, Block A denotes the private access and private drainage easement owned by the Homeowners
Association (HOA) of . No building permit will be issued for Lot 1,
Block A.
2. The landowners and any subsequent owners of lots shown herein (the DLot OwnersD), jointly and
severally, shall be responsible and liable for the construction, operation and maintenance of any
private common areas or facilities in the addition created herein (the DAdditionD), including but not
limited to private streets, private entrance gates or structures, private walls and fences, private
pedestrian access, private storm drainage systems, private lake, private open space and
landscaping, and emergency access.
3. A HOA shall be established by the subdivider or developer to operate and/or maintain the
aforementioned private common areas or facilities.
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10 - 6
land DeveloDment Code
Otv of Collevvllle, Texas
4. The City of Colleyville, Texas (the City) shall not be responsible for maintaining any of the
aforementioned private common areas or facilities. The City will maintain only the public water and
sewer systems in utility easements accepted by the City.
5. The HOA, lot owners, and landowners shall not seek maintenance from the City except for the
aforementioned public water and sewer systems in utility easements accepted by the City.
6. Any public utility entities, including the City, shall have the right at all times of ingress and egress to
and from and upon the utility easements shown herein for the purpose of construction, reconstruction,
inspection, patrolling, maintaining, and adding to or removing all or part of its respective systems.
Except for private storm drainage systems, private streets and related entrance gates or structures
that are approved by the City, no buildings, fences, structures, trees, shrubs, or other improvements
or growths shall be constructed or placed upon, or across said public utility easements. Any public
utility entity, including the City, shall have the right to remove and keep removed all or parts of any
buildings, fences, structures, trees, shrubs, or other improvements or growths which may in any way
endanger or interfere with its respective systems within said utility easements.
7. The City shall have the right at all times to remove and keep removed any vehicle or obstacle that
impairs emergency access in the emergency access easements shown herein.
8. Any governmental entities, including the City, shall have the right at all times of ingress and egress to
and from and upon the private access easements shown herein for any purpose related to the
exercise of a governmental service or function.
9. If the HOA or lot owners fail to maintain reliable access to any public utility or governmental entities
for purposes stated hereinabove, the City may enter the Addition and remove any entrance gate or
structure which is a barrier to access at the sole expense of the HOA or lot owners on a pro-rata
share formula.
10. The construction, reconstruction or repair of any private streets within the Addition must meet the
approval of the City Engineer and comply with the specifications of the City for public streets at the
time of construction, reconstruction or repair. The construction, reconstruction or repair of any
entrance gate. and structure for the Addition must meet the approval of the Engineering Department
and Fire Department of the City.
11. The installation or replacement of all traffic regulatory signs along the private streets must conform to
the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
12. THE HOA AND LOT OWNERS AGREE TO RELEASE, INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD
HARMLESS THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, LICENSEES, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES,
FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR SUITS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE OR LOSS
ANDIOR PERSONAL INJURY, INCLUDING DEATH, TO ANY AND ALL PERSONS, OF
WHATSOEVER KIND OF CHARACTER, WHETHER REAL OR ASSERTED, ARISING OUT OF OR
IN CONNECTION WITH, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: A) THE REASONABLE USE OF THE
PRIVATE STREETS, EMERGENCY ACCESS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, ENTRANCE GATE OR
STRUCTURE BY THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, LICENSEES, SERVANTS AND
EMPLOYEES; B) THE CONDITION OF THE PRIVATE STREETS, PRIVATE ENTRANCE GATES OR
STRUCTURES, PRIVATE WALLS AND FENCES, PRIVATE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, PRIVATE
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND EMERGENCY ACCESS; OR C) ANY USE OF THE ADDITION
BY THE CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, LICENSEES, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES FOR ANY
PURPOSE STATED HEREINABOVE, WHETHER OR NOT CAUSED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY
ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OR OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS,
SUBCONTRACTORS, LICENSEES OR INVITEES OF CITY. THE HOA SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR CARRYING LIABILITY INSURANCE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS PARAGRAPH.
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10-7
land Develooment Code
City of Collevville. Texas
Section 10.7 Amendments to This Chapter
Reserved for listing of amendments to this Chapter.
Ord. Number
0-00-1261
Date
12/19/00
Sub'eel
Restricted Access Entrance Des' n Standards
Page 10-8
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
.$
7'exas
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA BRIEFING
Agenda Date:
Subject:
September 13, 2004
Staff Comments, Reports and Discussion Items
Attached is a memo regarding the live broadcast of all City Council, Planning and
Zoning Commission, and Zoning Board of Adjustment meetings.
Prepared by:
Staff Comments, Reports and Discussion Items
Barry LeBaron
Subject:
Dixie Cawthorne
Wednesday, September 08, 2004 3:01 PM
Barry LeBaron; Cynthia Singleton; Dianne McWethy; Dixie Cawthorne; John Young; Kacey
Bess; Keith Fisher; Kelly Cooper; Kelly Howell; Lin Przybyl; Mary Rodne; Mike Johnston (E-
mail); Monica Walsh; Scott Welmaker; Stephen Seidel; Terry Leake; William Lindley
City Council and P&Z live tapings
From:
Sent:
To:
Management Team,
Starting Monday, September 13, 2004, we will begin showing Planning and Zoning meetings and Zoning Board of
Adjustment meetings "live". We will also be rebroadcasting Planning and Zoning meetings one-time (Thursday at 6:00
p.m. following a P&Z meeting). We will not be rebroadcasting Zoning Board of Adjustment meetings.
Planning and Zoning met on the 2nd and 4th Monday's of every month. Zoning Board of Adjustments meet on the second
Tuesday of every month if there are cases to consider.
The schedule will go as follows:
Week of P&Z Meeting:
7:00 PM - Monday, September 13, 2004 live P&Z meeting
7:00 PM -Tuesday, September 14, 2004 live ZBA meeting
6:00 PM -Thursday, September 16,2004 rebroadcast September 13, P&Z meeting
Week of Council Meetings:
Tuesday, September 21, 2004 live council meeting 7:30 PM
Thursday, September 23, 2004 rebroadcast council meeting 6:00 PM
Sunday, September 26, 2004 rebroadcast council meeting 6:00 PM
This schedule will continue throughout the year. We have changed the council rebroadcast day of Monday's at 9:00 PM to
Sunday at 6:00 PM. This change will accommodate the broadcast of the "live" Planning and Zoning meetings.
This schedule will be placed on the Comcast city presentation.
Dixie Cawthorne
Communications Manager
City of Colleyville
office:817.503.1120
fax: 817.503.1129
1