Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-11/8/2004 .~ 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 Dolan, Dave Dudziak, Thomas Bartkowski, Jeff Byerly, Luann Edwards, John Blassingame, and Denis Duffy were present. Barry LeBaron, Clayton Husband and Amy Shelley from staff were present. Ross Foster, City Attorney, was present. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Commissioner Dolan. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no corrections or changes to be made for the October 11, 2004 minutes. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Duffy seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None 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 into the asphalt circle currently there for a driveway. Clayton Husband responded that is correct, the homeowners will be able to stub into the existing asphalt cul-de-sac. Commissioner Duffy questioned if this property is isolated because there appears to be no access or no roads. Clayton Husband responded there is a piece of property at the end of the street with a driveway and they would have access to this cul-de-sac. Commissioner Duffy questioned about the gravel haulers using property between railroads, would that street be maintained or is it in the railroad right of way? Clayton Husband responded believes that particular roadway is in the railroad right of way. Barry LeBaron stated the triangle property (part of Shelton) the old Bransford road is city owned and is being used as right of way and allowed the city to build the cul-de-sac bubble where these properties would have their driveways. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve Case P-04-039 and Commissioner Dudziak seconded the motion. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None 2. P-04-040 - Preliminary Plat for Cambridge Place Addition, 9.181 acres located south of Centerpark, east of Colleyville Boulevard Clayton Husband 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 not think Planning & Zoning recommended approval, a denial was received. Commissioner Edwards questioned if this was going to be a gated community? Clayton Husband responded did not believe so, however, the applicants are here to answer any questions. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned the minimum road center line turn radius on the streets because of the tight turn radius on one of the streets in the subdivision. Clayton Husband responded the plat meets the Fire Department requirements for the turn radius. It has a 45' turn radius. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned is there a minimum? Clayton Husband responded 35' is the minimum on the inside on the outside is 50'. Commissioner Edwards questioned whether if the arrows indicate a zero lot line? Clayton Husband responded the arrows refer to 3' building line side of the property and opposite side are 7'. They are very beneficial to city so that they know which side is the 3' side. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned what the minimum lot depth for this subdivision? Barry LeBaron stated the ordinance provides for a 58' minimum lot depth requirement for this subdivision. Clayton Husband stated some lots are odd and turned sideways. Some homes will be wider than they are deep. Commissioner Duffy stated some lots are in the 100 year flood line and questioned whether or not those lots would be built up to 2' above the flood line? Clayton Husband responded 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 rear of the lots and water will drain to the south to the creek. Commissioner Duffy stated that would be the natural flow, but half of the reclamation area, some of the lots, will have to be raised to meet the 2'. Clayton Husband responded the pad of the house or the finished floor of the foundation has to be raised the 2', not the whole lot. Commissioner Duffy stated the information provided states; by releasing the on- site storm run-off immediately, the on-site drainage is carried downstream prior to the 100 year flood reaching its peak stage. Commissioner questioned at what point and time would the 100 year flood reach its peak stage? Clayton Husband responded could not answer that question. Commissioner Duffy stated it would not reach its peak stage at this property but it would further down stream. Clayton Husband stated had not reviewed the flood study. Commissioner Duffy stated the open space to be for entertainment or recreational use of occupants. Stated the upper part of open space is usable but the whole lower half of the open space is in the flood plain and would not be usable. Clayton Husband responded that it is not uncommon for open space to be in the flood plain area. It does not necessarily mean it is being used for detention, the open space just happens to be in the flood plain. Barry LeBaron stated that this PUD ordinance provides for a provision that allows the use of open space for detention. Commissioner Duffy stated could not reduce below the 20% requirement for open space. Is there a plan for improvement on the open space? Clayton Husband responded 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 add ressed. 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's why these PUDs need usable open space for residents. Commissioner Byerly stated this is not uncommon, the Commission has allowed this type of open space use before, correct? Clayton Husband responded correct. The open space does not state specifically recreational space; it could be used as leisure space. Barry LeBaron stated using flood plain area as open space is a good use, because there would be nothing in the place to hinder in the event of flooding. Clayton Husband stated the nature center is located in a flood area, and it is a good use of open space. Commissioner Duffy stated at this point and time unless it can be shown as a usable open space, right now, it is just a swamp area. No access along back lots at the creek bed that allow people access. Barry LeBaron stated there is a huge distinction between flood plain and flood way. The area they are using is in the flood plain, flood way is further south. Commissioner Edwards stated that part of the flood way is on the plat and Commissioner Duffy concurred with statement. Commissioner Duffy stated wanting to see a hydrology study or an engineer's study that explains the consideration for the water flow. Clayton Husband responded a study would be provided to the Commission and the developer is present to answer any questions. Commissioner Byerly asked the developer to come forward and explain or answer the Commissions' 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 lower 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 see if any plans for recreational equipment, play grounds, gazebos, etc. would be placed in the open spaces. Mr. Quinto stated a gazebo would go in one of the open spaces, but not playground or recreational equipment. These customers are strictly empty nesters all are entirely. Commissioner Edwards questioned how they would restrict who would buy these homes. Mr. Quinto stated it's not restricted, simply the market. Commissioner Dudziak stated that is really not the case in Colleyville, a lot of older couples have children. Commissioner Edwards concurred. Commissioner Duffy stated these are out of date drawings for the flood way? Mr. Quinto stated the lines for the flood way are different; the drawings are not out dated. Mr. Rankin concurred. Commissioner Duffy questioned what percentage of the lot is concrete? How much absorption and how much run off of water? Mr. Rankin stated this subdivision percentage is .7 whereas a typical subdivision is .55. The run off is slightly increased. Commissioner Bartkowski stated is the new flood way line on this plat? Mr. Rankin stated yes, limits of existing flood way easement. Commissioner Bartkowski then stated how was the flood way easement obtained? Mr. Rankin stated, Mr. Bartee provided that and is filed with the City of Colleyville. Mr. Rankin also stated having received the CD for the easement from Mr. Bartee and they will put their comments on the comments received from the City of Colleyville. Commissioner Bartkowski stated wanting to see the changes. Mr. Rankin stated the changes would be provided to the Commission, however, it is not uncommon for changes to have to be made, and those changes do not hinder the approval of the preliminary plat. Changes can be made as long as the corrected data is provided to the Commission before the final plat. 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 space should be open to all residents and the Commission is trying to make all open spaces accessible to all residents and that is what the open space requirement is for, not just for an exclusive use by a particular resident. Are the developer's going to put in trails or paths? Mr. Quinto questioned if the paths or trails had to be paved? Commissioner Byerly stated the issues are going further than what are needed for right now. This is not uncommon for the use of open space; we have counted open space as this in the past. The City Council can make changes to the Land Development Code as needed, we can not and as it stands right now this qualifies as open space and these spaces are accessible and usable for all. Commissioner Edwards questioned any kind of amenity on particular lots, as benches? Mr. Quinto responded yes, heavy landscaping with benches and paths, actually land forms, however, the landscaping plans are not complete but will be at final plat stage. Commissioner Dolan stated when the developers were here before, this community would be an upscale, high end, small lots, low maintenance, low to zero maintenance that attracts a unique kind of buyer. Also stated, this community does concur with the ordinance and if the Commission wants to change the Land Development Code or ordinance, it can not start with this plat. Commissioner Dudziak stated he respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Dolan. Commissioner Dudziak stated it is the Commissions' job to interpret the ordinance and the PUD gives us the leeway to do so and we can make demands for the maximum amount of use for the citizens of the city and the long term benefit of this project. But, believes a path would be more usable for the leisure of the residents. Mr. Quinto stated he respected the comment; however, these customers are not interested in a path. Commissioner Edwards asked staff to get with Chad Bartee and remind him that this is in direct alignment with Bedford Road and there are 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 Commission and reviewed the staff briefing. Commissioner Edwards questioned clarity on case; homeowner could build this accessory building, as is, if it did not have living quarters or if it only had 600 sq. ft. instead of 1000 sq. ft.? Clayton Husband responded correct to first question, incorrect on second question. It would only be true on second question if this property were zoned AG or Residential Estate, but because it is zoned R-40, the homeowner has to have a special use permit to build the living quarters, regardless of size. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff about the RE zoning (Residential Estate) requiring 3 acres and above? Clayton Husband responded RE requires having 2 acres and AG (Agriculture) requires having 3 acres. This property almost qualifies for AG zoning, but it's R-40. Commissioner Duffy stated this property qualifies for RE? Clayton Husband responded that is correct. Commissioner Dudziak stated Commission was not here to approve the plans of the building but, does this building need to have a second exit, because of the size and having an elderly gentleman living there? Barry LeBaron stated this square footage would not require a second exit and it does meet the requirements of the fire code, the fire marshal has briefed the case. Clayton Husband concurred as well as the building official has briefed the plan. Commissioner Dudziak questioned, did not need second exit? Clayton Husband responded that is correct. We can, however, double check with the fire department and 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 have to get a special use permit, however if they were to build a 600 sq. ft. living quarters, then a special use permit would not be required. Commissioner Bartkowski stated only in the RE zoning. Clayton Husband stated correct and also in the AG zoning. Commissioner Bartkowski stated this is not RE or AG zoning, R-40 correct? Clayton Husband stated correct. The homeowner still would have to acquire a special use permit either way because of the zoning. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff if it would make a difference if the building were attached to the house? Clayton Husband responded, and then it would just be an addition to the house. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if under the SUP would the homeowner be prohibited in renting this building to other occupants? Clayton Husband responded, technically yes. However, it would be hard to control. Barry LeBaron concurred. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. Citizen's comments: Frank Kehr, property owner 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. A change 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. ft. Mr. Nanson stated it may be used as servants' quarters in the future and 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 McDonwell School Road, East current resident of Dallas, Texas. Would prefer the placement of this large garage apartment else where. This will be seen directly out of our driveway. We have a lot invested in our property and do not wish to see this large garage apartment. This would not be pleasing to all other surrounding property owners either. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:05 P.M. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff about the placement of the accessory building on the homeowner's lot. Clayton Husband responded directly at the foot or base of the driveway pad. Commissioner Edwards wanted confirmation on the Kehr's property. Commissioner Byerly questioned the Kehr's about the placement of their property. Mrs. Kehr stated the vacant property directly across from Mr. Nanson's property. Commissioner Edwards questioned Mrs. Kehr; there is no house on the property? Mrs. Kehr responded correct. Commissioner Edwards wanted confirmation from staff about the interior Mr. Nanson being able to build this building as it is, no questions asked. Clayton Husband responded 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 provided by trees. Clayton Husband concurred. Commissioner Edwards stated the sighting of the building is behind the house, not up front. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Nanson about the displacement of any trees. Mr. Nanson stated there is a small tree that would have to be removed, but not a tree of significance. Commissioner Duffy concurred with Mr. Nanson; a 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 motion to approve case Z-04-037 and Commissioner Dolan seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None 4. Z-04-038 - PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning change from AG to CC1 on property located at 6401 and 6405 Colleyville Boulevard Clayton Husband presented the case to the Commission and reviewed the staff briefing, Commissioner Duffy questioned the placement of the proposed property restricted uses in the CC1. Can it be restricted to just a pet shop? Clayton Husband responded 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 property will be cleaned up and improved and would no longer be an eye sore to the City of Colleyville. Commissioner Edwards questioned Ms. DeLa Fuente to see if the staff has been contacted to see if the existing building would be usable for the proposed pet shop? Ms. DeLa Fuente stated she had done so and the staff had been to the property. Commissioner Dolan questioned applicant for clarification about the pet store. Would you be selling feed or just pets? Ms. DeLa Fuente stated they currently own Colby's Extreme Pets in Terra Village, just small pets. They have had this business for 4 years now and have been successful. Commissioner Blassingame questioned Ms. DeLa Fuente if she plans to use the whole property or if there are plans to sell off any of the existing property? Ms. DeLa Fuente responded she had no plans to sell, was going to use the house and if they add to it, they would add to the back of the house. If she does sell in the future, she would sell both properties together because there are more frontages to Hwy 26. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff to see if any improvements on the house, would she have to come up to code? Clayton Husband stated may be some improvements that would have to come up to code such as landscaping or minor adjustments, just depends on what work would be performed. Commissioner Edwards made motion to approve case Z-04-038. Commissioner Dolan seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None 5. G-04-020 - 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 private are the same? Wanted clarification about the City having to take certain streets because the developer's did not build up to spec.? Barry LeBaron stated that did not know what the standards were then. However, stated that because of the city having to take back over streets in private communities, the city adopted this code to put forth the standards to insure that they would not have to do so again. Therefore, the Homeowner's Associations (HOAs) had 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, Commissioner is concerned with some of the HOAs not meeting the requirements of the reserve fund, knowing this by their comments received in the survey sent. Is there a way to enforce this issue? Barry LeBaron stated he thinks so; the penalty is to refuse to take over the street or opening it up and making it a public street. If it didn't meet us to standards can refuse to take the streets. Commissioner Duffy stated the one subdivision that concerns him is Sapphire Enclave. Their response to the survey was, no, no, no and not applicable. Commissioner Duffy questioned City Attorney, Ross Foster stating; in other words, they have not done the reserve fund and they do not intend on doing so, therefore, are they not following the restrictions outlined in the ordinance? Attorney Foster stated, if they violate the ordinance they can be fined up to $2000 a day in municipal court and city could file an injunction or civil penalties up to $1000 a day. There are ways to enforcement provisions other than to accept the streets. Commissioner Duffy questioned the Attorney Foster whether or not the HOAs are a legal entity that the 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 that during the budget process it would be important for the city to have a heads up to know that some HOAs do not have reserve funds and those streets are going to have to be taken over and maintained by the city. An annual report would be terrific. Barry LeBaron stated that some administrative procedures need to be put in place. Commissioner Edwards stated that in section 10.61, City Utilities, some subdivisions utilities are not in the street, they are actually in the side walk; does this language reflect those utilities? This section does not state right of way, just states Private Street. Barry LeBaron stated, correct. The private streets are the right of way, and they are usually platted a separate lot. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned staff having not seen this except this time, is this private streets with gates or private streets with or with out gates? Barry LeBaron responded all gated, except one, developments have private streets. They are all together. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned staff that all private streets will have to be gated or private streets will not have to be gated. Barry LeBaron responded that they have always gone together. The word gated means that the City will not go in and maintain those streets or utilities. Commissioner Duffy stated the Shadow Wood operation, private community, no through streets; never had streets gated and the agreement was the developer would take care of it. Then, once the lots were 50% sold, it would be gated, and however that never happened. The developer sold off other half for single family homes mixed in with those condominiums and now it is a mish mash. Barry LeBaron stated 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 happened in the past. Attorney Foster stated in the beginning, that was not the intended use of the community. Commissioner Edwards stated 10.6Q and 10.6R have the same wording or could they be combined? Barry LeBaron stated those sections would be looked at. Commissioner Dudziak stated the language is different, however what do the estimated expenses define? It needs to state. What is 100% of anything, and acquiring 100% is tough to get in any HOA. Commissioner Byerly concurred. Commissioner Edwards stated should not be less than 100%, Attorney Foster stated these property owners have an interest in the property and there must be 100% agreement. Whether or not those streets are converted to private or public streets, if not you are taking property without compensation. Commissioner Edwards stated to increase the minimum number of lots in these subdivisions to be able to cover the cost of the replacement of those streets. Commissioner Byerly stated to check on the amount per lot, should be amount per street and could get a better idea to see how much would be needed to cover the street costs. Barry LeBaron suggested tabling this item so that these items could be addressed in writing and the Commission could see the changes. 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. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned should this be looked at case by case. Barry LeBaron stated some subdivisions may not have the 20 lots. Commissioner Edwards stated that looking at each subdivision case by case should not be, because 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 and the reason for the way the ordinance is stated. What ever number is used for subdivisions, the City Council needs to stick to the ordinance stating that subdivision's number. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 8, 2004 Page 15 of 17 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 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 Commission could put in a penalty for not concurring with the ordinance? Attorney Foster stated, if the language is in the code about violations, then there is a penalty for any violation of the code and it could be any where from $500 or $2000 per day. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff if the language is there in the code? Barry LeBaron responded yes. Commissioner Edwards made motion to table case G-04-020. Commissioner Duffy seconded the motion and questioned staff if it would be appropriate at this time of motion to also incorporate the comments made at tonight's meeting? Barry LeBaron responded yes. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None STAFF REPORTS Barry LeBaron reported the city council approved the master plan at the November 3, 2004 and staff will have those ready in a few weeks. Commissioner Duffy asked if any major changes had been made. Barry LeBaron stated not any major changes and stated the map that had the changes. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Edwards 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. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 8, 2004 Page 16 of 17 ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. by acclamation. Approved on: November 22,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - November 8, 2004 Page 17 of 17