HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Agenda Packets-11/22/2004
city or
~
Texas
AGENDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
City Hall Council Chambers - 100 Main Street
Monday, November 22,2004
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Thomas Bartkowski, John
Blassingame, Jeff Byerly, Dave Dudziak, Luann
Edwards, Denis Duffy, Thomas Dolan
INVOCATION
Commissioner Dudziak
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 8, 2004
CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Case P-04-042 - Minor Plat of Sandlin Estates Addition, 4.88 acres located at
1801 Oak Knoll
2. Case Z-04-039 - PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning change from AG to R40 on
4.69 acres located at 7300 John McCain Road
~. Case Z-04-036 - PUBLIC HEARING - Amendment to the Land Development
Code regarding community special event regulations
4. Case Z-04-035 - TABLED ITEM - Zoning change from AG and R40 to PUD-R
on 10.2 acres located at 909-1009 Lavaca Trail
5. Case G-04-020 - TABLED ITEM - Review and discussion of regulations for
private streets and entrance gates
Planning and Zoning Commission
Agenda -November 22, 2004
Page 1 of 2
STAFF COMMENTS, REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS
The following items were received on the last case submittal deadline:
· Zoning change from R30 to R20 on Block 1, Lot 29R Westcoat Place Addition
located at 6002 Westcoat Drive.
· Zoning change from Residential AG to R40 and R20 on 3.67 acres located at
1209 Tinker Road, Abstract No. 331, Tract 2C of the A.J. Caldwell Survey.
· Zoning change from AG to R40 and R20 on 4 acres located at 512 Shelton Drive.
· Zoning change from AG to R40 on 10 acres located at 600 Shelton Drive.
· Minor plat of Huggins Addition, .79 acres located at 700 Shelton Drive, Abstract
No. 1692, Tract 2F6
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS AND REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Posted: Thursday, November 18,2004,4:30 p.m. by Amy Shelley, Planning and Zoning Assistant
Planning and Zoning Commission
Agenda -November 22, 2004
Page 2 of 2
.~
Texas
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES - November 8, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Byerly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Thomas DolCiln,> Dave Dudziak,
Thomas Bartkowski, Jeff.~yerly, Luann Edwards,
John Blassingame, and Q.er'jl$.El~ffy were present.
~ .. ^
Barry LeBaron, CI~~~n Husbana:~~d Amy Shelley
from staff were p~~~ent. Ross Fostefi>Gity Attorney,
was present. .
INVOCATION
, <<,>' .' ."~
The invocation was given by Commissioner Dolan.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..>.>
There were no correction~(;):rcflan9~s to
Commissioner Edwqfg~ moved t~~qpprove
meeting. Commissionef:El.~ffy se. '~~gJhe
,0'.,':
The motion V\I~,S;:~p~fo\JedbY{
Aye: Dolqp,~Di.idzlakB(;!rtko"
Nay: N(:)na>/"
"."', ..0..............."..'.'.........'
',,-,... ."..."",.......,..
'.-,<.. ..... ,." .... ','" -"".-' ,'"','<'<,, ,
" ."""" ,.', _' '" 'u_ .. ...".. .....>.0
· 'followingvote:> "
Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly
the
11, 2004 minutes.
of the October 11, 2004
CITIZEN COMMENTS
None
AGENDA ITEMS
1. P-04-039- Minor Plat of Thorne Addition, 0.73 acres located at 405 Shelton
Drive
Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff
briefing.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 1 of 17
Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if this is lot is un-platted tract from before?
Clayton Husband responded yes and it will have to be platted before new
construction begins.
Commissioner Duffy questioned the old foundation forms in the back whether it is
old or new? Clayton Husband responded not sure on the status of that
foundation in question however, they would have to provide information on that
before permitting a permit for construction.
Commissioner Duffy questioned about stubbing igtgthe asphalt circle currently
there for a driveway. Clayton Husband r~~ponde~/ that is correct, the
homeowners will be able to stub into the existing<asphaltcul"de-sac.
Commissioner Duffy questioned if this pr9~erty is isolated becau~e there appears
to be no access or no roads. Claytqn~tJsband responded thel"'Elis a piece of
property at the end of the street witha~riveway qJ"lQ. they would have access to
this cul-de-sac. ii'
Commissioner Duffy questio~i~>:;~pout the gf~~~I;haulers using property between
railroads, would that street.~~;<ril~i.~~~ined or is>ii~>in the railroad right of way?
Clayton Husband responded;~~!ieVes;t~~~particuI~~~oadway is in the railroad
right of way. Barry ~~Baron stat~~.. thet~i.~~g!~ip~operty (part of Shelton) the old
Bransford roadi~~i.~y;~~~ed an(fij'~it:>~I~g usedf;J~right of way and allowed the
city to build thecul-de;:,sac bub6leiwhere these properties would have their
driveways.
Commissioner-Duffy madernotiQn to approve Case P-04-039 and Commissioner
Dudziak ..secondedtheimbtion.
"[tle motionW~~appfQ~eQ by the following vote:
"Aye: Dolan, DO~~~iak, Ba't'tkqwski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly
~a>Y: None . . ... ,
"'::::;:':;'.':..",;'::;;::'
2. P-04..()~p - Prelimi~~ry Plat for Cambridge Place Addition, 9.181 acres located
south of:'~~nterp~~~~>:east of Colleyville Boulevard
"""';"";,'C ,',",;',:"0.
Clayton HJ~b~~a. presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff
briefing.
Barry LeBaron stated to the Commission that no action is to be taken on the
Ordinance because the Ordinance had already been approved. The
Commission is to take action on the plat.
Commissioner Edwards questioned staff what the lot coverage allowed is on this
subdivision? Barry LeBaron responded that the lot coverage was determined by
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 2 of 17
the building envelope, these are smaller lots and maximum lot coverage was not
stated in the ordinance.
Commissioner Edwards questioned if the Planning & Zoning Commission had
recommended approval on this initially, when it went to Council. Clayton
Husband and Barry LeBaron stated could not remember whether or not this case
had been approved.
Commissioner Byerly stated upon his memory he did!il~~think Planning & Zoning
recommended approval, a denial was received. . .
",.,,' "'<:':":,'
Commissioner Edwards questioned if this w~sgbing t6>.~~~ gated community?
Clayton Husband responded did not believ.@;~p, however, th~>~pplicants are here
to answer any questions. <<;,;, H ' ^
Commissioner Bartkowski questioned/t~e minimum road center line turn radius
on the streets because of the tight tlJrtrradius.on one of the streets in the
subdivision. Clayton Husband responded the plat meets the Fire Department
requirements for the turn radius.lt has a 45' turn radius.
Commissioner Bartkowski qU~.~lioneai~mere a~iQimum? Clayton Husband
responded 35' is the minimum Otlthe insi~~;~O;lQe outside is 50'.
Commissioner~~wards~~~stione~~hether if the arrows indicate a zero lot line?
Clayton Hy.~pqnd respo!il~@d the a~~~ws refer to 3' building line side of the
property an~~;>;~RPosite /sig~>are T. K~~Y are very beneficial to city so that they
know which sl~~:i~ th~;~~:~~~g>~:;;::;:...;:>
'<"//:'
'f."';"., ./;'/
o.'..,..\...\.\.."'.....f.>.... .... ' "'/""\:\:':./<.'.,..",' ,"/'," " <',' ,,' ,,' '.'/'/,'//;<
s~~~i~~i~!iI~r. B~ij~g~Ski questiortgd what the minimum lot depth for this
~9bdivision?e~fry L~~~f?n stated the ordinance provides for a 58' minimum lot
depth requirem~nt. for this subdivision. Clayton Husband stated some lots are
odd and turned sideways. Some homes will be wider than they are deep.
Comr'Jli~~ioner Duffy> stated some lots are in the 100 year flood line and
question~9whetheror not those lots would be built up to 2' above the flood line?
Clayton Husoantjresponded correct.
Commissioner Duffy questioned the run off of the water being directed from
south to north? Clayton Husband responded not having reviewed the lot grading
plans could not respond to how the water would drain. If water does drain south
to north, it would be diverted back in to the street, then down to the south to the
creek.
Commissioner Duffy stated all information states they are requesting a variance
for detention ponds because it will go in to creek. However, if they reclaim, it
goes through lot C, then that land would have to drain forward. Does not see a
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 3 of 17
lot of water thought and just dumping in to creek doesn't make sense at this time
without some flow patterns, most of property having zero lot line would indicate
most of property is concrete and that being the case, grass has an absorption
rate of .8 and concrete has a .0 and all the water would go in to creek or some
place. Commissioner stated drainage plans with be with this plan, and has not
seen any yet. With the 100 year flood line being in several of the lots shown on
the plat, does not see where drainage provisions are allowed. Clayton Husband
provided preliminary drainage plans provided by their engineer and showed the
lots being able to drain towards the back toward the r~arof the lots and water will
drain to the south to the creek.
Commissioner Duffy stated that would be.< the. naturalfJqw, but half of the
reclamation area, some of the lots, will ha\J~to be raised totl1eet the 2'. Clayton
Husband responded the pad of the hou~Elor the finished f1oor.of the foundation
has to be raised the 2', not the whole J9l;<
Commissioner Duffy stated the informafi6~pro~I:~~dstates; by releasing the on-
site storm run-off immediatel~".the on-sited~~ig~Qa is carried downstream prior to
the 100 year flood reaching.~~[i~~>;;.R.~ak stage. <:~~~missioner questioned at what
point and time would the 1 OOm~~a~:~~Q~ reachit~:~~ak stage? Clayton Husband
responded could not answer tn~~>questi(:)f'l~
<>>'.., '-.,'>;,......... . "".,'-
'>.,'-"" "... '- .-".,..,',:>>. ..,<:'<.....^
,. ""','.Y,',."--, .. ..
<<">>"<<>':'<<<'::<>'" "<;:
Commissioner DuffYi,$tClted it wOlll~> nQn~achlts.p~ak stage at this property but it
would further down' stream. Clayton Husband stated had not reviewed the flood
study.
Commissioner Puffy. <~t~tedmeopen space to be for entertainment or
recreatiQnal useof~~cupants.Stateqthe upper part of open space is usable but
tg~V\Ihole.I~~~r ha1t2f the open space is in the flood plain and would not be
~~able. Clayt9f'l>>~usbqp~ responded that it is not uncommon for open space to
be in the flooCf::pIClin ar~~. It does not necessarily mean it is being used for
d~tention, the opel"l<.space<just happens to be in the flood plain. Barry LeBaron
sta~~~tthat this Pl.J.9ordinance provides for a provision that allows the use of
open;~pqce for dete [lion.
'C::.<"" ",;
-,.,:.,:',",',- " "
commi;~:i~m~r>:~~9ff~ stated could not reduce below the 20% requirement for
open space;;.~;~s there a plan for improvement on the open space? Clayton
Husband respbnded there is not a plan for improving the open space.
Commissioner Duffy open space goes up to Hwy 26? Clayton Husband
responded correct.
Commissioner Duffy stated at this time the open space is all in the flood area.
Clayton Husband responded that the southern portion open space is in the flood
area.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 4 of 17
Commissioner Duffy stated at this point, treatment of flood and water has not
been addressed.
Commissioner Dudziak concurred with Commissioner Duffy on the open space
as being usable, recreation space. This plat does not add up to the 22% stated
for open space, numbers do not add up. Need to see what calculations are. Any
plans for trails? Not usable open space. Idea behind PUD is for open space to
be usable for residents. No parks in this area, that'~.why these PUDs need
usable open space for residents. .. .
Commissioner Byerly stated this is not uncom~g~itf1'~::~gmmission has allowed
this type of open space use before, corr~ct?>'Clayfo~:Husband responded
correct. The open space does not state.~ >'fically recreatiB~al space; it could
be used as leisure space. Barry LeBa~~~~t ated using floodPl~iD area as open
space is a good use, because there "Y~~J~be nothing in the placetphinder in the
event of flooding. Clayton Husband stat~d the nature.center is located in a flood
area, and it is a good use of open space.
Commissioner Duffy stated9l~njs point andti~e unless it can be shown as a
usable open space, right now,itisjv~t~swamp:~r~~. No access along back lots
at the creek bed that allow peqpJe acce~~.Barry L~~~ron stated there is a huge
distinction between flood plain a~9 floogV\l~Y. The afea they are using is in the
flood plain, flood"Y9yj~fHrther sO:~~t:l..
Commissip~~~>:Edwards~~(;!ted that:<,~art of the flood way is on the plat and
Commissi6~~f.Duffy con~Qrred with sfa.tement.
0"".."....,..'.,.. " "/"d"'/ o<.,<<.<<::~
,.;;:;::<:;:. .. ';:;;;>;<;:>>::>>:<<<,,,..,. '~/:'/
CO~~i~~ipnerB~'y'< ed\Na>r1ti~~~..~~:see a hydrology study or an engineer's
~~Y~'y:fhc{>:~~plarii~i;tne consideration for the water flow. Clayton Husband
~~sponded a'~~~gy wo~.lg be provided to the Commission and the developer is
present to ansV((~rqny ql:t~~tions.
COmmissioner Byerly asked the developer to come forward and explain or
ansWer-the Commia$ions' questions.
Dan Quinto with Arcadia, the Developer and Don Rankin, the Civil Engineer
came forward to explain some issues. The issue about the flood plain line going
through the 16wer half of island, there has since been an updated by a
subsequent flood study. Mr. Rankin stated having worked with Chad Bartee, City
of Colleyville Engineer, and they will address all issues before going forward with
project. Mr. Quinto stated having done studies to make sure all issues have
been addressed. Mr. Rankin also concurred with Mr. Quinto. Mr. Rankin stated
this variance is for single family residents and in the ordinance it states allowing
storm run off to be released without detention. Detention is required because of
the density of this subdivision. Mr. Rankin stated that should any problems in the
future will be addressed. Mr. Quinto stated the open space is to provide a buffer
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 5 of 17
and habitat and wild life for a sense of isolation and privacy. Most of our
customers are not interested in hike and bike paths, more interested in privacy.
Commissioner Dudziak questioned Mr. Quinto's intentions about putting in a
pathway. Mr. Quinto stated putting in a pathway would increase the water run off
and increases the usage which is not what the customer is wanting. This area
will be heavily landscaped.
Commissioner Dudziak questioned Mr. Quinto to seeifany plans for recreational
equipment, play grounds, gazebos, etc. would bepl(;!c:~a in the open spaces. Mr.
Quinto stated a gazebo would go in one of the q@en spaGes, but not playground
or recreational equipment. These customers are stridlyempty nesters all are
entirely.
Commissioner Edwards questioned h.q~~fiey would restrict who~(:),~ld buy these
homes. Mr. Quinto stated it's not restri~te,d, simply>>~~e market. .
..,
Commissioner Dudziak statep that is re~II).t"1'l~t"the case in Colleyville, a lot of
older couples have children'<>~~~,9Jmissioner E~~~rds concurred.
0,_.'.'.",,"""'-'.. .._.':..,....'.'.
Commissioner Duffy stated th>< areol.(t~t~ate dr~~i~gs for the flood way? Mr.
Quinto stated the Ii~es for thetJ,~~d way>.~t~g.if!erent;the drawings are not out
dated. Mr. Ran kJn<:~(,)JjC:~Jred. " , . .."
Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the Commission would be able to see the
final plat before approved? Barry LeBaron stated yes, it is not uncommon for
changes to be made to a preliminary plat before approval of the final plat.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 6 of 17
Commissioner Duffy stated those have heard the objections of the Commission
and still do not like the plans. However, if they, developer, are willing to work
with these objections and fix the problems with drainage and open space and
make accessible, As it is right now, Commissioner stated still in objection.
Mr. Quinto stated understanding about the drainage issues; all open space
should be accessible by all residents?
Commissioner Dudziak responded the open spa9~>$l1ould be open to all
residents and the Commission is trying to make allgR.~e spaces accessible to all
residents and that is what the open space r~~~j~em~e~<is for, not just for an
exclusive use by a particular resident. Are th~ ct~"eloper!~::~Qing to put in trails or
paths? Mr. Quinto questioned if the paths>>~(~~ails had to b~:>R:~}'ed?
....:.'.:.'.'.// i ..,'j >"" :<.<....<...'....
........,., .,' ,..................'
"",' .........
<f...,'.. ,'.<',' ".' ..
Commissioner Byerly stated the issU~$:j~re going further thanWffi.~t are needed
for right now. This is not uncommon>fQ~!~re use ~f.~~en space; we:n~ve counted
open space as this in the past. The CitY:~.ouncilcian make changes to the Land
Development Code as needed, we can not and as it stands right now this
qualifies as open space andtt'l~~e spaces areqccessible and usable for all.
Commissioner Edwards stated to staff to get with Chad Bartee and remind him
that this is in direct alignment with Bedford Road and there is flooding problems.
Have Mr. Bartee take a closer look so that any further problems will not occur.
Clayton Husband responded, yes, staff would get with Mr. Bartee.
Commissioner Byerly made motion to approve case P-04-040. Commissioner
Dolan seconded the motion.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 7 of 17
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Dolan, Bartkowski, Blassingame, Byerly
Nay: Dudziak, Edwards, Duffy
3. Z-04-037 - PUBLIC HEARING - Special Use Permit for an accessory building
located on Lot 1, Block 1 at 411 McDonwell School Road East.
Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commi~$~(;lt\and reviewed the staff
briefing.
COrT)rT)issioner D(.I~~i~kstated C(;)I1'lrT)i~sion was not here to approve the plans of
th~puifCJirJg>b~t, does this building need to have a second exit, because of the
size and havirtg, an elderly gentleman living there? Barry LeBaron stated this
square footagewoulCJgpt require a second exit and it does meet the
reH~irements of t~~fire code, the fire marshal has briefed the case. Clayton
HUS;~c;lnd concurre~>qs well as the building official has briefed the plan.
Comrrii~~j>p~er DH~~iak questioned, did not need second exit? Clayton Husband
respondecl'i;~,~~"~s> correct. We can, however, double check with the fire
department aJ;td:>code.
Commissioner Dudziak questioned if the code requires using compatible or
similar materials for construction as compared to the home? Barry LeBaron
stated none. City does not have any requirements for construction of this
particular type of building; however, if the Commission wanted there to be
restrictions then those restrictions for construction could be listed in the
ordinance.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 8 of 17
Commissioner Bartkowski questioned about what the code states on the
occupancy of immediate family members in the RE zoning? Clayton Husband
stated servants and caretakers, primarily for use of immediate family and/or
domestic servants for homeowners.
Commissioner Bartkowski questioned in the RE zoning it is limited to 600 sq. ft.?
Clayton Husband stated correct if this property where zoned RE and they wanted
to build the size proposed the homeowner would hc:l'".~"to get a special use
permit, however if they were to build a 600 sq. ft. li\,liogquarters, then a special
use permit would not be required.
<",:,:,:.,'/..'..0:" '<."/",/,',,
<<........'..'.0 "/'..~ ,....... "
Commissioner Bartkowski stated only in the~E~6ning:>t'~yton Husband stated
correct and also in the AG zoning. ..
,.':/>'
,-."",,/./>:./:..- -"/,,-,,.;<<,.
Commissioner Bartkowski stated thi~/il~""hot RE ~r AG zonihg,R-40 correct?
Clayton Husband stated correct. Tff~;>,~~meown~,~>~till would havet(2) acquire a
special use permit either way because of~he zOl;)iJ19i "
Commissioner Edwards questi(2)oed staff ifWV\lould make a difference if the
building were attached to the hOl.lSe? Clayton HU$band responded, and then it
would just be an addition to the house.
Commissioner ~X~rl~<~H~stioned~t~ffifunderth~~UP would the homeowner be
prohibited in~~l'ltingitgi~ buildiJ1~to other occupants? Clayton Husband
responded",t~,~Rnically ye~. Howeve~~:jt would be hard to control. Barry LeBaron
concurred.
'.'. .'..'......',.. , ,.....
, .... ....,.:..:,.....".,.., ,..... "..,.,.,',
'j,,>-- .-......,..".,....,....".. ..'..'........ ','
,....'.,.,...,..... """""-'."".-'"""""..
....."...-... .",,"',...,.,.,..,.."'"
;',.,.,- -".... _,','.,"__" ,',0,' ,'.." _.'F','",",>""'",, ,.:.>,.
".,'.,.,.-.... .,.....,...", ,',"- ..'..,., <- ,-",.,,-,.. ....
Comrnis~ioner By~~I~::openedlhepyblic hearing at 7:50 P.M.
\ ",..,.,^.,...'.,',//'.."..........""..".....'.,'".,.,.".'../'-'.", ?
,', ".'.'.'."." ,.., .. "".. ^."."."."'" ',,, ,,>",",
",Citizen's comments:
<;;>>>"
,;".,.'.-(,>
/,i//',.. "',/...:'.,.-"-</,:'..
.,.-'..,..... '..' ","/.".. .",->c,'....,..,. ,.',
.... '..'^....'..... ....,.......,...".".
>~f~nk Kehr, prop~~y owrt~f across from 411 McDonwell School Road, East,
current resident of Dallas, Texas. The placement of this accessory building
would be directly in front of our existing property. Plans for this garage
apartment show the outside construction to be siding, not brick; everything in the
area is brick. ,Achange in zoning will reduce the value of our existing property
and the desirability of this being a single family dwelling. Please take in to
consideration our concerns.
Jerry Nanson, applicant 411 McDonwell School Road, East. Mr. Nanson stated
the reasoning for the use of this building to the Commission and staff. The
primary reason for this building is for his ill father. The siding will be of the
highest quality.
Commissioner Edwards questioned Mr. Nanson about the number of garages he
would have with this building?
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 9 of 17
Mr. Nanson stated he would have 5 car capacities for storage. The bays would
be used for his boat, his father's truck and one for use of a work area.
Commissioner Bartkowski stated he concurred with the homeowner; this building
would enhance this property and property value. However, the building seems a
little large, 1000 sq. ft., and 2 bedrooms, just seems a little much. Colleyville
limits the square footage in a similar zoning to 600 sq.<:ij;, Mr. Nanson stated it
may be used as servants' quarters in the future~~~:his father needs office
space. Mr. Nanson stated he has been working>with his father to try and
accommodate for all his father's needs to make his time more enjoyable.
Mary Kehr, property owner across from 411 McDonwellSchool Road, East
current resident of Dallas, Texas. Wp(,lld' prefer the placern~nt of this large
garage apartment else where. This ,^,Ulpe seen directly out of olJl"driveway. We
have a lot invested in our property <~~'l'~>do not.,^,ish to see thislqrge garage
apartment. This would not be pleasing't(.}~U ot~~rsurrounding property owners
either. '
,'..",-',
There being no one wiShingt~~;~~~~,~!,t!1e PUbl@,H~<::Jring was closed at 8:05 P.M.
Commissioner Byerly questiorlea staff, ~~put Jhe "placement of the accessory
building on the hom~9w~er's lot. C~ayt(),lHusbar)dJesponded directly at the foot
or base of the diivewayp~d. ,'". , '
Commissioner Edwards wanted confirmation on the Kehr's property.
Commis.sjonerByed~questiohedtl'le Kehr's about the placement of their
property. Mrs. Kehrstated the vacant property directly across from Mr. Nanson's
Pt(:)perty.
~()f)1missioner Eq~~rds <ql.lestioned Mrs. Kehr; there is no house on the
prpp.~rty? Mrs. KeQ~>:responded correct.
",,"/-}-.::<<'-', ;+>:'
'<'i-'.,-/--.,".,'._ :;:".,."_,_'><
Comrr1i$~i8.~er s~~~rds wanted confirmation from staff about the interior Mr.
NansontJ~!~g~~I~to build this building as it is, no questions asked. Clayton
Husband reSp'~~ded that is correct.
Commissioner Dolan wanted clarity on the question from Commissioner
Edwards.
Commissioner Edwards rephrased the question stating, looking at this building
as an accessory building without living quarters, just a 3 car garage with a room
above, Mr. Nanson can build this building right now on an R40 with no SUP.
Clayton Husband responded that is correct. The size of this building, location,
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 10 of 17
height all design features would allow this structure. Living area added to it
triggers the SUP.
Commissioner Edwards stated that Mr. Nanson is entitled to build this building,
as it stands, regardless of what is inside. Commissioner Edwards stated she
does see the concerns the Kehrs may have.
Commissioner Byerly stated there is screening pro\,liged by trees. Clayton
Husband concurred.
Commissioner Edwards stated the sighting of tt;l~':f::jull~if":lg is behind the house,
not up front.
Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr.
trees. Mr. Nanson stated there is
but not a tree of significance.
about the displt;}pement of any
tree that would have~(:)>be removed,
Commissioner Duffy concurred with Mr. small tree would have to be
removed but not one of significance. Commissioner Duffy also stated that the
existing trees would create a screening for the building.
Commissioner Duffy made motiqn to apP~Q'\Ie~qse Z,;04-037 and Commissioner
Dolan seconded.' "
The motionwqsapprovedpy the folfQWing vote:
Aye: Dolatl~,>Iq~dziak, Bt;}~~bwski, EdVit~rds, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly
Nay: None '" " " .
':\";'J.",::/',,:",,'<:...' :0:,'>>>'..: ',":i/',' :.'/,.',:<"/"//,,'/
4. ~~9:~*ai8~~~i:>f>,~BLf,::>:,EARING --ZHning change from AG to CC1 on property
I~agted at 64~~>~t;}nd '6~~~.Colleyville Boulevard
~Iqyton Husband<~l"ese~t~~<the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff
briefing.
Commis~.i()ner Duffy questioned the placement of the proposed property
restricted:Q~7~>.i~the CC1. Can it be restricted to just a pet shop? Clayton
Husband res~,9nded using the overhead features and maps and also stated that
it could not be restricted to just a pet shop, it could be used for anything that is
permitted in the CC1 zoning. Barry LeBaron concurred also stating that State
Law states that a city may divide up in to zoning districts and create regulations
for those districts but they all must be consistent within the district.
Commissioner Duffy stated the Commission could suggest to the Council the
CC1 zoning and if the property owner does not build, yet sells the property, the
CC1 zoning goes with the property. Barry LeBaron stated that is correct. If the
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 11 of 17
property owner has it zoned to CC1 and sells the property, the CC1 zone
remains on that property.
Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M.
Martena DeLa Fuente, applicant, wants to make sure can be rezoned and will
use the existing building for the pet store that is already owned by me. In this
process, the city will be pleased because this prope~y~ill be cleaned up and
improved and would no longer be an eye sore to the Ci~yOf Colleyville.
Commissioner Edwards questioned Ms. DeLa F~~nte to~ee if the staff has been
contacted to see if the existing building wo~ld<be usabl~f()r the proposed pet
shop? Ms. DeLa Fuente stated she had d~l1e so and thesl(;jff had been to the
property.
Commissioner Dolan questioned applj~~nt for cl(3rification aboutth~ pet store.
Would you be selling feed or just pets?<<~~. 9~~aFuente stated they currently
own Colby's Extreme Pets inTerra Villagei;~M~;~.small pets. They have had this
business for 4 years now a av,e been succe:~sful.
',,<~,,/,^
0,. "",.,., ,',",',"^"/,- , >
/j-,',(,.. -"//..'/,'.,".0:\....., . -'//>//
Commissioner Blassingame qQ~~tion.e~i>i~l~~DeLa:>I,LJ~nte if she plans to use the
whole property ori!.th,ere are pl~~s to~~JJio~>>>(3.DY of,>the existing property? Ms.
DeLa Fuente r~,~H~,~~,~g'ishe had>iQ8,;HJ~n:s tOi;s~!l~was going to use the house
and if they a9,g~~Q>it, tfiey;~ould ad~:~~<Bithe back of the house. If she does sell in
the future, ,,".s,~~., would sal,l both pr~perties together because there are more
frontages to Hwy 26.
There being no ohewishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:20 P.M.
Commissionel'pudziak questioned staff to see if any improvements on the
mouse, woulds~~'iraveil<:;),~ome up to code? Clayton Husband stated may be
s,()me improvemeq~~that w(:)~ld have to come up to code such as landscaping or
mi~9radjustments,ijq~t depends on what work would be performed.
,>','.:< ';<;" <~:;'
..'.:'....,...,.... ",,"',
'<',.;, ,'::<'
Commis,. per Eci~~rds made motion to approve case Z-04-038. Commissioner
Dolan se ' edii"
,,<
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly
Nay: None
5. G-04-o20 - TABLED ITEM- Review and discussion of regulations for private
streets and entrance gates
Commissioner Duffy made motion to remove case G-04-020 from the table.
Commissioner Byerly seconded the motion.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 12 of 17
The motion was approved by the following vote:
Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly
Nay: None
Barry LeBaron presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff
briefing.
Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if gated and pri~~~~are the same? Wanted
clarification about the City having to take certain s~~~~~,~, because the developer's
did not build up to spec.? Barry LeBaron st~t~~th~~;:gid not know what the
standards were then. However, stated that<be~ause ~ city having to take
back over streets in private communities~t~~;;city adoptet~i~.Gode to put forth
the standards to insure that they WOUldj~~I;:;fiave to do so agait;l.,>,Therefore, the
Homeowner's Associations (HOAs) ",~;~~,;:;;to put up a reserve fund, to maintain
those private streets.">>>;';>;:"
Commissioner Duffy commented about the staff taking the time to make the
adjustments on this issue. However, Commi~~ioner is concerned with some of
the HOAs not meeting the reql.lirements of the res~.rve fund, knowing this by their
comments received in the sury~y sel"it~l~there~way to enforce this issue?
Barry LeBaron stated"he thinks~~;the~~n~JtYi~to re~use to take over the street
or opening it uP~~~,Q;l~~,ing it a Jj~~Jic;>~~feet. If it> didn't meet us to standards can
refuse to takeJtl~streets,> '
Commissidl"l~~Puffy st~t~d the one$Mpdivision that concerns him is Sapphire
Enclave. Th~~:~>:.resp~{'t'~~:~~i~~~'>sUr'l~>' was, no, no, no and not applicable.
COQ;l>Q;l,i,~~"j9nerC~~; .:;;;~HestioTle(j;>:~!~*;;>>Attorney, Ross Foster stating; in other
WQr'OS, tney:Jtave '~~ , one the reserVe fund and they do not intend on doing so,
t~~refore, a're, ~~ey"following the restrictions outlined in the ordinance?
>~ttorney Foster~~~te ,<:~~;trey violate the ordinance they can be fined up to
'$~900 a day in m~~icipalc(;)urt and city could file an injunction or civil penalties
uJjJo $1000 a day;, There are ways to enforcement provisions other than to
accept the streets.
CommissiQner .Duffy questioned the Attorney Foster whether or not the HOAs are
a legal entitytl1althe City can go after. Attorney Foster stated, correct.
Commissioner Edwards stated there are a number of items stated in the
ordinance, the city will review and I would like to see a check list to see if all
items are actually reviewed.
Commissioner Duffy concurred and questioned the section 10.6E of the Land
Development Code Chapter 10- Private Streets & Entrance Gates, was the
language intended to be marked out that states the association must not be
dissolved without the prior written consent of the City? Barry LeBaron responded
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 13 of 17
that he marked that out because the City would not have any way of knowing
when HOA amendments would be made.
Commissioner Edwards stated the intent is the City is keeping an eye on these
issues. Leave all the language in that section.
Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if any statements have been requested
from HOA's to see if reserve funds are available?
Commissioner Edwards concurred also stating th~~,~~ring the budget process it
would be important for the city to have a head~~~td;~n(':>w that some HOAs do
not have reserve funds and those streets ar~.going to ha~~'lo be taken over and
maintained by the city. An annual report .~~~Id be terrifiG";~~~gy LeBaron stated
that some administrative procedures n~?:~:~~9"be put in place.:,:,:>.
Commissioner Bart.k?~ski questigped st(;j~~,~~i9g nOfseen this except this time,
is this private str~~t~<'{Itilr gates9rBri~qtE3 sfreE3t~/~ith or with out gates? Barry
LeBaron resPClggedan99~ed, exc~p1>one, developments have private streets.
They are all,tQgether.
~ ., " ,'. , . . . , '"
, . .' . .. .
, ., .. .. .. . . .
Commissioner~~rtko'{lt~~i~H~~~ic:)p~d~~~ff that all private streets will have to be
gat~9:.g~;~rivate<~t~~~~$;Will hotn~y;~~~t,9be gated. Barry LeBaron responded that
t>n~~::~av'~:~.I~~ys 9'9~~: together. rl1e word gated means that the City will not go
.>>~g:and mainfa!~:>ttlOSE3:~~r~ets or utilities.
,'/"", ",.>..",,',/..
~~rT1missioner mJ~Y'stat~~:~the Shadow Wood operation, private community, no
thr(;.)~gh streets; ne\,ler had streets gated and the agreement was the developer
would lake care of it.'> Then, once the lots were 50% sold, it would be gated, and
howeverthat never happened. The developer sold off other half for single family
homes mi~~d ioWith those condominiums and now it is a mish mash. Barry
LeBaron stateej'because that was a private street development not a gated
development, the streets suffered from the passing through of the not only the
adjacent property owners but also the general public. If there is a private street
development and it is gated, then those property owners do not have to suffer the
burden of the general traffic wearing out the streets.
Commissioner Bartkowski stated the first line should read Private Streets with
and without gates. Barry LeBaron concurred.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 14 of 17
Commissioner Edwards stated the Commission would not approve private
streets with out gates. What would be the point?
Commissioner Duffy stated private streets can be blocked off once a year to
maintain ownership of the street. Attorney Foster stated private streets can be
blocked off any time. The city would not approve a private street where it would
have traffic passing through the community. If the community has gates, the
streets would have to be private.
Commissioner Bartkowski stated it had happen~~>~~'~f1e past. Attorney Foster
stated in the beginning, that was not the intend~.~,~~e~~>~>~:~ community.
Commissioner Edwards stated 1 0.6Q and/1~;~R have the>~:. ~,wording or could
they be combined? Barry LeBaron stat~~those sections woula,>f;)~ looked at.
:;:;:,<<...... '.,>>
Commissioner Dudziak stated the la~~uage is qi~rrent, however>what do the
estimated expenses define? It needs to~~ate.~hat is 100% of anything, and
acquiring 100% is tough to get in any HOA.Commissioner Byerly concurred.
Commissioner Edwards stated sho~la not be lessthan 100%, Attorney Foster
stated these property ownersf1~yeanint~r~st in the property and there must be
100% agreement.VVhether or n~tthose~tr~~t~,>we converted to private or public
streets, if not YOUqf~tq~!ng property V\Iit~c:Jut co~p,~nsation.
,.. "."".; -, <.,.... .'f,'>
,...,.'/"..,.....,.... ,',,",,",,',",",.../., -"""""""""""',.'
'.'.",".,..- . '-"'.'",",,".'
,..,_.-,.,.,.,.-,- ""-"..,,,.,_,',3
......".. ..,",',,-",,:-:"':.,',.;<
.,..,.'.:,., .. "<."..':..,.- ".... '......,...,...j
.... "","', ."..,
Commissi~~rrEdwards s~~ted to in~~~ase the minimum number of lots in these
subdivisions to be able topover the CQ'stof the replacement of those streets.
""c
Commissioner Bartkowski stated that sometimes the developer's hands may be
tied at ,how many>lots would be available for the acreage available. Barry
LeBaron stated the minimum number would have to be judged per subdivision.
Commisslqm~r>mqrtkowski questioned should this be looked at case by case.
Barry LeBaron stated some subdivisions may not have the 20 lots.
Commissioner Edwards stated that is what needs to be gone away with because
we in Colleyville did not want a gated community upon a gated community.
Those communities would take away from the rural atmosphere that so many
people love. That is the reason for the ordinance. What ever number is used,
City Council needs to stick to the ordinance.
Commissioner Dolan concurred. However, how are we going to insure if the city
has to take over those streets; the money would be there in the reserve fund to
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 15 of 17
take care of those streets? Maybe each HOA would have to maintain a certain
dollar amount in the fund.
Commissioner Duffy stated concrete streets would be minimal repair, asphalt
more repair. Staff could estimate and give the HOA an estimated figure to repair
those streets. However, the city does not have to take those streets unless
certain requirements are maintained. Also, in section10.6 S, do the HOAs come
to the city attorney for review? Attorney Foster stated the only subdivision that
has or did is Shalimar.
Commissioner Dudziak questioned if the Com~~~~i6h~~~ld put in a penalty for
not concurring with the ordinance? Attorney> Fester state~~>,if the language is in
the code about violations, then there is a p,~,~~lty for any vlol~ti9n of the code and
it could be any where from $500 or*~EOO per day. ComrT'li~sioner Dudziak
questioned staff if the language is th~f~'jn the code? Barry LeB~ron responded
yes.
'~-..'.'
,. ......,..,
'..;:,',:,>::-, .....<.;<.:.:~:.;>
,",','," .<-'.> <':'
Commissioner Edwards mage motion tot~~'.~:~ase G-04-020. Commissioner
Duffy seconded the motion ,~fu'~::H~~stioned st~~:,if it would be appropriate at this
time of motion to also inc6t~~rc!it~>::~g~ comrrieQ~~, made at tonight's meeting?
Barry LeBaron responded yes:<} " ,
The motion was CiP~roVed by thefC)llowingvote:
Aye: Dolan, D.uqZiak, Bartkowski,Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly
Nay:
STAFF REPORTS'
<<.'.,........>. .....::.<.,...,......,
BarJY'~~Baron repoff~~>thecit~<99uncil approved the master plan at the November 3,
2004a;ng: staff will havetRPse re~QY in a few weeks. Commissioner Duffy asked if any
major dl~,~:~es had beef'l~Tade.< Barry LeBaron stated not any major changes and
stated the'l'ij~pthat had th~::~~hanges.
<,:....:.,......".,.:. .....:..,
. '" ,...... "",..".<,"</,
COMMISSIONei::COMMENTS
Commissioner Ed'~a~a~ stated wanting to look at the provisions on the tree ordinance,
to possibly have a work shop to discuss it. Commissioner Edwards also wants to
discuss the living quarters issue in Colleyville and where those living quarters are
allowed; as well as the open space in PUDs. Commissioner Duffy stated how pleased
he was for the staff's hard work on the private streets and the survey that was sent to
HOAs. Commissioner Dudziak stated how please he was for the effort put forth by staff
for the Pecan Creek project.
;;"?<;c'\'/':'
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 16 of 17
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. by acclamation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Shelley
Planning and Zoning Assistant
Approved on: --------------
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes - November 8, 2004
Page 17 of 17
.~
l'exas
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA BRIEFING
Agenda Date:
Subject:
November 22,2004
P-04-042 - Minor Plat of Sandlin Estates, 4.88 acres located at
1801 Oak Knoll Drive
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Terry Sandlin is the owner of a parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Oak
Knoll Drive and Cheshire Drive, adjacent to Little Bear Creek. The owner has submitted
a Minor Plat of the property for review and consideration by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The plat will create a lot for the construction of a new single family
residence.
The property is zoned R40 Single Family Residential. The R40 district requires a lot
width of 150 feet, a lot depth of 150 feet, and a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet.
The proposed lot exceeds these requirements. The lot is over 350 feet wide, 500 feet
deep, and 4.88 acres in area.
The owner's surveyor has addressed all Development Review Committee comments.
The proposed development appears to satisfy the requirements of the Land
Development Code. This plat only requires approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
ATTACHMENTS
· Location & Zoning Map
· Plat
· Development Review Committee memo
· Response letter from applicant
Prepared by:
~
Agenda Item No.1 - Page 1
Location & Zoning Map
i -f 6 ill'
q ~i!151 I !~iijl~1 I~ g> .
~!!II~ i :1
dljl n I~I: ~ ~~ E-
I ~ ...'
~.~I ~: x I .; .
: ! i I I -." ..
~ Ii '" -
,
~I~
1'1
....IP ~I.
-II
E I
JJ.
~I
~I.
. ~I
.
'I~
it~J
~Sl;
~ w
.11i
~
ii-
JI;
~il-
I i
i~1
if!
~I
~.
":1
~I
~.
"~I
i I!!
~ l1li :i!11
5 IiJi ~ I I
\~ I.~ I I
'" II I
~ , I~F. '11 ~ Ii '1 . ~
I ,,. ~!'-<~ ~ 'UI
S I lIfe: ~ · i Ii f
I - "~~ s
f · If; If'l ~ rl~ I
~ I .:g iiI ~
I :. ,., ~ ~
. . 0; CI)
'II II
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE
FAX TO
FAX NO
November 10, 2004
Terry Sandlin
817.656.0719
Bill Hooks
~
817.831.9818
FROM Clayton Husband, AICP, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT P-04-025 Replat - Redus Addition
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. This property is zoned R40 Single Family Residential, which requires a 40-foot front building
adjacent to Oak Knoll Drive and Cheshire Drive. Add the building line to the drawing.
2. A 25-foot wide PUBLIC ACCESS, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT needs to be added
adjacent to the south property line. The Colleyville Pathways Plan indicates a future hike and
bike trail along Little Bear Creek, and the easement is required by the Land Development
Code.
OTHER INFORMATION
1. PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES. Parkland dedication fees are not required for this property.
The Park Land Dedication ordinance provides for an exemption for any tract or lot occupied
by an existing residence at the time of adoption of the ordinance. If the property is further
subdivided in the future, parkland dedication fees may be required at that time.
2. PERIMETER STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS. Perimeter street improvements are not
required for this property. The Land Development Code provides for an exemption for any
tract or lot occupied by an existing residence. If vacant lots were created in the future, this
requirement would be reevaluated at that time.
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.
100 Main Street - Colleyville, Texas 76034 - 817.503.1050
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
P-G4-G42 SANDUN ESTATES
ROADWAY
Not applicable. Existing house on property.
$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
SEWER
4. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. The Land Development Code requires sidewalks along Oak Knoll
Drive and Cheshire Drive. The sidewalk must be constructed at the same time any new
structures are built on the lot. The sidewalks on both streets must be at least 4-feet wide.
Alternatively, the owner may escrow an equivalent amount of money for the future
construction of the sidewalk at the time of building permit issuance.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Planning & Zoning Commission:
City Council:
Monday, November 22,2004, 7:00 pm
not required
RESUBMITT AL REQUIREMENTS
A marked-up print is available for pickup in the Community Development Department offices, if
necessary. Once you have completed the changes to the drawing, please submit the following to
our offices:
· 10 folded copies of the revised Minor Plat drawing
· one 8W' x 11" 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 Thursday, November 18,2004 in
order to make the scheduled hearings. Please contact me at 817-503-1054 or
husbandc@cLcollevville.tx.us if you have any questions.
I c: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
PAGE 2 OF 2
(S)
:Jots JJomeJ, ..9nc.
5137 ::balliJ Boutlla,.J
5o,.t Wo,.tk. :JexaJ 76180
817/281-3509
(S)
November 15, 2004
City of ColleyviUe
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas
76034
Community Development Department
Clayton Husband, AICP
Development Coordinator
Dear Clayton-
I have reviewed your letter of November 10, 2004 conceming the minor plat for 1801 Oak Knoll
(Lot 1 Block 1 Sandlin Estates) and have the following comments:
PLAT DRAWINGS
1) Required building line setbacks.
Our plat wiN show the required building One setbacks as required for R40 Single Family
Residential.
2) 25 foot wide easement next to Bear Creek
My southern property line is actually about 50 feet to over 250 feet norlh of Little Bear Creek.
There is no requirement for an easement on my south6m property One because I do not back up
to Little Bear Creek.
OTHER INFORMA nON
1) Parkland dedication fee.
I understand that a parkland dedication fee will not be required at this time
2) Perimeter street improvement requirements.
I understand that perimeter street improvement requirements are not required for this property.
Residential and Commercial Construction . Land Development . Investments and Remodeling
3) Impact Fees.
I will pay the fees as required by the City. I intend to upgrade the existing meter when it is moved
from the current location serving the existing house to the water service for the new home. Is it
possible to have a temporary water meter on the new home during construction?
4) Sidewalks and Trails
I intend to request a waiver from the City Council in reference to any sidewalk requirements. The
area where this property is located is very rural in nature and there are no sidewalks. The area
has no curbs or gutters and drainage ditches are in the front yards. Sidewalks would not match
anything surrounding this property and could be a detriment. Constructing a sidewalk at this time
would serve no useful purpose and detract from the rural nature of the area.
(The request is enclosed with this letter)
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call
Terry Sandlin
.~
Texas
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA BRIEFING
Agenda Date:
Subject:
November 22, 2004
Z-04-039 - PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning change from AG to R40
on 4.687 acres located at 7300 John McCain Road.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Bailey Draper is the developer of 4.69 acres located on the east side of John McCain
Road, just south of Bandit Trail. Mr. Draper has submitted a request to change the
zoning on the property from AG Agricultural to R40 Single Family Residential. The
applicant is seeking a zoning change in order to construct new residences on the
property for his father and brother. Mr. Draper's father and brother are the current
owners of the property.
Single family residences are currently located on the property. The surrounding
property is residential in nature. Properties to the north, south and east are zoned AG
and are developed as single family residences. Property to the west, across John
McCain Road, is zoned R20 and is developed as a single family residence. The Master
Plan indicates that all the property on Colleyville Boulevard is anticipated to be
developed for commercial uses in the future.
The Colleyville Plan contains as a goal to "preserve the superior quality of Colleyville's
residential neighborhoods". This particular goal includes several objectives relative to
this zoning change request:
· Continue development of luxury residential areas while maintaining the "country
feel" along major collector streets
· Encourage redevelopment of older properties located along major collector
streets into estate settings
· Preserve larger lot sizes, i.e., 30,000 sq. ft. and up, and promote the
redevelopment or combination of smaller lots into larger estate lots
· Encourage large scale single lot development on major thoroughfares as "estate"
properties
The portion of John McCain Road adjacent to this property is classified as a Minor
Collector street by the Master Thoroughfare Plan. The proposed request appears to
satisfy the objectives of this goal. This property is also located in Neighborhood 6, as
identified in The Colleyville Plan. One of the significant neighborhood issues identified
by the citizens during the preparation of the plan was to maintain areas for larger lot
development.
Agenda Item No.2 - Page 1
IMPACT ISSUES
1. Master Plan. This property is in Neighborhood 6, as identified in The Colleyville
Plan. The property is designated for future use as single family residential land uses.
This request is consistent with the goals and objectives of The Colleyville Plan.
2. Surrounding Properties. All of the surrounding properties are developed as single-
family residences, either within a subdivision or on acreage tracts.
3. Development Trends. The long-term trend for this area is for single-family
development. Over the last five years, several new single family subdivisions have
been constructed southwest of the property.
4. Infrastructure. Water and sanitary sewer services are available along adjacent
rights-of-way. The developer is responsible for the extension of utilities to the lots if
necessary.
5. Property Taxes. According to information available from the Tarrant Appraisal
District, the property is valued at $315,900. The estimated City property tax revenue
for the property is $1,097 annually. The future property tax revenue would depend
upon the value of each individual lot and the value of the house built on the lot.
6. Traffic Generation. Since the two proposed lots are already developed with single
family residences, no increase in traffic generation is expected.
7. Public Notification. Staff mailed notices to 16 adjacent property owners regarding
this request. Notice was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as required by
state law and the Land Development Code. No correspondence has been received
regarding this request.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Planning & Zoning
Commission: November 22, 2004
City Council: December 21, 2004 and January 4, 2005
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
ATTACHMENTS
· Location & Zoning Map
· Zoning Exhibit (see large paper copy)
· List of Property Owners Notified
Prepared by:
~~
Development Coordinator
Agenda Item No.2 - Page 2
Location & Zoning Map
304
so.
401
\
\
G
14o.t
150<
,"(U
7<00
7404
-730.
l noo
1302
...
Z-04-039
Cinotto, Gary R Etux Jean M
4300 Green Meadow St. E.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Walker, Grady M Etux Zerena
PO Box 1905
Colleyville, TX 76034
Neff, T. Brent Etux Lacretai J.
204 John McCain Rd.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Zim, Aldwin Etux Christine
PO Box 1125
Bedford, TX 76021
Coleman, Josh D & Christina M
7204 John McCain Rd.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Holt, Dale M Etux Roxanne G
116 John McCain Rd.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Billings, Florence L
PO Box 1228
Colleyville, TX 76034
Draper, James T Jr Etux Carol
511 Waxwood Dr.
Brentwood, ~ 37027
Epperson, Larry Etal Ann R
7308 John McCain Rd.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Draper, James Etux Elizabeth
7404 Belle Meade Dr.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Hightower, Roxanne S.
104 John McCain Rd.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Jamieson, Matthew B.
PO Box 1037
Colleyville, TX 76034
Aycock, Michael W & Janet
7207 Belle Meade Dr.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Newgren, Dennis Etux Judith
200 John McCain Rd.
Colleyville, TX 76034
Old Grove Ltd. Prtnshp.
8222 Douglas Ave. Ste 605
Dallas, TX 75225
Draper, Bailey applicant
1828 Kinsale Dr.
Keller, TX 76262
cce@
l'ex8s
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA BRIEFING
Agenda Date:
Subject:
November 22, 2004
Z-04-036 - Public
Develo ment Code re
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Many zoning codes adopted by municipalities include regulations for temporary uses such
as temporary real estate offices in residential subdivisions, construction offices during the
construction phase of a major construction project, or for temporary uses on private
property, such as special events generally held outdoors where the public is invited and the
proposed activity may affect adjacent properties. Regulations for community special
events are generally included in the zoning code in order to provide guidelines for small.
sized special events, for example seasonal events or special fund raising events
sponsored by a public entity, civic or non-profit organization located within the city.
Typically, such events are permitted through the Building Permit Office after the various
municipal departments have reviewed the proposed event and addressed all public safety
concerns. Colleyville has no permitting process or written guidelines for small scale special
events.
Attached to this agenda briefing is a proposed ordinance to amend the Land Development
Code regarding temporary uses for community special events. Currently, Colleyville has
regulations for mass gathering events where it is anticipated that 500 persons or more will
gather at a location for a period of eight consecutive hours. These mass gathering
regulations were adopted April 17, 1973 (Ordinance 0-73-126) and are contained as a part
of the official Code of Ordinances. There are no regulations for special events where less
than 500 persons are anticipated to attend.
Staff has drafted a proposed regulation to provide standards and guidelines for small scale
community special events where less than 500 persons will be in attendance for a period of
eight consecutive hours. As proposed, the ordinance will allow the building official to
approve permits for these small scale community special events, but only one permit shall
be issued to the same civic or non-profit organization within a 180 day period. The
ordinance authorizes the building official to set reasonable performance standards, such as
parking, noise, hours of operation and provisions for public safety, as a condition of permit
approval to address any potential effects on adjacent properties. The ordinance contains a
provision whereby the building official may refer a permit application to the City Council for
approval where the event may have significant public interests.
The proposed ordinance also deletes regulations regarding tent permits, since tent
regulations are currently contained within the Colleyville Fire Code. The Colleyville Fire
Department has recommended the deletion of the tent regulations from the zoning code to
avoid duplication and possible conflicting provisions regarding tent permits.
Agenda Item No.3 - Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Planning & Zoning
Commission: November 22, 2004
City Council: December 21, 2004 and January 04, 2005
RECOMMENDA TION
Approval
Prepared by:
fJL
Agenda Item No.3 - Page 2
ORDINANCE 0-04-XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, AMENDING
CHAPTER 3 OF THE COLLEYVILLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
INSERT REGULAL TIONS FOR TEMPORARY USE PERMITS AND
COMMUNITY SPECIAL EVENTS AND TO DELETE REGULATIONS FOR
TENT SALES; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE; AND
AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Colleyville approved Ordinance 0-00-
1214 on April 18, 2000, to adopt the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Colleyville desires to amend certain
portions of the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at
least 15 days before such hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and
forwarded its recommendation to the City Council for consideration.
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in
a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 15 days
before such hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Section 1. THAT Chapter 3, Section 3.24.D, of the Land Development Code,
is hereby amended to insert the following new paragraphs 1 and 2
to read as follows:
3.24.DTemporary Buildings and Uses
1. Temporary Use Permit - The Buildina Official may approve a
permit for a temporary use specified in this Section for limited
periods of time, provided evidence is furnished by the
applicant that adeQuate measures are taken to satisfy any
predetermined site criteria and that all temporary uses shall be
subiect to the reaulations contained in this Section. The
buildina official may recommend a temporary use permit
application be considered by the City Council where it has
been determined by the buildina official that the proposed
temporary use may have sianificant public interests.
a. Revocation: The Buildina Official may revoke a temporary
use permit if determined that:
Ordinance 0-04-xxxx
Page 2 of 6
i. The applicant has misrepresented any material fact on
the application, or supportinQ materials.
ii. The temporary use fails or ceases to comply with
applicable standards or criteria for issuance of a permit.
iii. The operation of the temporary use violates any statute,
law, ordinance or reQulation.
iv. The operation of the temporary use constitutes a
nuisance or poses a real or potential threat to the health,
safety or Qeneral welfare of the public.
2. Permit Conditions - The BuildinQ Official is hereby authorized
to prescribe reasonable conditions upon a temporary use
permit to protect the public health, safety, and Qeneral welfare
of the community, with particular attention to areas adiacent to
or in the vicinity of the permitted temporary use. Such
conditions may include specific performance standards, noise
mitiQation measures, IiQhtinQ restrictions, limitation on hours
of operation, odor control measures, off-street parkinQ
requirements, traffic restrictions, or other standards desiQned
to minimize adverse impacts on surroundinQ properties. In the
event that a sponsor is dissatisfied with the BuildinQ Official's
decision, the sponsor may appeal the decision to the City
Council.
Section 2. THAT Chapter 3, Section 3.24.D, of the Land Development Code,
is hereby amended by renumbering paragraphs 1 and 2 to
paragraphs 3 and 4:
~. Construction Office - A temporary building for use as a construction
office may be permitted in any zoning district during the
construction phase of a permanent building or new subdivision. An
application for a temporary construction office permit must be
submitted on forms supplied by the Building Official's Office and
receive approval of the Building Official prior to its placement on the
property. Temporary construction offices shall comply with the
following requirements: (0-00-1241/10/03/00)
a. No temporary construction office building shall encroach within
five (5) feet of a property line or encroach within the visibility
triangle required in Section 3.26 of this Land Development
Code.
b. Temporary construction office buildings shall not exceed 900
square feet.
c. A temporary construction office building must be removed within
Ordinance 0-04-xxxx
Page 3 of6
ten (10) days after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy
of the permanent building.
d. A temporary construction office shall sit on a blocked foundation
acceptable to the Building Official. No temporary construction
office shall be used that rests only on the wheels.
~. Real Estate Sales Office - A temporary building for use as a real
estate office may be permitted in any zoning district provided its
use is limited only for the promotion and sale of property on which it
is erected or within the same subdivision. An application for a
temporary real estate office permit must be submitted on forms
supplied by the Building Official's Office and receive approval of the
Building Official prior to its placement on the property. Temporary
buildings used as a real estate office shall comply with the following
requirements: (0-00-1241/10/03/00)
a. Temporary real estate office buildings shall comply with the
building setback lines for the applicable zoning district.
b. Temporary real estate office buildings shall not exceed 900
square feet.
c. No more than two (2) temporary real estate office buildings may
be located within a subdivision as defined by a final plat.
d. A permit for a temporary real estate office building shall be valid
for 18 months or until certificates of occupancy have been
issued for seventy (70%) percent of the lots within the
subdivision, whichever occurs first.
e. A model home may be used as a temporary real estate office
and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraphs b, c,
and d above.
Section 3. THAT Chapter 3, Section 3.24.D, of the Land Development Code,
is hereby amended by deleting paragraph 3 regarding Temporary
School Classrooms.
~. TBm~eFary SGReel Classreems ^II zeFliFl~ 8istrists '::RiGR alle'N
sSR@@ls may Ravs tem~erary 81:1i18iFl~S I:IS08 selely fer tRB ~I:IF~eSe
sf Glassmems.
Section 4. THAT paragraph 4 of Chapter 3, Section 3.24.D, of the Land
Development Code, is hereby amended in its entirety and
renumbered as paragraph 5 to read as follows:
Ordinance 0-04-xxxx
Page 4 of6
4~. Temt Sales aA€f OtRor Community Special Events - ^ teAt, as
€fefim~€f RBreiA, may 138 l;JSB€f as a t8m~erary strl;J6tl;Jre fer ~l;Jl3li@
e@el;J~aAey iA aeeer€faAe8 '::itR tRB rolle'lJiFl~ r8€ll;JiremsAts:
(Ore. 0 (}2 133() .I (}2 26 2(}(}2) Events of public interest which
are anticipated to attract less than 500 persons in attendance
during a period of eight consecutive hours or more, such as
carnivals, circuses, and similar temporary events or special
fund-raising events sponsored by a public entity, civic or non-
profit organization located within the City. Only one permit for
a Community Special Event shall be issued to the same civic
or non-profit organization within a 180 day period.
a. p, ~srmit a~~F9ve€f l3y tRB Ql;JiI€fiR~ Offleial is fS€ll;Jirs€f ~rier te tRO
seAstrl;JetieA sf a tBAt r8~l;Jlats€f l3y tR8 CellByville Ql;Jil€fiA~ Ce€fe,
CellByvillB Fire Ce€fe aA€f tRis SeetieA.
13. ~Js ~Brmit sRall 130 a~~f8vo€f l;JAloss ae@em~aAiB€f l3y a sits ~laA
sRe)\.\'iA~ tRe ~f8~Qso€f IseatisA ef tRB teAt. TRB CelleyvillB Firs
MarsRall sRall a~~re':o sai€f sito ~laFl.
s. ^ ~ormit fer a teAt sRall eAly l3e issl;Jf;;l€f ts tR8 rollswiA~:
i. TRs Rel€fer sf a sBFtifisate sf eSSl;J~aAsy sf a ~sfmaAeAt
strl;Jstl;Jrs 'NRer8 tRe teAt is iAsi€feAtal te tRB l;JS8 ef tRS ~rimal)'
~tfl;Jstl;JrB, er
ii. TRs Rsl€fsr ef aA e~~lisatisA a~~F9':e€f BY tRe City Cel;JAsil fer a
"Mass GatReriA~ S~eeial E:\'eAt" iA tRe City, as €fcafiAe€f iA
SestieA 22 178 sf .^.rtiele VI. Mass GatROFiA~S; Ol;Jt€faer Ml;Jsie
Festivals, sf tRO Cs€fe af Or€fiAaAsos, City sf Calley/ills, TEmas.
€f. TR8 l;JSS sf tRS tEl At sRalll3e saAsisteAt '::itR SestisA 24. C TaBle ef
Permitte€f Us~s.
e. ~Jo ~ermit fer a teAt sf::1ell 138 ':ali€f fer mare tRaA (39) SSAsosl;Jth:El
€fays aA€f AS mSr€l tRaA tRfes (3) ~ermits may l3e issl;Je€t iA SAEl
saloA€tar year, e)(8e~t fer ~l;Jl3lie sr ~ri':at8 sSRsals, wRieR may 1313
issl;Jo€f a ~ermit tAat is \'ali€t fer AS mSfe ttum eAe Rl;JA€tre€t aA€t
t\':eAty (129) eSAsesl;Jtivs €fays. './'lJitR r8s~eet t@ ~l;Jl3lie er ~ri':atEl
seRsols, teAts sRall l3e iAs~eet8€f l3y tRe Fife MarsRal eAse svery
tRirty (89) €tays witRiA tRO ~ermit ~erie€f. POfmits sRall Aet fl;JA
SSFlSl;lff8Atly eA€f eaeA ~ermit ml;Jst BEl so~afato€t l3y a ~Elrie€f ef Aet
less tAaA thirty (39) €tays. Pl;Jl3lie ar ~ri\'ato seRaels sRall139 e){em~t
fmm tRe tRiFty (39) €fay \".'aitiA~ ~9ri9€t l3ew:eoFl ~ermits.
Ordinance 0-04-xxxx
Page 5 of 6
f. Tell;:'jts ml:Jst alse Gem~ly '::itR tRe BssitieFlal r;e~l:JiFemC21Flts ef tR9
Cellsyville l!al:JilsiFlS Cese BFlS Calley/iIIe FiFe Ceso.
Section 5. THAT Chapter 3, Section 3.24.D, of the Land Development Code,
is hereby amended to insert the following new paragraph 6 to read
as follows:
6. Tents - A temporary use or special event which includes
the use of a tent shall require a separate permit in
accordance with the standards contained in the Collevville
Fire Code.
Section 6. THAT any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the
provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
upon conviction thereof shall be fined a sum not to exceed Two
Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation
continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be
punishable as such.
Section 7. THAT Ordinance 0-00-1214, the Land Development Code, as
amended, shall remain in effect, except where amended by this
ordinance.
Section 8. THAT it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council
that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and sections of
this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared
unconstitutional by the valid judgement or decree of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any
of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and
sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been
enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this
ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph or section.
Section 9. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause
publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as
an alternative method of publication provided by law.
Section 1 O. THAT this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
publication.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the
2004.
day of
Ordinance 0-04-xxxx
Page 6 of6
The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the
2004.
day of
ATTEST:
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
Cynthia Singleton, TRMC
City Secretary
Joe Hocutt
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Ross T. Foster
City Attorney
.~
Texas
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA BRIEFING
Agenda Date:
Subject:
November 22, 2004
Z-04-035 - TABLED ITEM - Zoning change from AG and R40 to
PUD-R on 10.2 acres located at 909-1009 Lavaca Trail
Update 11/22/04
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this item at the October 11, 2004, meeting
to allow the applicant to address comments from the Commission and to meet with the
area property owners. The following is a summary of the project since the last meeting.
Meeting with Property Owners. The applicant met with the area property owners on
November 16, 2004 to discuss the project. A copy of the letter the applicant sent to the
property owners is attached. The applicant also submitted a letter of support for the
zoning change, and a copy is included with the correspondence attachments. Staff also
mailed a notice to the adjacent property owners to advise them that this item would be
on the November 22, 2004 agenda.
Number of Lots. The number of single family lots has decreased from 29 lots to 27
lots. This change occurred due to the additional open space area added at the
southwest corner of the development. The density of the development as decreased
from 2.84 to 2.64 dwelling units per acre.
Open Space. The PUD-R regulations require that 20% of the land area be dedicated
as open space for leisure and recreational use by the residents in the development.
The open space also offsets the smaller lot sizes allowed in the PUD-R. The proposed
development contains 1.38 acres of open space, which is 13.52% of the development
area. The open space areas are located within five wide medians in the street, and in a
small park area in the southwest corner of the development. The developer has
indicated that walking trails would be constructed in the medians. New trees are
proposed in the medians and in the park area. A portion of the park are would include a
storm water detention area.
Number of Subdivision Entrances. The Land Development Code requires that
subdivisions with more than 12 lots must be served by two subdivision entrances.
Several design options are provided in the Code. The proposed street entrances do not
meet the requirement for two separate entrances into the subdivision. The entrances
are 70 feet apart; the Land Development Code requires a minimum 100-foot separation
to qualify as two separate entrances. As shown, the Land Development Code will
require that all houses within the subdivision contain an automatic fire sprinkler system.
The applicant is requesting that the entrance be approved as shown to qualify as two
separate entrances.
Agenda Item No.4 - Page 1
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Royal Building Corporation and Comis Development are the potential developers of a
10.2-acre parcel of property located on the south side of Lavaca Trail, just east of
Precinct Line Road. The applicant has submitted a request to change the zoning on the
property from AG Agricultural and R40 Single Family Residential to PUD-R Planned
Unit Development Residential. The owner is seeking a zoning change in order to
develop the property as single family residences.
The developer proposes to construct 29 single family lots, with a minimum lot size of
7,672 square feet, and an average size of 11,499 square feet. The density of the
proposed development is 2.84 dwelling units per acre. There is one primary street
entrance proposed on Lavaca Trail. The entrance is split between two driving lanes
separated by medians. The property is currently used for single family residential
purposes.
The surrounding property is single family residential in nature. All the surrounding
property is zoned R40, with the exception of the Emerald Park subdivision, located
south-southeast of the site. Emerald Park is zoned PUD-R and is developing as single
family residences. The property at both corners of Lavaca Trail and Precinct Line Road
are zoned for commercial development.
The Land Development Code provides that the PUD-R district is "designed to
encourage the most appropriate uses of land, permit flexibility to encourage a more
creative, efficient, environmentally pleasing and aesthetic design regarding the spatial
arrangement of buildings and land uses, open spaces, circulation and transportation
patterns, and considerations of special site and topographic features." The PUD-R
district also allows the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to adopt
specific requirements for this property that may include special conditions to minimize or
enhance the effect of the development on adjacent properties. A draft copy of the
rezoning ordinance for this property is attached, which is based on the applicant's
proposal.
The following is an analysis of the major issues associated with this rezoning request.
Master Plan. The current Colleyville Master Plan (1998) designates the future use of
this area for office and commercial land uses. This request is not consistent with the
overall goals and objectives of the Master Plan. The proposed master plan (2004)
suggests that transitional single family development should be located in the Precinct
Line Road corridor area, primarily to buffer larger single family development to the east
from the commercial development adjacent to Precinct Line Road. The suggested
maximum density of these transitional single family developments is 3.5 dwelling units
per acre; the proposed development has a density of 2.84 dwelling units per acre.
Residential Density. The Master Plan (1998) suggests a maximum residential density
of 1.8 dwelling units per acre in most situations. The Master Plan also suggests that
higher-density projects should be located near a major street intersection or on smaller
parcels that make less dense development economically difficult. The density of the
Agenda Item No.4 - Page 2
proposed project is 2.84 dwelling units per acre. The density of Emerald Park is 3.5
dwelling units per acre.
Lot Sizes. The PUD-R standards allow for lots as small as 13,000 square feet,
provided the average lot size is 16,000 square feet. The minimum lot size in the
proposed development is 7,672 square feet, with an average lot size of 11,499 square
feet. The proposed lot sizes, widths and depths are not consistent with PUD-R
regulations. The developer is requesting that the lots be approved as shown on the
zoning exhibit.
Number of Subdivision Entrances. The Land Development Code requires that
subdivisions with more than 12 lots must be served by two subdivision entrances.
Several design options are provided in the Code. The proposed street entrances do not
meet the requirement for two separate entrances into the subdivision. The entrances
are 60 feet apart; the Land Development Code requires a minimum 100-foot separation
to qualify as two separate entrances. As shown, the Land Development Code will
require that all houses within the subdivision contain an automatic fire sprinkler system.
Master Thoroughfare Plan. Lavaca Trail is classified as a Major Collector street
adjacent to this development. The Master Thoroughfare Plan identifies Lavaca Trail as
a 4-lane street between Precinct Line Road and a proposed a 4-lane north-south
collector street that would connect McDonwell School Road to LD Lockett Road. The
proposed development is not affected by the north-south collector street. The
developer would be required to dedicate additional right-of-way for Lavaca Trail on the
final plat. Lavaca Trail requires an ultimate right-of-way of 75 feet.
One of the recommendations included in the 2004 Master Plan update is to relocate this
north-south thoroughfare to a location on the west side of the Emerald Park subdivision,
and reduce the size of the thoroughfare to a 2-lane roadway. This recommendation is
under consideration by the City Council as part of the updated Master Plan.
Sidewalks and Trails. Sidewalks are required to be constructed on each individual lot
within the development at the time houses are constructed on the lots. The applicant is
required to construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to Lavaca Trail at the time the
public improvements are constructed.
IMPACT ISSUES
1. Master Plan. The current Colleyville Master Plan (1998) designates the future use
of this area for office and commercial land uses. This request is not consistent with
the overall goals and objectives of the Master Plan.
2. Surrounding Properties. The surrounding properties are developed as single
family neighborhoods and residences on large acreage tracts. The property on
Precinct Line Road is zoned for commercial development.
3. Development Trends. Over the last several years, new single family subdivisions
have been constructed in this area: Clairemont, Rosewood Villas, Remington Park
Agenda Item No.4 - Page 3
Phase IV, and Emerald Park. Commercially-zoned properties are located on
Precinct Line Road just west of this site. The western part of Colleyville, especially
in the Precinct Line Road corridor, is experiencing a significant amount of
development.
4. Infrastructure. Water and sanitary sewer service are available along adjacent
rights-of-way. The developer is responsible for the extension of water and sewer
service lines to the individual lots.
5. Property Taxes. According to information available from the Tarrant Appraisal
District, the 9.91-acre parcel is valued at $511,577. The estimated City property tax
revenue for the property is $1,777 annually. The future property tax revenue would
depend upon the value of each individual lot and the value of the house built on the
lot.
6. Sales Taxes. The project will not directly generate sales tax revenue. The addition
of 29 new houses could indirectly have a positive impact on sales tax revenue due to
new residents shopping in Colleyville.
7. Traffic Generation. The Institute of Transportation Engineers publication Trip
Generation provides estimates of expected traffic generation based on land use.
Data has been collected in the United States and Canada since the 1960's, primarily
in suburban locations. Single-family residences are expected to generate 9.57 trips
per day, on average. Based on this average, the 29 proposed residences would add
277 vehicle trips per day to the surrounding roadways.
8. Public Notification. Staff mailed notices to 17 adjacent property owners regarding
this request. Notice was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as required by
state law and the Land Development Code. One letter has been received regarding
this request, and a copy is attached.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Planning & Zoning
Commission: October 11, 2004; November 22, 2004
City Council: December 21, 2004 and January 4, 2005
RECOMMENDATION
Denial due to technical non-compliance with the Master Plan and the Colleyville Land
Development Code
Agenda Item No.4 - Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
· Location Map
· Zoning Map
· Zoning Exhibit
· Information from Applicant
· List of Property Owners Notified
· Development Review Committee memorandum
· Applicant Response to DRC memorandum
· Correspondence
· Draft Ordinance
Prepared by:
Agenda Item No.4 - Page 5
Location Map
L.!lLQ~fLLBn
.,_____0.0.,..',---1
II
I I i~-----
---
-- - - - - -0;;;,;;;;;- - ---- _ _
- -UIW:.I-- _ _ _, ~ _
---
'--::==:::jl----- -----~
,-,- ------- ".
r:-----,. r---_
" I, I I,
I! l' I ; : 27 'I
I : I I : ,
H---- ,..,.. --H H ,..... II
II , 1-------:1
I 2 I: : ! 26 II
'1 I 1 I' :"". ' :,
!-f------H H------f-!
I: I I I I 'I
' I I I ,
I ' 3 l.J U 25" '1.
~-----: , , :-----~
I: I , , I , II
: II 4 "I I I 2li I,
IT" -;',
H-' I '......7.
, -----H H------H
:1 5 ! I i I 23" I:
I i I I I I . ! 1
H-------r-; r-t-------H
I: , I I I I,
I I I ~ ~.. I I,.
Ii 6 :.~ ~: 2:? JJ
U-. I' I I ,
'I -----f--411 ~ : _____ : ,
II I I
I, 7: I "
I , I , I 21 II
:--,; -----H, H------tl
! 8 I: : ! 20 !
W------H H------W
I: II I II
: 9 I' : 1'./9 I
'1 W W II
4-1; -----; I . :---,---+1
I I , I I II
I I 10 I I I I If I,
II I I.
M------h r-+------H
I: I I , : II
II 11 y' bl 11 I'
., I I I'
H- J I I
' --.!!!:!:...--; \-.!!!:!:...----H
" \ I
'I I ~ _l... ~ \ II
U--- ,:.,: 1~!1 (I ) 1 ~..:. JJ
pll /:'-;]'~- --- "T~--- I.
, I I I
I;! '.! 0 . laWr ~ '>"," 15 ! I
I ! 'bID I ~ 0 I \ ~// ".,. I.
i ! ,rn I \Q J/-------\ lIf ''t,,\ II'
d, I ") I 13; , I
.! I L) I \ 'II
~ ----------,----------_\ ------------~
-------=z=--_____=r=_______~
1" = 100'
Acreage of Property: 10.2055 acres
Density: 2.64 dwelling units per acre
Acreage of Open Space: 1.38 acres
Percentage of Open Space: 13.52%
Lavaca Trail Estates
Revised Exhibit
November 18, 2004
FRt:I'I REAVES ROYAL HJMES
PJ-O-E NO. 817 281 4177
Nov. 18 2004 l3]:02PM P2
ROYAL BUILDING CORP.
.. dba Reaves Royal Homes
iiI 7420 Comis Drive
N. RichJand Hills, TX 76180
November- 17. 2004
Clayton Husband AICP
City ofColleyville
J 00 Main Street
CoUeyvjlle, TX 16034
Re; Lavaca Trail proposed development
Dear Mr. Husband:
Thank you again for meeting with WI and giving us suggestions for our proposed ~ek)pmenl We wish to
highlight a few of the things that have occurred siDce the last PctZ meeting;
On Tuesday November- 16'" we held a meeting at our office with the neighbors who are opposed to
the developmeot of our Lavaca Trail Estates_ OUr meeting 'WaS very civil and they really are oice people
however- they are stiD opposed to the deveJopntent of Lavaca Trail. Not 01)1)' ours per se but any
development wbkb does DO( offer estate style homes. They know that rhcy are surrounded by development
and that is inevitable (or them but they wish to keep the nnl fed Ibat 1bey ~ have. We assured
them that we would address aU of their Iegidmate (101lCeJftS regarding chinage. fencing and other
development issues.
00. the other hand we do have some support for our project. Ms. Judy ~ and Mr. Lewis
Martin, who own the acreage immedi~ to our west. (10Kres I think) are supponive of our development
I have enclosed a letter fi'om Ibem indk:atin,g tbeiJ' position. We also received a caJl1roJn TJJDOtby Patios
who resides 81 6032 S1erting Drive who is supportive of the ~lopmalt.
With regard to the plat itself; we are proposing the following changes;
t. We have taken two lots fiB " 14 on the original plat and converted them 10 add open space and a
picnklplay area at the end oCtile (OUrt..
2. We hav~ i8structed our ~to make sure dW he deals wilh the storm draiDage to 1he east, which
Mr. Miuag indic:ares is excessive.
3. Our pre&rcnce wouW be to k~ the larger lot.... which average over 10,900 square feet. This allows us
to otm" pllms witb mil' and side entry garages with plCDty ofroom tOr1he ~eway dowa 1hc side.
If you have any questions or ~OrKemS please let us know.
s~~ /f!{)~
Reaves Royal Homes! Comis Development Corp.
.:.......:
ROYAL BUILDING CORP.
... dba Reaves Royal Homes
fiiU 7420 Comis Drive
N. RicWand Hills, TX 76180
November 4, 2004
Re; proposed development of 909/1 009 Lavaca TrI.
Dear Property Owner,
Weare interested in addressing all of your concerns and answering any of your questions with a
meeting at our office. We have two different layouts proposed and would like to discuss them both with the
concerned neighbors. Our intentions are to make certain that our proposal to the city would not negatively
affect any of the neighboring properties.
If you would be interested in meeting with us to discuss this please let us know. We have an office
nearby and would be glad to meet with you. Also, we would propose a meeting on November 17,2004 at
our office at 7p.m. We are located on the comer of Rumfield and Comis Dr. just 2 blocks west of Precinct
Line. Our physical address is 7420 Comis Drive. We have limited space so please call so we can make sure
we have adequate room for everyone. Our office number is 817/281-0098.
S~.9191Y~A _ I i/VI_ d /l
Od-~F'~W4-S
RI. Reaves & Mark Comis
Reaves Royal Homes
Z-04-035
Zimmerman, Jeffrey K
6403 Champion Way
Colleyville TX 76034
Mcintosh, Doyle & Mary Fam LP,
8333 Thornhill Dr
North Richland Hills TX 76180
Chandler, Raman L
7001 Lismore Ct
Colleyville TX 76034
Stajduhar, Martin etux Lisa
101 Williamsburg Ct
Colleyville TX 76034
Jones, Jerrell W
11111 Abbeywood
Oklahoma City Ok 73170
Mittag, Andrew K etux Janet A
901 W Lavaca Trl
Colleyville TX 76034
Plain, Veri etux Ruth Ann
909 W Lavaca Trl
Colleyville TX 76034
Ogle, Danny G & Ruth A
1009 W Lavaca Trl
Colleyville TX 76034
Ruggere, Judy
1013 W Lavaca Trl
Colleyville TX 76034
Martin, Stephen L etux Nan C
813 W Lavaca Trl
Colleyville TX 76034
Emerald Park Resid Dev Ltd
6420 Remington Pkwy
Colleyville TX 76034
Goodman Family of Builders LP
5808 W Piano Pkwy
Piano TX 75093
Goodman Family of Builders LP
C/O Alamo Title Co
4908 Colleyville Blvd Ste 306
Colleyville TX 76034
Perkins, Timothy B etux Amber
6032 Sterling Dr
Colleyville TX 76034
Goodman Homes Inc
4908 Colleyville Blvd Ste 306
Colleyville TX 76034
Mark Com is, applicant
Comis Development Corp
7420 Comis Court
North Richland Hills TX 76180
BJ Reaves, applicant
Royal Building Corp
7420 Comis Court
North Richland Hills TX 76180
Notices dated September 28, 2004.
According to the last published tax rolls, individuals who own property that is within 200 feet of the proposed zoning change or special use permit request are
listed above. I certify that the parties listed above have been notified of the proposed zoning change or special use permit request as required by the Texas Local
Government Code and the CoUeyville Land Development Code.
Clayton Husband AICP
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE October 1,2004
FAX TO
FAX NO
BJ Reaves
Mark Comis
817.281.4417
~
817.281.4417
FROM Clayton Husband, AICP, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT Z-04-035 AG & R40 to PUD-R - Lavaca Trail Estates
The Colleyville Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed your zoning exhibit
and zoning change request submitted to this office. The following comments are for your
consideration.
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. If the zoning request were approved, the property would be subject to the general provisions
of the PUD-R district and any conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council to address issues and concerns brought up during the public hearings.
ZONING EXHIBIT/PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWING
1. The zoning exhibit and preliminary plat drawing may be combined into a single drawing. If
this is done, revise the title block to reference both the zoning exhibit and preliminary plat.
2. The title block on the preliminary plat should be revised to reference Lots 2 and 3, Block 1,
Lavaca Trail Addition.
3. The size of the drawing should be increased.
4. The residential lots in the proposed development do not meet the minimum requirements of
the PUD-R zoning district. The information submitted with the application is acceptable as a
formal request for a modification of the minimum requirements. The following table indicates
the minimum requirements of the PUD-R district:
r--Miniffitill. LOtSlZe: 13-;OOO-sq. ft~---------- i Front Build~iLiD.e: 30 feet ----------1
1-'- A ~e~e Lot-Size: 16,000- sq:t['--' ; Side Building Lines: -IO-fe~t--------'--i
I ;
r-Millimum-LotWidtIi:Too feeT--------- ear BuiidiDgLine: 2TIeet"-:==:=~:~~~~-=J
r-MininlllrnLot Depth: 'i20-ieet---'- i
L______,______,____,_______,_,________,_,___,__,_,_,__L_,_______,_,___,_,_____,___,__,____,______,__,_,__,_,_J
100 Main Street - Colleyville, Texas 76034 - 817.503.1050
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Z-04-035 LAVACA TRAIL ESTATES PUD-R
5. The PUD-R regulations require that 20% of the project area be dedicated as private open
space in the development. Indicate on the exhibit the location and sizes of the open space
areas.
6. Add lot numbers and label the size (square feet) of the medians/islands in the street. The
homeowner's association will be responsible for maintenance of the medians/islands.
7. Add the zoning designation of the surrounding properties to the drawing. The designations
are noted on the marked-up prints.
8. The open space areas appear to consist of medians and islands located in the street. What are
the developer's plans for improvements to the open space areas, such as walking paths,
structures, ponds, etc.?
9. The right-of-way for Lavaca Trail needs to be verified when the final plat is submitted. Tie
down the existing right-of-way with monuments on the opposite side of the street. The
required right-of-way established for this roadway by Master Thoroughfare Plan is 75 feet.
The required right-of-way dedication along the frontage of the property is 37.5-feet from the
centerline of the existing right-of-way.
10. Will the development be proposed as a private gated community?
11. Are any screening fences or perimeter fences being considered for this project?
12. The approval blocks for the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may be
removed from the drawing. These documents are not signed by either board. Add the
following approval block to the drawing:
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
Resolution Number
Date
Community Development
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
13. Include the following information in a table on the drawing:
"'--.--.--.---.-.-...--.---.--...----------.........---.-----.--..-----.------,
I Acreage of the overall property ! Acreage or square feet of open space I
L----,_________, I _ ______~
I Number of Lots I Percentage of open space of overall property I
r--MininulInLot size --------T-- DeilsitY(dwellirig-units per acrej-'--'----l
~..._.._----_.._._.__._------_.__.._._....__.._...._._.-..-.----.-.........--...-..--.-.--.--.......---...-..-.....-..-.--....._._--_.__.._-_._-_.__.._._~
I Average Lot Size '
PAGE20F4
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Z-04-035 LAVACA TRAIL ESTATES PUD-R
13. Provide information on the following, if available: anticipated price range of the houses,
typical elevations of proposed houses, lot coverage for the proposed houses, and any proposed
improvements to the common open space areas. The Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council may request this information when considering this zoning request.
OTHER INFORMATION
1. IMPACT FEES. Water, sewer and roadway impact fees are due at the time a building permit is
issued for a new structure on the lot. The fees listed below are intended to provide general
information on the fees that could be assessed. The actual fee paid may be different
depending upon the specific plans for construction or conditions contained in a City-
Developer Agreement, if applicable.
ROADWAY
$1,589 per dwelling unit for SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL uses. The actual fee depends on
specific use of the property. Details are available in Chapter 13 of the Land Development Code.
$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
SEWER
2. PERIMETER STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS. Perimeter street improvements are
required for this property since Lavaca Trail is considered an unimproved street and the plat
contains more than one residential lot. The owner is required to construct one-half of the
streets 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 response letter to these comments should indicate
the developer's initial intention of construction or escrow regarding these streets.
3. PARKLAND DEDICATION. Parkland dedication fees are due at the time of approval of the
subdivision 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.
4. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. The Land Development Code requires sidewalks along Lavaca
Trail and all interior streets. 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. The
sidewalks along Lavaca Trail are required to be 5-feet wide, and the developer is required to
construct the Lavaca Trail sidewalk as part of the public improvements for this property.
PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
Planning & Zoning Commission:
City Council:
Monday, October 11,2004,7:00 p.m.
Wednesday, November 3 and Tuesday, November 16, 2004,
7:30 p.m.
PAGE3oF4
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Z-04-035 LAVACA TRAIL ESTATES PUD-R
RESUBMITT AL REQUIREMENTS
Once you have completed the changes to the drawing, please submit the following to our offices:
· a written letter addressing each comment stating the comment has been addressed or stating
reasons why the requirement should be modified or waived
· 22 copies of the revised drawing & one 8.5"xll" reduced copy of the revised drawing
The above requested items must be submitted no later than noon on Thursday, October 7, 2004 in
order to make the scheduled hearings. The item will not be scheduled for the Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting until all items are submitted. Please contact me at 817-503-1054 or
husbandc@ci.colleyville.tx.us if you have any questions.
I c: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
PAGE 40F 4
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
DATE October 5, 2004
FAX TO
FAX NO
BJ Reaves
Mark Comis
817.281.4417
~
817.281.4417
FROM Clayton Husband, AICP, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT Z-04-035 AG & R40 to PUD-R - Lavaca Trail Estates
The following are additional comments regarding the subdivision layout. Please contact me at
817- 503-1054 or husbandc@ci.collevville.tx.us if you have any questions.
1. The proposed street entrance does not appear to meet the requirement for two separate
entrances into the subdivision. The entrances are 60 feet apart; the Land Development Code
requires a minimum 100-foot separation to qualifY as two separate entrances. As shown, the
Land Development Code will require that all houses within the subdivision contain an
automatic fire sprinkler system.
2. The turning radii in the median breaks should be designed to accommodate fire emergency
vehicle specifications. The required outside turning radius is 50 feet, and the inside radius is
35 feet.
3. The width of the pavement sections on the streets needs to be shown on the preliminary plat
drawing. The required street width is 31 feet, as measured from back of curb.
100 Main Street - Colleyville, Texas 76034 - 817.503.1050
STEMBRIDGE & ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
Delbert R. Stembridge, P.E., R.P.L.S.
October 7, 2004
Development Review Committee
City of Colleyville
100 Main Street
Colleyville, Texas 76034
Attention: Clayton Husband, AICP, Development Coordinator
Re: Z-04-035 AG & R40 to PUD-R - Lavaca Trail Estates
Dear Sir:
We received the DRC comments of October 1,2004 and October 5,2004 and offer the
following comments.
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. No Comment
ZONING EXHIBIT/PRELIMINARY PLAT
1. The title block has been revised to ZONING EXHIBIT/PRELIMINARY PLAT
2. The title block has been revised as suggested.
3. The size ofthedrawing has been increased.
4. Weare requesting a variance on the minimum lot width and square footage.
5. We are requesting a variance on the private open space areas.
6. Lot numbers will be added to the median and islands within the subdivision.
7. The zoning of surrounding properties has been added to the drawing.
8. The open space areas not used for storm water detention will be landscaped
and walking paths provided.
9. Right-of-way dedication will be provided to conform to the City's Master
Thoroughfare Plan.
10. The development will not be a gated community.
11. Screening fences are being considered for this project.
12. The appropriate approval block has been added to the drawing.
13. A property table has been added to the drawing.
14. Information on the price range ofthe homes is not available at this time.
OTHER INFORMATION
1-4 Noted by the Developer.
2929-A Race Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76111
Office: (682) 647-0119 . Fax: (682) 647-0024
RECEIVED
OCT 0 7 2004
Per ..........~..
STEMBRIDGE & ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
Delbert R. Stembridge, P.E., R.P.L.S.
City of Colleyville Development Review Committee
Page 2
October 5.2004
1. We are requesting a variance on the space for two entrances.
2. The street widths and spacing between the islands has been increased to
accommodate emergency traffic.
3. The width ofthe pavement has been increased to 31 feet.
Respectfully submitted,
~rem~
2929-A Rac~ Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76111
Office: (682) 647-0119 . Fax: (682) 647-0024
Andrew and Janet Mittag
901 West Lavaca Trail
Colleyville, TX 76034
October 6, 2004
Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o J. Clayton Husband AICP
Development Coordinator
City of Colleyville
100 Main Street
Colleyville, TX 76034
Re: Case Number Z-04-035 to be heard on October 11,2004 at 7:00pm
Dear Mr. Husband:
Our property is located immediately to the east of the property that is subject to the request of a
zoning change. Pursuant to our conversation the other day, we would like to provide several written
comments to the above matter as the proposed development will have a direct impact not only on
ourselves, but also to our neighbors.
Water Drainage Issue: We have appended a copy of a survey that was
completed as part of the purchase of our property in early 2001. The drawn arrows indicate the
flow of rainwater onto our property and off of it. Our property is a major collection point of
water drainage not only from the northeast (Remington area) but also from the east because the
property sits lower than the referenced area. The water fills our reten~ion pond and spills over
and fills the creek bed in the property to the west the property (i.e. Case Number Z-04-035 being
proposed for rezoning). Water that collects at our house and south of the house runs across the
property to the west. As a result after a major rainfall, we and our neighbors to the east do not
have any standing water on the properties except for our retention pond. I have seen, however,
that the property being proposed for rezoning has had standing water. In fact, part of the
driveway has been submerged. Therefore, any development needs to take this water issue into
account and ensure that the water flow is not interrupted.
Open Space Issue: Under City of Colleyville ordinances, new developments
require that 20% of the land be dedicated to "Open Space". This requirement, as we understand
it, does not include space dedicated to retention/detention ponds (see minutes of 9/27/04 public
hearing on Case number Z-04-032). Since the center roadway divider to the proposed
development appears to be the only Open Space, the development does not address the ordinance
requirements.
Density: The density of the proposed development is substantially
similar to that proposed under Case Z-04-032 (see minutes of 9/27/04 public hearing). In that
case 33 properties were being proposed on 9.9 acres. In this case, 29 properties are being
proposed on 10.2 acres.
During the September 27 hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission noted that under the
Master Plan, developments such as Emerald Park were intended to be transitional zones between
Re: Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission
dd. 10/6/04
the commercial area right off of Precinct Line. The Commissioners noted that areas to the east of
these transitional zones should embody the more traditional characters that Colleyville is known
for and that we, the citizens of Colleyville, bought into. While this development only borders
slightly more than two (2) Emerald Park properties, the balance borders the property that is the
subject of Case number Z-04-032.
There area total of 10 acres to the west of the proposed development which also are east of the
commercial area contemplated by the Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed development under
Case Number Z-04-035 cannot be considered a transitional zone. Furthermore, having 29 homes
on 10.2 acres sited between 5 acre lots is simply incongruous unless the developer is seeking to
force out the other residents of Lavaca Trail, all of whom had bought into the Colleyville quality
of living.
Barrier: As we and our neighbors to the east look west we see a
forest in the property being proposed for rezoning. While we cannot and will not stop progress so
that future citizens ofColleyville can benefit from our quality of life, the boundary between our
property and the property proposed for rezoning should not result in a razed landscape. The
developer should be of the same mind especially since we and our neighbors have either horses or
cattle.
In fact, in our case, we are very involved in Lone Star Equine Rescue, the largest horse rescue
organization in the United States. We serve as a foster home for this organization. While under
Colleyville ordinances we are permitted to have up to 15 horses on our five- (5) plus acres, we
have never had that many. But our population will fluctuate anywhere from 5 to 10 horses.
These horses are free to roam our entire property and would, therefore, have some "impact" on all
the backyards that are proposed to border our property.
Regardless of the density of this proposed development, the developer also needs to take into
account the type of barrier used.. Wooden barriers used in Emerald Park may work in
transitional zone, but as discussed above, this development will not be in a transitional zone.
Moreover, from the developer's marketing perspective, the developer is likely to sell properties
more rapidly if there is an attractive fixed, mason barrier between our respective properties.
This letter is still not representing all the issues on Lavaca Trail that need to be discussed in light
of this proposal. For example, road condition (due to the Remington 4th Addition development), lack of
sewers, lack of storm drains, and lack of speed lim;t signs. As you can see, the list is quite lengthy. We,
as current residents, hope and assume that all of these issues will be addressed in a public venue before
any form of development is undertaken.
Sincerely,
enc1
, No ,,~
1~}!f!Hti~ l
i?l!~iil~ ~
~f Il!t~irdlfjf
ii 1 Jl~a'!p'~
}1 tUJltti;::,,'
.: },;su.,f'ff
fi Ji!!;!Hlj',i
d fltW",jt :
d Jd~;{li!'r}Jn
_, ' il
;!~ I
.' .
~li ~~
~ ~.I'! j"..1
! fi:11h ~
I 'fib;l;
I 6..'k.tJ
Lot",' I/~.;J ,
~"~~;""'~,:"~~~-k..,,. VJ{).~L
r~ :, I --1~~"'JlII ...~ ~
_,,,L " ~~""
'''~;~~-'----''-''-f=-1lk!?y- --~,-- \Y
I: ! ! ![It.:0 /'
Ii i: ! I '
; I: 'I' l!
I : I '"
I ,----' I ..
; /1'- /l i
.~; / ! // !j
t / r :1
Ii // (i ii,
f;f /'; :lj
~~~:~ .. 1 i iil
c:- : '\ / ,i :\I~,'
" I ' , · ,;v'
!i \ I i !l i '
~! "--/ ,~, P 1
t' ,I I
~ I 'J'
~ ! i~ I
r,' ,"'I
~2~,-- .. 'iI=:th"fJ:! I
~ ^ ~ ~.,,~ Ii!
.: ~ d" "I'q
'- . ,~\df~,_: -1 -,':#ll r -; ! ;! :
;'" fJJ .,g: . ~....' '-';'; J' . t' I
,: . ! r"'! - ,.,
~if: .. · y:! Ii tij '..
1- -! ,A~ i'"
), ~~.i ,,' "~ :;H~
'-<.JC(: . '--- , :n ,i'
e"- - - .' ;'
;_,-------- __ :: I
" "j', I:'
l' I ' ...., ';,' .
, I " I
J: I . ", ---- I.,
i i ...' ,:.
! ! ~:I
r: i t ~:i
,.; ; k'<.....E ,:::
; . !~w~;;;1
: I .~;,>>~ ,;'
" ,'_>;"~;,<ll ;.,,'
I ! r.;;~;;;:?-''::~~i ' 'I
: ,t ;(,:_~~';
1.1 i F~"~~ ' it
T' ~~~~~
~f;f I: r---- ---, .- ,l4'~ ! i
t-- r'h ~'~; I : I
; '-i i : :
: I ; I
~ ; I
~ ; I
~ 'JI
r: ~ i!1
..t....~ ,""'.
; -,
,
l~ ~
:~jfJ
f~l=~
d ~I ~
f - ~ I
_~ .i
.!f j
November 16, 2004
Re; proposed development of property at 909/1009 Lavaca Trail
To Whom It May Concern:
We own the 10 acres immediately to the west of the subject property. Our physical address is 1013 W.
Lavaca Trail and 1101 W. Lavaca Trl. Colleyville, TX 76034
We have viewed the developers preliminary plans and are for the development of this property for single
family homes. It is nice to see a developer come in with plans to develop larger lots instead of the smaller
postage stamp variety.
Sincerely,
Judy Ruggere / Lewis Martin
817/485-0913
23 YfAlL
.-"
f.1.S l/()-zfC1
ORDINANCE 0-04-xxxx
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3, LAND USE OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, BY AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF LOTS 2 AND 3,
BLOCK 1, LA V ACA TRAIL ADDITION, FROM THE AG AGRICULTURAL AND R40
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO THE PUD-R PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR THE VIOLATION OF
THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AUTHORIZING
PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, an application for a zoning change was filed by Royal Building
Corporation and Comis Development on September 20, 2004, under
Case No. Z-04-035; and
WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville has complied with the notification requirements of
the Texas Local Government Code and the Colleyville Land
Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing and
made a recommendation on the proposed zoning amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zoning amendment is
in the best interests of the City of Colleyville.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1.
THAT the Master Plan, the Land Development Code of the City of
Colleyville, Texas, and the Official Zoning Map are hereby amended
insofar as they relate to certain land located in Colleyville, Texas, as
shown on the Zoning Map attached as Exhibit "A", and described as
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Lavaca Trail Addition, by changing the zoning
of said property from the AG Agricultural and R40 Single Family
Residential districts to the PUD-R Planned Unit Development
Residential district, as shown on the attached Exhibit "B", including
any other conditions and restrictions imposed and approved by the
City Council, which are incorporated herein.
Sec. 2.
THAT the PUD-R shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. GENERAL
a. The purpose of the PUD-R area is for single-family residential
development.
Ordinance 0-04-xxxx
Page 2 of 4
b. This property is subject to all the regulations contained in the
Colleyville Land Development Code, except where amended by
this Ordinance.
2. PERMITTED USES
a. Single family residences, detached
b. Open space
3. RESIDENTIAL LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS
a. Residential lot requirements and setbacks shall comply with the
following provisions:
(1) Minimum Lot Size
(2) Minimum Lot Width
(3) Minimum Lot Depth
(4) Front Building Line
(5) Side Building Line
(6) Side Setback to
street Right-of-Way
(7) Rear Building Line
7,600 square feet
72 feet
11 0 feet
30 feet
10 feet
15 feet
10 feet
b. The maximum number of single-family lots allowed within this
development shall be twenty-seven (27) lots.
4. OPEN SPACE
a. The PUD-R area shall provide a minimum of thirteen (13%)
percent of the residential project area as common open space
for the leisure and recreational use of the development's
residents. The open space shall comply with the provisions
contained in the Land Development Code.
b. The common open space may be utilized for storm water
detention purposes.
c. Sidewalks shall be constructed within the medians located
within the streets. The sidewalks shall be at least four (4) feet
wide.
5. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS AND PLATTING
a. The residential lot layout of the PUD-R area shall be generally
consistent with the conceptual site plan attached as Exhibit liB",
which shall be considered the preliminary plat. The actual street
Sec. 3.
Sec. 4.
Sec. 5.
Sec. 6.
Ordinance 0-04-xxxx
Page 3 of 4
and lot arrangement may differ from that shown on Exhibit liB" to
accommodate physical, topographic, drainage or other
conditions.
b. Prior to the issuance of any development permits on the subject
property and as a condition to the development of the subject
property, the developer shall obtain approval of a final plat of the
property in accordance with the procedures and requirements of
the Colleyville Land Development Code.
c.
6. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS
a. The developer shall construct a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk
adjacent to Lavaca Trail at the same time building
improvements are made on the lot, unless funds are escrowed
with the City for future construction of the sidewalk.
b. Each homebuilder shall construct sidewalks along lot frontages.
All sidewalks shall be in accordance with the requirements of
the Colleyville Land Development Code.
THAT any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions
of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction thereof shall be fined a sum not to exceed Two Thousand
Dollars ($2,000.00). Each and every day such violation continues
shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such.
THAT the Land Development Code of the City of Colleyville, Texas,
shall remain in full force and effect, except where amended by this
ordinance.
THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause
publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an
alternative method of publication provided by law.
THAT this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
publication.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the
2004.
day of
Ordinance 0-04-xxxx
Page 4 of 4
The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the
2005.
day of
ATTEST:
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
Cynthia Singleton, TRMC
City Secretary
Joe Hocutt
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Ross T. Foster
City Attorney
.~
Texas
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AGENDA BRIEFING
Agenda Date:
Subject:
November 22, 2004
Case G-04-020 - Review and discussion of regulations for
private streets and entrance gates Tabled 09/13/04
Update 11/22/04
The Commission tabled this item at the last meeting to allow staff to make several
changes to the proposed regulations, as suggested by the Commission. The two
significant changes to the document are:
1. The number of lots required for a private gated community was increased from
20 lots to 25 lots in Section 10-125A.
2. Language related to homeowner's association documents was retained in the
last part of Section 10-125E.
There are two additional topics the Commission briefly discussed at the meeting that
are not included in the ordinance. More clarification and discussion is needed on these
items. One item is a checklist of things that the City would review when an application
is submitted. The second item was whether the reserve fund calculation should be
based on the street frontage of the lots rather than a flat fee per lot. Staff will discuss
these items with the Commission at the meeting.
Update 11/08/04
Over the past several weeks, staff has been reviewing the private street and gated
development regulations contained in Chapter 10 of the Colleyville Land Development
Code and marking suggested changes in accordance with comments offered by the
Commission at prior meetings where this item has been discussed. Based on your
comments and input, the attached copy of Chapter 10 of the Colleyville Land
Development Code shows the proposed revisions to the text with text proposed for
deletion shown as "strikethrough" and new text shown with "bold-underlined" characters.
Staff received responses from several of the HOA's of private street developments from
the questionnaire that was recently mailed regarding the status of reserve funds
established for street maintenance and future street re-construction. Copies of the
responses received from those HOA's responding to the questionnaire are attached to
this agenda briefing. Responses have been received from the following HOA's:
Agenda Item No.5 - Page 1
HOA's respondinq to reserve fund Questionnaire
Beldon Hollow HOA
Clairemont HOA
Emerald Park
Montclair Parc HOA
Shalimar HOA
Strathmore HOA
Tiffany Park HOA
Thornbury HOA
At the November 8, 2004 meeting, staff recommends this item be removed from the
table for further discussion.
Update 10/11/04
This item was tabled at the September 13, 2004 meeting to allow staff an opportunity to
prepare draft revisions to the gated development regulations currently contained in
Chapter 10 of the Colleyville Land Development Code.
Staff has mailed a questionnaire to the Homeowner Association president of all gated
developments in Colleyville to obtain additional information regarding the status of any
reserve funds that have been set aside for street and drainage maintenance. The
results of the survey will not be available until November 1, 2004.
Staff recommends this item remained tabled at this time.
Staff Briefinq of 09/13/04
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, 1998. 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.
Agenda Item No.5 - Page 2
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. Attached are a couple of such articles.
ATTACHMENTS
· Survey of Colleyville Private StreeUGated Entry Developments
· Memo from City Manager
· Articles
Prepared by:
~~a.
M, Ba Baron, AICP
Development Director
Agenda Item No.5 - Page 3
land Development Code
City of Collevville. Texas
Proposed Revisions 11/22/04
Section 10-100 Purpose of This Chapter
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish regulations for gated subdivisions andlor with privately owned
streets.
Section 10-105 Authorization for Adoption of This Chapter
The regulations contained in this Chapter have been adopted under the following authority:
4A. 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.
~!!. 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,g,. 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 10-110 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 10-115 Definitions
Definitions applicable to this Chapter may be found in Chapter 2 - Definitions of this Land Development
Code.
Section 10-120 ~ Procedure
~A AblTI19RITY City Council Approval Reauired - No existing subdivision shall convert any public
street to a private street unless such request has been approved by +Ae the City Council, after
receiving recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission, G1R~ R@I~iRg a pbllglis ReariRg,
I:la~ G1ppr€l'Je~ may gFGlRt a 'JariaRSS ts aHew apprs'JGI sf a plGlt er replat sf GI ~b1b~i'JisieFl wRisl:l
iFlSlbl~9S privGlte streets G1Fl(j BRtrGlFlSe gates, pre\.'i(je~ tRat tt:le sblb~ivisieFl semplies ,..:itR tRe miFlimblm
rB€lbliremElFlts listed bele'N plbls aFlY etRer re€lbliremsFlts (jeeme(j FlBsessary by tR9 City CeblFlElil iFl
Br(jer te pretest pblbliG RealtR aFl~ safety. Furthermore, no proposed subdivision plat shall include a
private street unless such plat is approved by the City Council, after receiving recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission. The terms "private street" or "private streets" shall be inclusive
of streets, alleys, storm drainage systems, entrance gates and structures.
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10 - 1
land Development Code
City of Collevville. Texas
~.B Public HearinQs Required - A public hearing shall be required by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council for a request for a an existing subdivision proposing to convert a public
street to a witR private streets myst Be revis'.veEl BY tf;Je PlaRRiRS aREI ZeRiRS CemmissieR aREI City
CeYR@il witf;J ea@f;J BeEly f;J@IEliRS a ~YBIi@ f;JeariRS. Written notices of a# such public hearings shall be
&eAt mailed to a# the owners of real property ~ situated within 200 feet of the proposed private
street subdivision as listed on the last approved City tax roll witf;J ~ri\'ate stmets. Such notices to be
gWeR mailed not less than ten (10) days before the day set for public hearing, as listeEl eR tf;Je last
a~~r::@veEl City tax rell. Such notice may be served by depositing letters properly addressed and
postage paid in the City Post Office. Tf:le ap~li@aRt will BEl seRt Reti@e BY resistersEl mail. +Re
PlaRRiRS aREI ZeRiRS CemmissieR '.vill a@t iR aR aEl'Jis@ry @a~a@ity te tf;Je City CeYR@il iR tf;Jis matter. .'\
sYBElivisieR witf;J ~r::ivate str::eets aREI alleys is ~ermiU@EI eRly after a fiRal ElsGisiElR f;Jas BeeR maEls BY
tf;Js City CeYR@il te iSSYEl a ~rivate stffiet ~Elrr:~it.
Section 10-125 Conditions of Approval
4Q..6.A Planninq Considerations - The followinQ criteria shall be used as Quidelines in the review
and approval of a private street subdivision.
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 (-five ~) (25)
single-family lots or greater.
4O.i.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.
4O.i.C Private Street and Drainaqe Desiqn and Construction Standards - Private streets must conform to
the same standards regulating the design and construction of public streets contained in this Land
Development Code. Tf;Jsse staRElarGs sf;Jall iRGIYElEl, Bllt are Ret limitsEl te tf;Je @eR@rete street
staRElarGs, eRSiReeriRS ElesiSR SYiEleliRBs aREI @eRstrY@tieR staRElarEls aREI Eletails, street RamiRS aREI
aElElr::@ssiRS ~eli@y. The drainage system must meet all the requirements of public facilities in this
Land Development Code, iR@IYEliRS siziRS te Garry Y~str€lam leaEls, metersEl Elis@f;Ja~es, ete.
4O.i.D Traffic Siqns - All traffic regulatory signs along private streets must conform to the Texas Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
~.E Homeowners Associations (HOA) 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
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10 - 2
land Development Code
City of Collevville. Texas
association's document must indicate that the streets and drainage systems within the development
are private, owned and maintained by the association, and that 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. No 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.
..w.e.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. TREl City rS€lliIires tRat tRe HOI'.
em~IElY 8R 9RsiREleriRS firm tEl estimate tRa east 9f re~lae9meRt Base€! eR iRJlatiaR, erisiRal €!esiSR aR€!
eaRstFloIetiElR aR€! tRa ass Elf tRe faeilities. 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.
~.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.
~.H Construction and Maintenance Cost - The City shall not pay for any portion of the cost of
constructing or maintaining a private street.
~.I 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.
4O.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 to ensure emergency access. The City Council shall
be the final judge of whether such repairs are needed.
~,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
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10 - 3
land Development Code
City of ColleyVille. Texas
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.
~.L Restricted Access Entrance Desiqn 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.
4G.6.M Visitor Entrance Desiqn 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.
.w.6.N Resident Onlv Entrance Desiqn 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.
4M.0 Hold Harmless - 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 andlor 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
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10 - 4
land DeveloDment Code
City of Collevville, Texas
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.
~.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.
~.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.
~.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.
~.S City Attornev Review - 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.
~.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 FeNRElal:lls an application fee of $700 shall be paid prior
to schedulinq the application for public hearinq prBsBRtElEllipsR GPpliE.atiElR fer apprsval sf a private
street slil:lElivisisR. If t~B appli€latieR is EleRieEl l:Iy City CeliR€lil, $500 s~all 1:19 reNRElBEl tEl t~e
appli€lGlnt."
C-h-~pte~1-0 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates-'--------'-----'-----------..----- Page 10-~-5--
Land Development Code
City of Colleyville. Texas
EXHIBIT "10-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 oLot OwnersO), 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 OAdditionO), 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.
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance Gates
Page 10 - 6
land Development Code
City of Collevville. Texas
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
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.
Section 10-130 Amendments to This Chapter
Reserved for listing of amendments to this Chapter.
Ord. Number
0-00-1261
Date
12/19/00
Sub'eet
Restricted Access Entrance Desi n Standards
Chapter 10 - Private Streets & Entrance
Page 10 - 7