The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Agenda Packets-3/14/2005 city or @ Texas AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION City Hall Council Chambers - 100 Main Street Monday, March 14,2005 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Commissioners Thomas Dolan, David Dudziak, Thomas Bartkowski, Jeff Byerly, Luann Edwards, John Blassingame and Denis Duffy INVOCATION Commissioner Blassingame PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 28, 2005 CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 1. Case P-OS-008 - PUBLIC HEARING - Final Plat of Lot R-14-2, Block 1 of the Colleyville Industrial Park Addition, being a replat of Lot R-14-1, Block 1, Colleyville Industrial Park Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, Fair Haven Estates and Tracts 2B1 and 2B4, of the A.J. Lott Survey, Abstract 963, 6.84 acres located on the east side of Colleyville Boulevard and on the south side of Industrial Boulevard. TABLED ITEMS 2. Case G-05-006- TABLED - Proposal to amend the Master Thoroughfare Plan as outlined in the City of Colleyville Master Plan 2004-2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -March 14, 2005 Page 1 0'2 STAFF COMMENTS, REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS AND REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Amy Shelley, Planning and Zoning Assistant Posted: Thursday, March 10, 2005, 4:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -March 14, 2005 Page 2 of 2 .~ Texas PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - February 28,2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Byerly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINU Commissioner Duff importance of speakin INVOCATION by Commissioner ROLL CALL Commissioners Thomas Thomas Bartkowski, Luann Jeff Byerly were present.,. Commissioner JOhn~ingame Dave Dudziak, ds, Denis Duffy and ers and the audience about the sponding to applicants. :'- minutes of the February 14, 2005 The mo , Aye: Dol a"" Nay: None RDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Case P-OS-006 - Final Plat of Pine Hill Estates Addition, 3.67 acres located on Abstract 331, Tract 2C of the A.J. Caldwell Survey at 1209 Tinker Road Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve Case P-05-006. Commissioner Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 1 of 13 Edwards seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEMS 2. amend the Master ster Plan 2004-2025 lockett, spoke in favor of alignment A because it is already owever, would like to have a two lane, not a four lane, . r. Butler stated having concerns with a four lane road creating tra ards. Larry Cole, 40U Country Place, spoke in favor of alignment A because that was approved by the council. Mr. Cole stated if he had to choose another alignment, alignment C would be the pick, but only if the road were moved an additional 200 feet off the back of the Emerald Park addition. Andrew Mittag, 901 W. Lavaca Trail, concerned with congestion relief on Lavaca Trail. Alignment A will take away the rural quality of the whole area. Mr. Mittag stated that Precinct Line Road is already a four lane road that could possibly be a six lane road in the future. Mr. Mittag stated alignment C would be a better pick; Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 2 0' 13 however he would prefer none of the alignments presented. Ruth Ann Plain, 909 W. Lavaca Trail, spoke in favor of alignment A, at this time, especially getting children back and forth to the new school being built at the corner of Precinct Line and McDonwell School Road. Mrs. Plain stated the other two alignments would not benefit the city. Joe Mcintosh, representing the Doyle Mcintosh Family LP, spoke in favor of alignment C because of the long term benefits to Colle .~. Mr. Mcintosh stated this alignment would abut the elementary school pro "and would benefit that development. David Markham, representing the Jones alignments C and B, basically opposed to a more if McDonwell School Road and LD ke in opposition to e city would benefit oved. Gregory Van Nieuwenhuize, represen . alignments. Mr. Nieuwenhuize ques ' Stated Colleyville needs an east west street. If an alignment has to be made, al alf of her mother at 1101 W. ~~' She stated alignment A approved in the Master Plan. Danny Ogl e in favor of alignment A because that is what the cit ' nment would benefit the city. Mr. Ogle stat~~~!.!R~me t Line Road. .,.:' ." y...' ..~,~,","<">~':\.., ;<>. .;~I~~iPe;Ben\,;~~ f:?-;:, on.' ing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. <,,",?\,>>,~,,, ~~ .;*t~bmmissione ard:- ~ . ted to divide discussions into segments such as, how ";'~~ige is the roa 'ng t'~ location of street north of Lavaca and location of sl\'" south of La . Qu stioned the width of the road and stated not needing a ne road. ted this is just dotted lines on a map and there are no guara ~'. of thi r being built. Would like to keep the rural feel, the 60 feet would b~;~~1tt~{3t};;:. ore in favor of a 75 foot cross section because it would give the city mor~~~~lbility. Commissione?Byerly concurred with Commissioner Edwards, more flexibility is better than less. Commissioner Byerly stated the staff mentioned 60 feet would not meet the current design standards. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff for examples of some streets that would show the comparisons of the 60 foot versus the 75 foot wide design standard. Barry LeBaron replied a typical residential street has a 50 foot ROW with a 31 foot pavement section. We have some long cul-de-sacs that have 36 foot pavement sections. Commissioner Byerly questioned if any of those streets are in the area of McDonwell School Road? Barry LeBaron responded that McDonwell School Road has somewhere in the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 30'13 area of 22 or 24 foot pavement sections. Commissioner Dudziak stated being comfortable with the 75 foot ROWand having the flexibility with the turning lane. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if preliminary plans were filed when the PUD-C that Mr. Cole referred to was filed? Barry LeBaron responded preliminary plans were filed at the same time the PUD-C request for the Emerald Park PUD- C was started, the residential component and com ial component. The residential component was platted but the commerci . ponent has not been ~atted. ~ Commissioner Edwards questioned, for c1arit . ercial component for Emerald Park is not set? Barry LeBaron repR~p . orrect. " .,:~. H, ~:~~~~;, ''1v~ "~~;::. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if t ' "UD-C containrfl~tl~. are included in the Emerald Park boundaries? Barry nded correct, it parail!\t~:. the Emerald Park addition and completes that rec'" e area. .... ':~~t~~:::., , . "~:;>' Commissioner Duffy questioned if La T ing north with alignment C would have CC2 zoning con. cting to the ite? Barry LeBaron responded correct. " would prefer the movement replied the movement e just lines on a map. is a pia for a traffic light for Precinct . ed not at this time. Commissioner Duffy ibited because of the water plain and ould have the greater impact and the p ~ceived from the school. ... estioned staff where do all three alignments line up in 00, . the north end? Barry LeBaron replied alignment C is darY ~':<~t~e school property and alignment A is on the west . ditiori\~nd alignment B would split the difference between considered a fourth option D, considered retaining the etween Lavaca Trail and LD Lockett and then retaining the between McDonwell School Road and Lavaca Trail and orth westerly direction. Commissione Edwards questioned staff if the purpose of this was to realign a future road with commercial property? Barry LeBaron replied correct. Commissioner Edwards stated alignment A will allow even more high density developments and the residents in this area have already stated they want to keep their acreage. The rural feel would disappear with alignment A. Commissioner Byerly stated liking alignment C from McDonwell School Road to Lavaca Trail and then south of Lavaca less sure of what needs to be done. Mr. Cole probably has a plan for his commercial property and maybe the city does Commissioner Duffy stated tH of alignment A to leave room: Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 4 0'13 er densl osed to hig . r.:nissioner D cre ' .,by the sch a diff&l)l alignm . commeretal.;.,.:t..r.a.. ft. j:.1~.~..:.1~~:s::} ~~~:~:;;~,<~~~,~>~ Commissioi11t~~$6Ian stated these are just lines on a map, nothing is set. The residents havEr already pointed out keeping the rural feel in this area. There is not an alignment that anyone just can not live without. Commissioner Dolan stated he does not feel, at this point, there is a need for a north south road. Commissioner Edwards stated the city has a compelling need to have an alternate route in case something happens on Precinct Line Road. Commissioner Edwards stated alignment C would be contiguous with the new school and regardless that there is not a road on the Master Plan right now, if commercial development comes in, that development can put in a road. The city not need a road. However, maybe this road would create the buffer needed between the residential and commercial developments. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff about the stub going west on the northern end of Sterling at Emerald Park, is that the fire lane? Barry LeBaron replied correct. Commissioner Duffy questioned the width of the easement? Barry LeBaron questioned staff, Chad Bartee if he knew the width? Chad Bartee stated not knowing for sure about the width of the eas~{Tlent but the pavement width is 24 feet. "~l)' Commissioner Edwards stated alignment C coul through the commercial property, therefore office buildings could split ential and commercial properties. Barry LeBaron stated trying to 1{1 the mercial as large as possible, but that could be an option. The "cept plan ~ . PUD would need to be reviewed for this roadway if moved ; er to the west. ~ . Commissioner Dudziak questioned f not most of the area delegated as a commercial zone? LeBa.eplied the w ~ rectangle was commercial and office. Commissio stated the residents bought into this area knowing alig ent A woul best option because of this commercial area for growt so state ment A was approved by the city council, therefore allowin . devele large area that would back up to the residential developm.::>:, . ~~';>h ';;, "<:<,<<" ~S~~<~:X~>'}:;;~""'" " ' ~/ Commissioner Eg,.~uestio{:::" 'r~1~~(~.f.:p(Jdziak if he did not have a problem with h tho 'ite prop~m'es? Commissioner Dudziak replied thos ~ ies wh' Iready there when the Master Plan was started an. aster P as updated. The residents knew about those chang ve sP. are in favor of alignment A. Co ate A went away when the Emerald Park ~eve Commissioner Byerly stated alignment A would create velo. '. nts like Emerald Park and the residents in this area are . :;; ~. nSlty~;;: '" 'state "having concerns with alignment A with the traffic Commissioner Duffy stated liking staff's suggestion about alignment "D" to create a better flow for school traffic and Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 5 0' 13 needs to have an established route for circulation of traffic. Commissioner Byerly made suggestion to table this case until further studies can be made from staff eliminating alignment B, decide if alignment C or alignment A can be rerouted or create a new alignment. Commissioner Duffy requested from staff a copy of the PUD on the commercial property. Barry LeBaron responded staff would get a copy to him. Commissioner Byerly stated sending notifications to sons who spoke and others on Lavaca Trail. Commissioner Dudziak stated needing to ha Iy from the Economic Development Director, Scott Welmaker on I r this area. Scott Welmaker stated he could get inform .,,q,. ~ ready fo ~ Commissioners. However, developers request better east:. ~ routes. V:~:::~', ~'., , ',:,x:;;",. Commissioner Edwards made motio. ~pprove th~75 foot cro~~i~~ction for the proposed road way. Commissioner .' k seco",. .;~~:::, .... ;.; The motion was approved by the followirl ". Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartk i, Edwards, Nay: None -05-006. Commissioner have a break at 8:35 p.m. and to ;.,I(lvened meeting at 8:40 p.m. '.., '- .'.--~~--- ..PU 'HEARING- Request for a zoning change from ^ acres, Abstract 404, Tracts 1, 3A and 3C of the William t 6805 Pleasant Run Road Commissio replied that is of this request. Commissioner Byerly questioned the flag lot that is on the zoning exhibit, is that an allowed frontage? Chris Fuller replied no, it does not have the required frontage for John McCain however those issues would be addressed at the time of platting. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned the status of Warwick Parc? Chris Fuller responded Warwick Parc was approved in the summer of 2004 and is currently ~ d the case and briefed the Commission. wards questioned the line of lots on the east side? Chris Fuller e Warwick Parc addition that has been penciled in and is not part Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 60'13 under construction. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. John Fegan, applicant, presented his request and briefed the Commission. Mr. Fegan stated having met with the neighbors about his plans. Mr. Fegan stated the flag area on the exhibit would probably be a trail area that would loop to the Cottonbelt Trail; it would be dedicated to the Parks Department. Commissioner Edwards questioned Mr. Fegan e' ere he has other developments? Mr. Fegan stated Warwick Parc,.:, another one at White Chapel Road and 1709 in Southlake, Stratford Commissioner Edwards questioned if Mr. Fegan plans to connect to W ? Mr. Fegan replied at the time of platting Warwick Parc, a street w s nection. Commissioner Duffy questioned Mr. Fe pond, what are the elevation patter- drainage system for the pond, statin state. Commissioner Duffy questione tank that drains across John McCain? M: Tom Quinn, 7 Pleasant Run Road, opposed to the R20 request and feel it is inconsistent with the character of the property. Mr. Quinn stated having concerns with the size of the lots and the density in that area. Bill Lothrop, 609 Shelton Drive, spoke in opposition to the R20 zoning. Mr. Lothrop stated having concerns with lot size and density. Mr. Lothrop stated R20 does not fit with this area of Colleyville. Mr. Lothrop would like a minimum of R40 zoning. Lynn McKeown, 6909 Pleasant Run, spoke in opposition to the R20 request. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 70'13 She stated appreciating Mr. Fegan working with the community, however she stated having concerns with the density in the area. Mrs. Joan Quinn, 6817 Pleasant Run Road, spoke in opposition to the R20 request, most of the zoning in the area is already R40 or RE. Mrs. Quinn stated the Master Plan states to maintain the rural atmosphere. There being no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Byerly reopened the public hearing at 9: Roy Erwin, 6908 Pleasant Run Road, spoke in opp to the R20 request. There being no one wishing to speak the public s closed at 9:21 p.m. John Fegan, the applicant, spoke in respo ::to the opp n stating the areas of drainage would be cleaned. Mr. Fega ed that the wti ' .rea is not RE or . / ~ " R40. Mr. Fegan stated offering to pia s to buffer the are having the property to be deed restri 0 stone Is not just w 'encing. Commissioner Byerly stated the open SX is requirement for 20 zoning. Mr. Fegan responded the oRen space w te a detention and would also be a park area. Mr. Fegan . ;~, dedicating'- Id log cabin on this property to ~~~< N'... ~ .."- the city and he would pay td~~i'V'~l~pved. .,~gan stated he is giving more open space than he is require " f67:>..." " t zoni1t~~~::::>> , ''\~lli> Commissioner Du ted the' r tr'fe R20 lots. Commissioner Duffy question , n abo uare;ge planned for these homes and the pe ' t covfj ? Mr. Fegan responded having the developm to ab ,500 square feet with the homes being about 5,000 homes Co : ';bout the traffic study in the briefing, any 8 R40 zoning or better to cut down on the .<:. eB responded the city will have to deal with making .,::$t. provements , ',ee ,.-: gsed on the build out of R20 zoning and the road way ';::;"m~,act fees are" ~ed &\~uild out of R20 zoning. Commissioner Dudziak q:"" 'oned if PIe 'nt Run could accommodate the additional traffic? Barry Le ,>,.f,! stated, The city has currently been focusing on intersection . '-,.~X~* Improve:m~nts. ~<"""\.X"" x"",><,>~/. Commissfo#~li . questioned staff if the Master Plan states open feel, large estate lots 6 ajor collector streets to create an open feel. Barry LeBaron stated to approve zoning that would allow estate developments that front on major collector streets. Barry LeBaron stated Mr. Fegan is doing things to this development that are not required in the R20 zoning, like the open space on John McCain. Those amenities are market driven and that is why he is doing those open spaces. Commissioner Byerly stated this development would work in this area. He stated this request gives a good transitional nature between the soccer fields and estate lots. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 80'13 Commissioner Bartkowski concurred with Commissioner Byerly; however the R30 zoning would be a better buffer between the R20 and R40 lots. Commissioner Dolan stated the character of the area is R40 plus not R20. Commissioner Edwards concurred with Commissioner Dolan; this plan looks better than other plans, however the R20 zoning assumes nothing like a PUD. Commissioner Edwards stated if the Commission were to approve R20 zoning, anybody could come back with any lot configuration an would be approved as long as it met the requirements of the R20 zonin ommissioner Edwards stated having concerns that the layout could ge and does not feel comfortable. approving the R20 zoning. ":::-., Commissioner Dudziak stated some of the be larger and concurs with Commissione as a PUD because the layout could be Commissioner Byerly questioned th Mr. Fegan responded being willing to open space requirement drives the sizes Commissioner Byerly quest, ~taff if the/'i preliminary plat and final plat e subm >'"at the time of zoning? Barry -...;, "> '. LeBaron stated they would b " ive a ,same time to city council. ;:. The Land Develo ment Code, plat would have to be consistent with t at. , nt Run Road could ,.;. would be better feasible? Commission to a PU renotified, irt\ the applicant could change the request e property owners would need to be mmissioner oning case, frdm;;iii~Rning. Co Pleaswt~Hun Roa.<' '~'-<::::>;;:" ,>~~;~$;~~I~' CommisS:i "', r~ijWards made motion to approve case Z-05-002. Byerly sec(f~~t. i..1=:" The motion to approve failed by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Byerly Nay: Dolan, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy nfair to the applicant to do the work for a o those who . ave spoken tonight especially since the or larger zoning. n sta e applicant has done a very good job in presenting the e 'Ineering and platting issues are to be done separate 'ssioner Dolan stated this layout just does not work for Commissioner Commissioner Edwards made motion to deny case Z-05-002. Commissioner Bartkowski seconded. The motion to deny was approved by the following vote: Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 9 0' 13 Aye: Dolan, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy Nay: Dudziak, Byerly 4. Case Z-OS-007 - PUBLIC HEARING - Request by Dallas Baptist University for a Special Use Permit for a satellite facility on Lot 1 R, Block 1, Town Center Colleyville Phase I, located at 5611 Colleyville Blvd, Suite 240 Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commis . n. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the addre > of Suite 240 is just a section of the building? Chris Fuller stated correc leasing space. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff since th" a h facility would it be taken off the tax rolls? Chris Fuller respondtlf:t1 ,this is ucational facility. ~i:W Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if tt.'WiII be a satellit . nna on the top of the building? Chris Fuller stated n ,::>;->>.<::~' ~ ' Commissioner Dudziak questioned I Spec'.:se Permit wi 'ay at that location if the school moves? Barry Le t, it will stay as an additional permitted use for that space,;:::: d the ordin written specifically to state this location or suite OnlY., :, Commissioner Byerly opened ' Ozzie Ingram, 300 ountain and briefed the n. pplicant about the time frame the school . owing at this time; however the lease is questioned Mr. Ingram about the . :e at one time? Mr. Ingram replied there dents, 30 s nts per class room, Monday thru Friday. . 'g to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:55 p.m. ,mmlssloner >. ziak tioned staff about the number of cars per the .,,:;:;~:r of studen 'vathe ra 0 in the code states 1 car per 3 students? Barry Le~~ stated th.de needs to be updated to reflect the new number of cars per sfj,;:g.. . 1. Th~,>iltio would be higher. The shopping center has over 100 spaces 'b ", '>, mmissioner Dudziak stated the restaurant would be open at the same the classes therefore creating possible problems with parking at peak hour Barry LeBaron stated the parking spaces counted were only the ones near the school. Commissioner Dudziak stated if the developer or tenants do not have any issues, he does not either. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve case Z-05-007. Commissioner Edwards seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Dolan, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy, Byerly Nay: None Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 10 of 13 TABLED ITEMS 5. Case P-OS-004 - TABLED - Final plat for Cambridge Place Addition, 9.181 acres on Lot 4R, Block 1, Centerpark Addition located south of Centerpark Drive, east of Colleyville Boulevard Commissioner Byerly made motion to remove cas seconded by Commissioner Bartkowski. The motion was approved by the following vot Aye: Dolan, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy, B Nay: Dudziak Barry LeBaron presented the case an Commissioner Dudziak stated each h " lot frontages, it does not say north soutH", the homebuilder would be r 'red to build the street. Barry LeBaron' he appliC would build that five foot side ission understanding of the sidewalk,lk south side of the t. Barry sidewalk on on street. fed the Commission. .; 11 construct si alk on the , t point, the ordinance reads, walk including the south side of ay be better to answer who dziak questioned staff if his ;:Jlot be constructed on the eveloper only wanting the sements are to not to allow drainage ioner Dudziak stated it appears that the ded as drainage easements and that e ordinance regulations. Commissioner space does not give consideration to the city and does " ,division. Barry LeBaron stated this is the open space d through this process and totals the 22%. .iak s s the open space can not be used for drainage. g this open space for drainage not detention and should nofh~ounted as n space. ~~~~:~~0 . Commi'$:~;::;;;" y questioned staff if interpretation of this drainage can be counted i e'n space is consistent with the preliminary plat at the time of the PUD ap al. Barry LeBaron stated this open space is adjacent to the 100 year flood plain and is still counted as open space. Commissioner Dudziak stated if the plat does not comply with the 20% open space requirement, then the commission will have approved a plat that did not comply with the PUD requirement. Barry LeBaron stated correct, but approval has been done in the past with out plats complying with requirements. Commissioner Duffy questioned about the sidewalk plan, no sidewalks on the plat along the loop on the plat? Barry LeBaron stated correct. Commissioner Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 11 of 13 Duffy questioned the line on the plat and Barry LeBaron stated that is the building set back line. Commissioner Duffy stated those homes will not have a sidewalk. Barry LeBaron stated the developer did not want on both sides. Commissioner Edwards stated the city council has already approved this plat and the Commission has no recourse. Commissioner Dudziak questioned City Attorney, Matthew Boyle, who would be responsible if the creek bed creates erosion on these 10 nd encroach on these land owners? Mr. Boyle stated we would do our be ,sure no liability would accrue to the city, however there are no guaran Commissioner Dudziak ques~ioned if there could b.e something put on, " ?t.. the develop~r s~ that the city could be sure nothing would happen1 ''; .'. oy~~ted essentially If the developer has met all the requirements , ~~l'le Land D'~f;' ment Code, the Commission is obligated to approve the :'Commissioner iak questioned if there is an error in interpretation of ' e plat is laid out, wil Commission have recourse? Mr. Boyle replied t ;,; ourse d be conclu ;~::)f staff has made an erroneous decision also; t 'ty will need to '}review and approve. Commissioner Duffy questi ' to maintain the drainage ar LeBaron replied correct. Co were to fail, would responsi city? Barry LeB . d it de responsibility" the C bedding th s what ns the drainage area but fails OA's responsibility? Barry ffy q'" , . ned if the drainage area e eowner's and not on the r. 0 ~~ated the green areas are the sion is concerned with the failing of the s to be stated clearer. 'ak st .," wanting to see the final draft of the covenants to will be the one responsible for the open space. Barry ving a copy of those covenants. Commissioner Dudziak ts are required now, at the time of final plat. Commissi . erly questioned if those documents have been submitted? Barry LeBaro' eplied documents have not been submitted. Dan Quinto, the applicant, stated he thought he had submitted everything the city had requested, however, he has not submitted the proposed covenants. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff about the flumes that will go across the open space? Robert Woods, city engineer, stated the developer is not using any flumes; they will be using a closed pipe system. Commissioner Dudziak questioned the applicant about a gazebo? Mr. Quinto replied the builders do not want a gazebo. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 120'13 Commissioner Dudziak questioned city attorney if the Commission can approve this final plat without all needed documents? Mr. Boyle referred to Barry LeBaron. Barry LeBaron stated the covenants are usually submitted to the city at the time of filing with the county. However, if the Commission felt strongly about these documents, approval could be left until documents were received before going to city council. Mr. Boyle questioned Barry LeBaron about the 30 d s of submittal for the application? Barry LeBaron stated if an approval is ;~ ~'made tonight; the 30 days will be an issue. Mr. Boyle stated it would b r to deny and leave for the city council to clean. Commissioner Byerly questioned if the Com >~, could the applicant go to city council for an over ruling? Mr. ereplied o~\the developer gets the issues resolved, he can go to city co or an over rulin~~~ -.:;,;. ~ Commissioner Byerly stated the dev r has me:L~1I the requl nts and the Commission can make an appro' subjec "receiving t ~~, remaining documents. Commissioner Dudziak mad~<:;.motion to ~'~>y>".~~x,'\.> Edwards seconded. ~':;::;:";::~~~:~>:;. ~~~*~" '. <:~'~~l~~~,c~ The motion to deny was appro by"tftt; Aye: Dudziak, Bartkowski, Ed s, D , Nay: Dolan, By ':::;:.' .,.case P-05-004. , ,.;~~;~~~:;:::: wing:'~~~,: ':~~> Commissioner Mr. Quinto, quest" only issues outst cover all bases. arity, if the covenant documents were the replied to the developer is being sure to issioners if a workshop for next Monday night March ioners? Commissioners concurred. 'rned the meeting at 10:31 p.m. by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Shelley Planning and Zoning Assistant Approved on: ------------------- Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 130'13 .~ l'exas PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA BRIEFING Agenda Date: Subject: March 14,2005 P-05-008 - Final Plat of Lot R-14-2, Block 1 of the Colleyville Industrial Park Addition, being a replat of Lot R-14-1, Block 1, Colleyville Industrial Park Addition, Lot 1, Block 1, Fair Haven Estates and Tracts 2B1 and 2B4, of the AJ. Lott Survey, Abstract 963, 6.84 acres located on the east side of Colleyville Boulevard and on the south side of Industrial Boulevard. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Vogt Surveying has submitted a Replat for 6.84-acres located on the east side of Colleyville Boulevard and on the south side of Industrial Boulevard. The plat will incorporate two unplatted tracts into the existing platted lot and provide a vertical lot line to the adjacent property to the east. The applicant has submitted the replat for review and consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Zoning. The proposed plat area encompasses three zoning districts ML, PUD-C, and AG. The main campus of this development is the mini-warehouse facility, which has been zoned ML for many years. The PUD-C area was approved for the storage of recreational vehicles during 2004. The AG area, containing 0.13 acres, is being acquired by the developer in order to straighten the property line along the east line of the property. Staff has advised the developer that he will need to seek rezoning of the AG in the future if he intends to utilize it as part of the mini-warehouse campus. Street Improvements. Colleyville Boulevard is classified as a Major Arterial roadway on the Master Thoroughfare Plan, which requires an ultimate right-of-way of 130 feet. The developer is required to dedicate sufficient right-of-way to accommodate the future roadway. The developer has shown a 65-foot right-of-way dedication along Colleyville Boulevard on the plat. Sidewalks and Trails. The Land Development Code requires sidewalks along all streets. The sidewalk along Colleyville Boulevard must be at least 5-feet wide and must be constructed as part of the public improvements for this property. SUMMARY This replat is scheduled as a public hearing as required by the Texas Local Government Code and the Colleyville Land Development Code. Public hearing notices were sent to each property owner within 200 feet of the lot within the same subdivision. Notice of this public hearing was also published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as required by state law and the Land Development Code. Agenda Item No.1 - Page 1 The developer has addressed all Development Review Committee comments. Since this final plat contains less than five lots, only the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission is required. The proposed development appears to satisfy the platting standards contained in the Land Development Code. RECOMMENDATION Approval ATTACHMENTS · Location and Zoning Map · Plat · Development Review Committee Memo · Applicant's Response Prepared by: ~L- ~/.?- Chris Fuller' Development Coordinator Agenda Item No.1 - Page 2 Location and Zoning Map Agenda Item No.1 - Page 3 Plat ~ - L ...-..- =~~a::' g~. .............................. =-- r....................... ...............---~ ------......-~.. ~ ~L.....lrtCl,ot - .-- n (t ~............ ...........................--. .............,......-- ---- ......................,...., .............................. .1Iilli...~~ . .:;~ =~ ---~~~=FARD - . ....... --;.~==---~-==- -- , I .I jO' ~1 I:~ , r I I ..."..~.. '- ------_____~' .~~. ....* - 1I'_'_~""_ _. . . .........___.......IIAM.$ rl~ -.......r-- ----------- --- ..---...-- . -- . ..... .r----- ,I ~ . ~.' t 'jI I~II .~I!I I I; I n lit . :1, ~~ III :~: " '- / .,.!".::.. \}t..........-:-f. .....r... ~JL-l . f:" " r-----jJ . /"."Q- l!:i /'; .'1 I .. .. " I .. j , fi :,M !.: . .... . I , ~ .........~~........... .1, I -------.".--,-- . ..... .. . L_________________ . ..... .. -----;---........,..,.,._------___.,-__ ~.. L--:_~--~~~~'!!'.!!!--L--- ,:~ .~...w -~_...... '\. .~~ ""'111'- f,.....~ ~............, ~.......-- ~........... - t CII"t~_ cm'..........~ ftAt.....~_ .......... u....... ...... - """1lWlOtu.u._ -.......... ........... -...- ... ...- -.- - ................... .-....... I.,.........."""" -- ~~....... --- .-..........,a.... ..,,- ~ - ..............s,. 'NU_II... -,,- ........ ........,..--...~........~........... ~..,...........1rI......_.........~..~ -.....- =:-- - ----*-"''''--- B::- -- ........ -.....~.....,,.,............-.......---~ -.--.......---...................--.- ................................. ..--...--.......-...,...-.,j.. ______m#or1RM IIEVISED PlAT LOTfl.tf:2, BLOCK 1 ~lNlIUSI'RIALPARK =~ liCOllnly. T.... _'~_1IIACT 0lIt_... ....LOIT_._lIO.. 0",.....,... -eoar._ - -& JIM ..... ... " aJMI"'l ...l1l(I....__..__._...____ Agenda Item No.1 - Page 4 Development Review Committee Memo DATI! February 28, 2005 TO Thomas Vogt FAX NO 817.282.5007 FROM Chris Fuller, Development Coordinator SUBJEC P-05-008 Colleyville Industrial Park - Replat T The Colleyville Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed your plat request submitted to this office. The following comments are for your consideration. The Following Comments Require a Response from the Applicant: 1. Provide a signature line for the adjacent property owner permitting a portion of Lot 1, Block 1 Fair Haven Estates to be replatted with this application. 2. Label the square footage of the lot, less the right-of-way dedication, on the drawing. 3. Right-of-way dedication is required for Colleyville Boulevard. An additional 15 foot of right-of-way will be required along Colleyville Boulevard (S.H. 26); this will allow the ROW limits to be 130-feet as required per the widening of State Highway 26. Show the right-of-way dedication on the drawing, and label the square footage of the dedication. 4. Provide a cross-access easement along the portion of the property with frontage along Colleyville Boulevard. 5. Utility Easement is indicated along the south property line of Tract 1 on the accompanying improvement drawing. This will need to shown on the submitted plat document for creation of this proposed utility easement. The minimum easement width will be 15-feet as indicated in the City's Development Code. 6. A note on the Improvement Drawing indicates a 12 foot drainage and utility easement to be dedicated by this plat on the north side of Tract 2. There appears to be an existing 12-foot easement already existing along this property line. If this easement does not exist then it will need to be created by a separate instrument not by plat as indicated. 7. The plat drawing shows an existing 12 foot drainage and utility easement along the south property line of Tract 2. Please clarify if Tract Two (2) will be a Drainage & Utility Easement as indicated on the Improvement Drawing. Agenda Item No.1 - Page 5 8. Will Tract 2 be dedicated as Drainage and Utility Easement as indicated on the Proposed Improvement Drawing? If so, then this declaration will need to be shown on the Revised Plat document. Note 1 of the plat document will need to have the following statement added: THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF SUCH GROwrH OR IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE AT THE CURRENT OWNER'S EXPENSE. a. Note 2 on the plat document is acceptable with the following modifications to the first sentence. No building permits shall be issued for any ~ in this........... Change ~ to read TRACT. b. Note 3 shown on the plat document will need to read as follows: A SITE DRAINAGE STUDY SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE ANY BUILDING PERMIT(S) ARE ISSUED FOR TRACT 1, 23 AND 4 OF LOT R-14-2, BLOCK 1. THE CURRENT OWNER(S) SHALL SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR STATING THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE CURRENT OWNER WILL INFORM ANY PROSPECTIVE BUYER(S) IN WRITING OF THIS AGREEMENT. The Following Comments are Informational and Do Not Require a Response: OTHER INFORMATION 1. A TxDOT Access Permit is required for the drive approach on State Highway 26. Contact TxDOT at 817-370-6526 for application information. Both TxDOT and the City must approve the permit. IMPACT FEES. Water and 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. WATER $2,866 for a 1-inch meter. Actual fee depends on water meter size and/or if a new meter is installed. $200 for a 1-inch meter. Actual fee depends on water meter size and/or if a new meter is installed. SEWER SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS. The Land Development Code requires sidewalks along all streets. The sidewalk along Colleyville Boulevard must be at least 5-feet wide and must be constructed as part of the public improvements for this property. TREE PRESERVATION. Trees not located within the right-of-way must be preserved during construction. Before construction begins on the site, protective fencing must be installed around all preserved trees located outside the right-of-way. The fencing must be located at the drip line of the preserved trees. The protective fencing may be Agenda Item No.1 - Page 6 comprised of orange vinyl construction fencing, chain link fence, erosion control fencing, or other similar fencing. The fencing must remain in place during the entire construction period. SITE PLAN. Approval of a site plan and landscape plan is required before a building permit can be issued for the site. The site plan review includes review of the site layout, landscape plan, all building elevations, and site civil construction plans. The initial review process takes approximately 14 days. The application fee is $500. Please contact the Community Development offices at 817-503-1050 for information on this process. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Planning & Zoning Commission: City Council: Monday, March 14,2005, 7:00 p.m. Not Required Please submit the following to our offices: · 16 folded copies of the revised Final Plat drawing · one 8%" x 11" reduced copy of the revised exhibit · A written letter addressing each comment stating the comment has been addressed or stating reasons why the requirement should be modified or waived. The above requested items must be submitted no later than noon on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 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 fullerc@cLcollewille.tx.us or 817.503.1054 if you have any questions. Agenda Item No.1 - Page 7 VOGT SURVEYING 1852 NORWOOD PLAZA #200, HURST, IX 75054 PHONE: 817-282-5004 FAX: 817-282-5007 tvogt@vogtsurveying.com To: Chris Fuller Development Coordinator City of Colleyville From: Thomas W. Vagt, R.P.L.S. No. 1928 1852 Norwood Plaza Suite No. 206 Hurst, Texas 76054 March 04, 2005 RE: Reply to DRC Comments, P-05-008 COLLEYVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK REPLA T Dear Chris: I have completed the requirements to COLLEYVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK as follows: COMMENT NO 1. A signature block has been provided for the Loftins who are now the current owners for Tract 4. It is hoped the deed exchange will be made between the two parties before the plat is finalized. If this occurs, their names will be removed. COMMENT NO.2. The square footage of the Lot has been added to the face of the plat on the lot drawing and below the Title Block. COMMENT NO.3. A 15' wide strip has been dedicated for right-of-way along Colleyville Boulevard. COMMENT NO.4. A cross-access easement has been added across Tract 2. COMMENT NO.5 A 15-feet utility easement has been added on the south side of Tract 1. COMMENT NO.6. There will not be any easement along the North side of Tract 2 except as shown on plat. There is a proposed office on the north side of this tract as shown on the site plan approved in the PUD-C. COMMENT NO.7. A 15-feet wide Drainage, Utility, and Cross-access Easement is proposed along the south side of Tract 2. COMMENT NO.8. A 15' wide Drainage, Utility and Cross-access Easement has been added across the south portion of Tract 2. The required note has been added to the face of the plat. The required changes have been made to the existing notes on the plat. Attached are 16 copies of Revised Final Plat, 1 - 8 W' X 11" Revised Exhibit, and 2 copies of Revised Exhibit. If anything else is needed please let me know. Respectfully, / / /..---, ---~~g/%" Thomas w. Vogt/~ .@ 'l'exa9 PLANNING&ZONmGCOMM~MON AGENDA BRIEFING Agenda Date: Subject: March 14,2005 G-05-006 - Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Master Thoroughfare Plan Tabled February 28, 2005 Update 3-14-05 This item was tabled at the February 28, 2005 meeting to allow staff an opportunity to prepare a map showing an alternate proposal utilizing portions of Alignments "A" and "C" for the realignment of the north-south collector street between L. D. Lockett Road and McDonwell School Road. The additional alternate proposal is shown on the attached Exhibit 4 as Alignment "D". The Commission also requested staff to provide information regarding potential areas for commercial development along the Precinct Line Corridor, including a copy of the PUD approved for the area adjacent to the Emerald Park subdivision. At the present time, there is a new commercial development under construction at the northeast corner of the Precinct Line Road-McDonwell School Road intersection. Staff has recently met with a developer to review a preliminary proposal for a small commercial development at the southeast corner of this same intersection. However, no platting or building permit applications have been filed at this time. Staff prepared a large aerial photo of the Precinct Line Road corridor that shows the general layout of the known commercial projects and a typical shopping center for the Commission to review at the meeting on March 14, 2005. Attached to this agenda briefing is a copy of the approved PUD ordinance for the commercial development situated adjacent to the Emerald Park Addition. No platting or building permit applications have been file for this property. Staff received one letter in support of a portion of Alignment "A". A copy of this letter is attached. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS The Master Thoroughfare Plan is used as a guide to show the location of the future major roadway network that will serve Colleyville upon ultimate build-out of the community. The current Master Thoroughfare Plan was adopted with the approval by the City Council of Resolution R-98-1408 on September 1, 1998. The Master Thoroughfare Plan is enforced through the subdivision platting process. As properties develop, additional right-of-way is obtained and incrementally, the roadway network is put in place. Agenda Item No.2 - Page 1 During the preparation of the Colleyville Master Plan update, there was considerable discussion regarding a future un-named north-south collector roadway that would extend between L. D. Lockett Road and McDonwell School Road and running parallel with Precinct Line Road. Discussions by the Planning and Zoning Commission and from comments received at the series of neighborhood meetings during the development of the Master Plan update in 2003 and 2004, questioned the need for the four-lane roadway and the alignment on the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan. The reduction in the depth of the future commercial area along Precinct Line Road from approximately 1,500 feet on the previous future land use plan to approximately 900 feet on the most recently adopted future land use plan serves as an opportunity to relocate the north-south collector street, yet still provide adequate circulation which will support the Precinct Line Road commercial area, while serving as a physical separator between the future commercial area on the west and the residential areas on the east. Additionally, during the development of the recent Master Plan update, there was some concern regarding the need for a four-lane roadway, since a two-lane facility constructed with a 60 or 70 foot right-of-way should satisfy the traffic circulation needs for this area. Sufficient right-of-way width should be required to accommodate a future trail route through this area. The current trail route shown on the 1999 Colleyville Pathways Plan is located immediately adjacent to Precinct Line Road. One of the goals being considered in the update to the trails plan is to relocate the trail route away from the busy traffic along Precinct Line Road. There are two actions for consideration at this public hearing - first regarding the alignment of the future roadway and the second action regarding the number of driving lanes. Action One - The attached Exhibit 1 shows the general location (Alignment "A") of the proposed north-south collector street as shown on the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan. Shown on the attached Exhibit 2 is an alternate route designated as Alignment "B". Exhibit 3 shows the general location for the alternate route designated as Alignment "C". Action Two - Determine whether this roadway should be a four-lane collector or a two- lane collector (see Exhibit 5). Staff mailed notices to 24 property owners potentially impacted by the existing or proposed alignments. Notice was published in the Fort Worth Star- Telegram. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Planning & Zoning Commission: March 14, 2005 City Council: April 5 and April 19, 2005 Agenda Item No.2 - Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Approval ATTACHMENTS · Existing and Proposed Alignment Maps · Right-of-way information · List of Property Owners Notified · Correspondence · Copy of Ordinance 0-02-1366 · Draft ordinance Prepared by: ~ Agenda Item No.2 - Page 3 Exhibit "1" location of future four-lane collector street as shown on current Master Thoroughfare Plan Alignment "A H II f-f- v\& I ! i I I _J= 1---''- II f- __ ,l- - 1- RE - l- f- ~ \. I l,>y , - I I I ( III 0- (j~ :7; !,.,.610 r= >= "'LLLL. :':.~ ~ ~ ~ ffiE ~.- ~ MUS "'- -.;A I~ J ~ '\/\~ I - I'\.VJ u +- fllIII. · · ~ · ~ ~ Alignment "A" S = 1\ 1)'Ji" I \ I I - ---Y ~~ - (I- TIlAS- I ,~__ o r ~ ~ ~dt;~~ ~= ' f;-1~ I w L~ ~~~ '-~I >- - ~ - / R> ,,( rt+ ~~J-- l"h^ H f-l ---- !---I--l'i--- "- , \ \ \- - ~ - - - - -'- 1- ==f---./'- IL . . . . . . . f I iT- . . . I ==, i----1 21'1;0 ---F -... l, -F~ " 1--- ~~ ill "'-- - - - - - - -.-. I=;:~c J &< _C: ~ l~(f ---- l ~ ~- 1- I J~ I I ~~ Agenda Item No.2 - Page 4 ,H I :1- =1 w '--T :~ : ---, - Exhibit "2" Proposed relocation of future collector street Alignment "B" 11 I - - f-- -I-- -I r _ I--- f----- V . . . L-I . . . I T I . . ~ I ........ .... I . .~ ~4~. ~I . ~ "-- I '" ~~I r I--~ I- ,I-- I- ~~ II I II -)- c-- c-- RE f--.,f- I \ ,~ 1 1 h( I - - -- I --- l I);:;:; - c, -u~o ;=f= co I I I >'1'"'" ~ ~ ~ ITI1J~ 1v< ~ - 0IJJi5 )~ 1/ ~~ ~l~?~~ 1 r\ 'T~?) l ~ :: - ~p, I-- I-- I-- '-\-- f-- ,.- ~ I-- i-- \ i-- I .1 Alignment "8" t= lr- 'I ~ GST f-- e- r" !l;)( IJ--:: ~ ~n, l~. l- i 1\ lYf'j 1:1 1 I I _ I- f---Y <: ~ l- I-- I- 8T HAY 8 f-- 11 I- -.fV - ~,_r-- ~ 0 '1L 1-- ,--- 1_ ~~ ..<J _~ ~'- :MN l- I / .C!"< C) "" ~J_ l~ ,,,: I, .~ t'l l ~- ~I-- P ~ [j~ pj L ~>~ - ,.- ~ 1/ 1.1 ~ / L - / 'ie, .- :=: ~< n ~<>I,^. II 1- ~ -L1 I .., 1 I I I I ~ ~~ Agenda Item No.2 - Page 5 Exhibit "3" Proposed relocation of future collector street Alignment "e" --i. 1\ - \ - L--- 1.--.--. --- " VfI I \\ I-v - l ~- r= . - . . - . :~ - -. M (/ I i4-- II I . _ ~ i-J u l ; It ----1 -... H'- 1 ~f---n" F= rif-- "" _.--1 = f-f- r- - r- v~ I II1II II r r-FRE r- 1'1 I- f- l.- - I I I '\ ~dO r=l= ~ ~'" ~~ =if lt;:: ~ c- "I ,,~_y MUS - f\ (~L\ ~\ /I/. f',/ /1 -~~ Alignment "e" .JJ V"I I :J r--- J---- p B~~ (!l'; ~::- l ..1 I I 10 ~ - f!l- c Ij .~ ~ t WI' cc~ - - =- - - --- -r r- Agenda Item No.2 - Page 6 Exhibit "4" Proposed relocation of future collector street Alignment "0" ,H 1 I f- Vy~ II I I ~ f-- r---' >-- f- - RE - f-f- I t I I >-{ I J lL- I ~ f-- f-- - ---, :-- /fT I u - '~ al~ I-- --v It . . . . . . . . ; ./ .. ...- c==c= ~/ -;6 ~'- tV - - .::::;:.- - R ---1 ~ r r1J[J;Q ~ / Il.. "- : f- f- f- f- I I I I ~ c-- f- >- f- .1 "- :;~ Agenda Item No.2 - Page 7 Exhibit "5" Right-of-way Information ~l :E. . . 15' Parkway 80' R.OW. I I 50' Back to Back l~ 15' Parkway :::E 5' Min. 10' Max. Varies Typ. .02 TYPICAL SECTION MAJOR COLLECTOR 4-LANE UNDIVIDED STREET t . 75' ROW l ~ 0::: . . . 16.5' 42' Back to Back 16.5' Parkway Parkway s o 0::: -I TYPICAL SECTION MINOR COLLECTOR 2 LANE UNDIVIDED STREET t 60'ROW I S 10' 36' Back to Back ~ Parkway 14' S Parkway 0 0::: . . 5' Sidewalk . . 10' Trail TYPICAL SECTION MINOR COLLECTOR 2 LANE UNDIVIDED STREET (With Trail) Agenda Item No.2 - Page 8 List of Property Owners Notified Keller ISD Attn: Tom Myers 100 Main Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Lavaca Trail, LLC 3930 Glade Road Ste. 108 - PMB 344 Colleyville, TX 76034 Ruggere, Judy 1013 W Lavaca Trail Colleyville, TX 76034 Mittag, Andrew K etux Janet A 901 W Lavaca Trail Colleyville, TX 76034 Emerald Park Residence Dev. Ltd. 6420 Remington Pkwy Colleyville, TX 76034 Chandler, Raman PO Box 611 Colleyville, TX 76034 John Butler 908 LD Lockett Colleyville, TX 76034 David Markham 600 Burnet Drive Keller, TX 76248 LDDS Communications Inc. Attn: Property Tax Dept 500 Clinton Center Drive Clinton, MS 39056-5630 Jones, Jerrell W 11111 Abbeywood Oklahoma City, OK 73170 Martin, Lewis E etux Bonnie J 1101 W Lavaca Trail Colleyville, TX 76034 Plain, Veri etux Ruth Ann 909 W Lavaca Trail Colleyville, TX 76034 Goodman Family of Builders LP 5808 W Plane Pkwy Piano, TX 75093 Lisa M. Stajduhar 101 Williamsburg Court Colleyville, TX 76034 Larry Cole 400 Country Place Colleyville, TX 76034 Gregory Van Nieuwenhuize 3930 Glade Road, Ste. 108 - PMB 344 Colleyville, TX 76034 William D Souder Investments 305 Brookridge Court Hurst, TX 76054 Mcintosh, Doyle & Mary Family LP 8333 Thornhill Drive North Richland Hills, TX 76180 BVESCO LP 25 Highland Park Village Ste 1 00 Dallas, TX 75205 Ogle, Danny G & Ruth A 1009 W Lavaca Trail Colleyville, TX 76034 Jones, Norma J 600 Burnet Drive Keller, TX 76248 Jeffrey Zimmerman 501 Lavaca Trail Colleyville, TX 76034 Joe Mcintosh 4817 Fairway Court North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Winport Property Group Keller Williams Commercial/Residential Investments, Altn: Carol Sukigara 2425 E. South lake Blvd. Southlake, TX 76092 Agenda Item No.2 - Page 9 JOHN BUTLER March 11, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members: We are FOR Alignment "It!, for the portion of proposed road between Lavaca Trail and L.D. Lockett Rd. However, we would like that portion of the road to be a two-lane residential street with a width of less than 30 feet similar to Emerald Park. We own the land to the East of Emerald Park and South of Lavaca Trail where the Alignment "A" roadway is currently designated on the Master Plan. A two lane residential street between Lavaca Trail and L.D. Lockett would keep a residential feel for that area of the city. North of Lavaca a larger road is acceptable. Additionally, we ask that the exact placement be determined by the future development plan for the property. The road could be placed to the East side of our property line and the property north of us to make a definitive boundary/transition line. To the West of the road would be currently zoned commercial land and lots sizes similar to Emerald Park. To the East properties could be designated for larger lots. This could simplify future zoning requests for this area that could satisfy the desires of different property owners in this area. Sincerely, John Butler John Butler 908 L.D. LOCKETT ROAD. COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS. 76034 February 22, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Gty of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, As part owner of a 15 acre track of property zoned commercial by the Gty of Colleyville, we are opposed to options B & C of the proposed road between L. D. Lockett and McDonwell School Road. While a road connecting the North and South parts of Colleyville may be needed, the proximity to a six lane street less that 400 plus feet from that proposed in these two alternative does not benefit either the city or individuals that would access it. Current roads in existence, already link these two roads in question approximately two miles from the proposed alternatives and link John McCain Road as well. There is no business purpose for the road which would cost the taxpayers of Colleyville valuable tax dollars willie decreasing the future returns on the properties without the road. Proposals B & C would be detrimental to the current proposed use of the 15 acre parcel It would eliminate a significant portion of the proposed usage and limit the amount of development that could be placed on the property. Because development would be hindered, this would devalue the remaining property and be detrimental to the amount of tax dollars that could be generated from the site to the city. Proposals B & C does not benefit those individuals accessing the new school. Most of the individuals East of these proposals attend Grapevine-Colleyville not Keller.ISD schools. The limited use by any individuals for this short road would not address more urgent road issues in Colleyville. With any of these proposals, individuals using the road would still have problems at L D Lockett and at McDonwell School Road. Sincerely, .? \, //l ,,)'vUt."'~O-JU-J-..- f " , /; J Norma Jones February 22, 2005 Planning and Zoning Conunission City of Col1eyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Planning and Zoning Conunission, As pan owner of a 15 acre track of propeny zoned commercial by the City of Colleyville, we are opposed to options B & C of the proposed road between L. D. Lockett and McDonwell School Road. While a road connecting the North and South parts of Colleyville may be needed, the proximity to a six lane street less that 400 plus feet from that proposed in these two alternative does not benefit either the city or individuals that would access it. Current roads in existence, already link these two roads in question approximately two miles from the proposed alternatives and link John McCain Road as well. There is no business purpose for the road which would cost the taxpayt:rs of Colleyville valuable tax dollars wiUle decreasing the future returns on the properties without the road. Proposals B & C would be detrimental to the current proposed use of the 15 acre parceL It would eliminate a significant portion of the proposed usage and limit the amount of development that could be placed on the property. Because development would be hindered, this would devalue the remaining propeny and be detrimental to the amount of tax dollars that could be generated from the site to the city. The limited use by any individuals for this short road would not address more urgent road issues in Colleyville. With any of these proposals, individuals using the road would still have problems at L D Lockett and at McDonwell School Road. Options B & C would only benefit one land owner on the proposed road and no owners on the South side of L D Lockett. Sincerely, -... . I~ ,e:;.:;/~/ ti',/ r"'-?J-/ Richard Jones February 22, 2005 Planning and Zoning Cormnission Gty of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Planning and Zoning Cormnission, As part owners of a 15 acre track of property zoned commercial by the Gty of Colleyville, we are opposed to options B & C of the proposed road between L. D. Lockett and McDonwell School Road. While a road connecting the North and South pans of Colleyville may be needed, the proximity to a six lane street less that 400 plus feet from that proposed in these two alternative does not benefit either the city or individuals that would access it. Gu-rent roads in existence, already link these two roads in question approximately two miles from the proposed alternatives and link John McGUn Road as well Proposals B & C would be detrimental to the current proposed use of the 15 acre parcel It would elirninate a significant portion of the proposed usage and limit the amount of development that could be placed on the property. Because development would be hindered, this would devalue the remaining property and be detrimental to the amount of tax dollars that could be generated from the site to the city. Proposals B & C does not benefit those individuals accessing the new school. Most of the individuals East of these proposals attend Grapevine-ColIeyville not KellerlSD schools. The limited use by any individuals for this short road would not address more urgent road issues in Colleyville. With any of these proposals, individuals using the road would still have problems at L D Lockett and at McDonwell School Road. Access through Reminington Park Subdivision is also available between these two roads There is no business purpose for the road which would cost the taxpayers of ColIeyville valuable tax dollars while decreasing the future returns on the properties without the road. Sincerely, DMrf e ill;"/( il( oJJt~--- David & Diana Markham February 22, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Gllleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Planning and Zoning Glmrnission, As part owner of a 15 acre track of property zoned commercial by the Cityof Colleyville. we are opposed to options B & e of the proposed road between 1. D. Locken and McDonwell School Road. While a road connecting the North and South parts of o>lleyvil1e may be needed, the proximity to a six lane street less that 400 plus feet from that proposed in these two alternative does not benefit either the city or individuals that would access it. G.u-rent roads in existence, already link these two roads in question approximately two miles from the proposed alternatives and linkJohn McCain Road as well. There is no business purpose for the road which would cost the taxpayers of Colleyville valuable tax dollars while decreasing the future returns on the properties without the road. Proposals B & e would be detrimental to the current proposed use of the 15 acre parcel. It would eliminate a significant portion of the proposed usage and limit the amount of development that could be placed on the property. Because development would be hindered, this would devalue the remaining property and be detrimental to the amount of tax dollars that could be generated from the site to the city. Proposals B & edoes not benefit those individuals accessing the new school. Most of the individuals East of these proposals anend Grapevine-Colleyville not Keller.ISD schools. 1he limited use by any individuals for this short road would not address more urgent road issues in O>lleyville. With any of these proposals, individuals using the road would still have problems at L D Locken and at McDonwell School Road. Options B & e would only benefit one land owner on the proposed road and no owners on the South side of L D Locken. Sincerely, . "1') . k ~ J} l~Ylt~. r~~;(- I t t-&- I ( (}' Ricky and Nancy Parvin February 22, 2005 Planning and Zoning Cbmmission Gty of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Planning and Zoning Cbmmission, As part owner of a 15 acre track of property zoned commercial by the Gty of Colleyville, we are opposed to options B & C of the proposed road between L. D. Lockett and McDonwell School Road. While a road connecting the North and South parts of Colleyville may be needed, the proximity to a six lane street less that 400 plus feet from that proposed in these two alternative does not benefit either the city or individuals that 'WOuld access it. G.u-rent roads in existence, already link these two roads in question approximately two miles from the proposed alternatives and link John McCain Road as well. There is no business purpose for the road which -would cost the taxpayers of Cblleyville valuable tax dollars while decreasing the future returns on the properties without the road. Proposals B & C -would be detrimental to the current proposed use of the 15 acre parcel. It would eliminate a significant portion of the proposed usage and limit the amount of development that could be placed on the property. Because development -would be hindered, this -would devalue the remaining property and be detrimental to the amount of tax dollars that could be generated from the site to the city.. Sincerely, RG~~ Robert Jones ( q~'~ To: City of Colleyville Planning and Zoning Commission February 22, 2005 Subject: Future Proposed Alignments from ill Lockert Road to McDonwell School Road Alignmem HAJJ This proposed street Jocation will best serve the general public when furure residential sik are built norch and east of the Emerald Park Addition. The need for a residential thoroughfare will certainly be required to access ill Lockert Road and McDonwell School Road by west bound traffic without having to go funher west to access Precinct Line Road. This "sh<?rtcut" road between LD Lockert Road and McDonwell School Road will thereby eliminate additional traffic out on to Precinci: Line Road, (1400 feet away), but still allow drivers to obtain access to the newly built KelJer Elementary School. This "shortcut" road will also be beneficial for those chivers needing to go east bound on LD Lockett Road and on McDonwell School Road without having to access Precinct Line Road to the west. The City of Colleyville will be placing this proposed street in a more common location where it wouL benefit m.ore of the general public more so than Alignment "B" or "C". No commercial land will be disturbed therefore a minimal impact to tax dollar revenue will be caused due to this road constlUctio" Alignment "B" This proposed street location will not benefit the general public as much as Alignment "A" because it will be located too close to Precinct Line Road. By being so close to Precinct Line Road a "potential" traffic jam could be caused for east bound traffic on LD Lockett Road turning north onto proposed "B" street due to the newly built Keller Elementary School on McDonwell School Road. 'P1is proposed street wiU also create a large funding impact to the City of ColleyvilJe because of placing this street on commercial land only 900' from Precinct Line Road. The commercial land will be divided by this street and thereby limit the amOunt of commercial business available fOT commercial tax dollar revenUe to be collected by the city. Alignment "C" This proposed street location wi1.l not benefit the general public as much as Alignment "A" because it will be located too cJo,. to Precinct Lin. Road. By being so close to Precinct Une Road a "potential" traffic jam could be caused for easr bound traffic on LO Lockett Road turning north onto proposed "e" street (same as Alignment "B"). A "potential" traffic jam could also occur. for east bound traffic on Lavaca Trail tuming north onto propOsed "e" street due to the newly built Keller Elemenrary School on McDonwelI School Road. Pagf:_~_ This proposed street will create a funding impact to the City of Colleyville larger than Alignmenr "n-- due to placing of this street on more commercial land than that in Alignment HB". The more commercial land that becomes divided means that less commercial business will be available for comlnercial tax dollar revenue to be collected by the city. Respectfully, J:~eL IAJ.~~ Jerrell W. Jones Owner of Tract A 1182 of we Newlon Survey 8150 Precinct Line Road Winport Property Group Keller Williams CommerciallResidential Investments 2425 E Southlake Blvd Southlake, Tx 76092 C A Sukigara 214-923-0372 Please find attached a draft of the proposal that will be presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Colleyville on Monday, February 28, 2005 at 7:00pm As owners of the 15 Acre Commercial tract at the comer of W LD Lockett and Precinct Line Road, we would like to request your support in voting against the proposed road that would run on the East boundary or across the center of the entire 15 Acres. A 2 to 4 lane road would be detrimental to the development of the 15 Acre site. The site is now zoned commercial with an accepted conceptual development plan by the City of Colleyville which provides full access and adequate fire lanes to service the development and provide for a free flowing traffic environment. To maximize the land potential at all Sites in Colleyville and thus provide the greatest revenue for tax dollars for income to the City is important and the City has approved the current concept for development that would provide for the maximum and most efficient use of land at this site. The State of Texas and City ofColleyville now have a 6 lane newly improved road that serves the entire west area of Colleyville and a secondary road only yards away would be a poor use of tax dollars for building such a roadway. As noted by previous studies and Commercial Real Estate Developers, the greatest need for traffic flow improvement are the East/West roadway arteries that move traffic into and across Colleyville and access the Town Center and Village shopping areas and providing access to those traveling to Highway 26, State Hwy 121 and north to Hwy 114. Of the three locations for the proposed roadway, the location of the roadway to the East side of the new Emerald Park subdivision, as now provided in the current Master Plan, would be the most direct route with full extension from McDonwell School Road to W LD Lockett Road and would be of greater benefit by providing access to traffic traveling due South, and then East on W LD Lockett into Colleyville. Most of the Colleyville students and family traffic going to and from the new Keller School live in close proximity to the School and would not need or have use a North-South access. It is my understanding that consideration is now being given for installation of a traffic light at W LD Lockett and Precinct Line Road with development of the 15-35 Commercial Acres that are available in the area. It is also of note that there is discussion that plans are being made to extend W LD Lockett Road on through N Richland Hills to Davis Blvd. and the City of Colleyville has made plans for improving and widening W LD Lockett Road. Upon review of the proposal for locating any north-south proposed road, especially on the West side of Emerald Park Subdivision does not provide value or benefit to the citizens of Colleyville, nor is there a justified need for usage or spending of taxpayers money. The real value to Colleyville is in having a good road system that moves traffic on the East- West thoroughfares which are in great need of improvement with the Hall Johnson expansion being the best example of how this can enhance the City of Colleyville. It is with respect that a recommendation for eliminating the proposed north- south roadway on the far West edge of Colleyville in favor of giving attention to the more important and urgent roadway needs. Should after all discussion, proofbe made for the dire need of a short north-south passage then a location which would appropriately carry traffic to the east up LD Lockett Rd, should be located to the East, at an appropriate distance, great enough to be of efficient service. Any traffic traveling North or South to a destination, would most certainly take the already improved 6 lane Precinct Line Road We would appreciate you thoughts and comments and support by letter or by attendance. You may speak at the public hearing, provide a card with your written comments or provide a letter that we may include with other letters expressing your input and concerns. Although there may be other concerns, especially drainage concerns on the West side ofColleyville, unless the roadway has further negative impact on the drainage in your area, we would like to focus on the issue of the road stated in a positive way that will provide insight for the Planning and Zoning Commission and where possible, suggest alternative ideas that may bring improvement to the City of Colleyville. Thank you for any support you can provide. You may fax any letter to: Carol Sukigara, Winport Property Group Keller Williams Commercial Investments, 817-251-1522 with a cover sheet. for your letter or comments to be included together or you may mail directly to the Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Colleyville, 100 Main Street, Colleyville, Texas 76034. Norma Jones and Family-Owners Jerrell Jones- Owner Carol Sukigara 214-923 -0372 POIN r OF BEGINNIN L z o q N ... ~ ..~ :e" (Jl (XI u c.o 2' I.II.S. Z 0 q t", a "'0 ~ ;;U m 0 N -"" Z (Jl 0 lJ1 -4 to C z m ....z ;;U 0 0 q )> N C 0 :e' 0> 0> lCI.~ N q, ncooT ---:-::: .. - -..,.. 77.2' o ':I .., z :::! o Z "tl ~ o [XISflNG ROAD CUT ,--~ ~C;J G~ ~ (,;) "". .' f\' ./ Tract A l/) o q (Jl -"", N N :e- J JERREL W'PGJONIE2S74 VOL. 9910, . D.R.T.e.T. 01 c.o 01 ~I 503.09 l/) o q lJ1 .p. N N ~ N 89.07'24" W VI J') -I- N Tract B NORMA JEAN SONES VOL. 11398, PG. 141 D R.T.C.T. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION l/) o q (Jl ~ N N :E- ~C;J G~ ~ fQ~ ~. 01 0> (Jl 01 lA <0 EXITING BlJlLOINGS o o GRAV[L DRIV[ 2P .... 1/1.-J~L- 1/1. ~II.S. 603.~7 _ N as ; v ~ tl-t\' '\)~; ~'Y,\ _/ - ." \..,V, t" '. v' '.v J' Lo-- ./lvV. '\);M~\J\. \. ~v v " J,. \)....... \. i "'- V~ ,if' \'" l^t.; 'J U ,~' CllAIlINc; BLOCK 1 LTO EMERALD PARK RESID. ~~., VOL. 1 6175. PG. D.R.T.C.T, " rl(.... , (.. _ ,L'). " ~~ r "l.. 'J I.. R I' '..1 ~--'-~~ - . -- - -- ~ . YlII't 1CNJ.HJJ.3Q . -- - , ',,~ - -I; '. ~l '" 'i'.,'i -, , ~ I , J z .~ ;1: 0' ; : r..l' 8l -3OIf '3.1.30 t ;~ .., ~;.., ..- 'f'J.... ~- '..' ~",.;: '''al..t ~ . ., ~ z 'jO r"I-"-' _.~. :lC .I! ! ~ I = ~ ~. c:r:-- J ~ g ~ i e ,;;, ! I ~ i .. . :!! . ;,i .- . . a_ ;-.. l: - -:-;; g ----1 ---< ..C~ -! ; -j - . ; . a. c___ '....... ;.1 . . . " '7'1", ~/ :: ~ o ... ~ Ie ..~~, (.:'Ill", '-" d . - -, II ::iti i" ;! = ~ I ~ ! 1 : :.-1- :.< ~ o c( o 0:: o , I _ ~r/ ' -J-!L----- - V.:-~..- O!.,,' l'_~ Z ~ I- U ---r U ILl 0:: n. ...-.r ~) I; I OldV:lS'JIWl , ~ I,.. # ,~SIBW7tJ 9- . - . aM"D3M '5 '~41 ',j'S OOO'C SJl~V^ '",'O'~ - - .9Z'9Zl 3.YO.!;~.69 S '.fl. 'J " ( (- JOHN BUTLER February 28, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members: We own the land to the East of Emerald Park where the Alignment "N' roadway is currently designated on the Master Plan. We are FOR Alignment "N' to allow the proposed road to connect L.D. Locket Road to McDonwell School Road. However, we would like that road to be a two-lane roadway with a width of less than 60 - 70 feet as is proposed in the other two alignments. The roadway should be placed in the middle of our property to allow room for residential lots on both sides of the proposed road placement or to the East edge of our property line. Both of the other proposed new "B" and "C" alignments are too close to Precinct Line Road. These alignments will create a traffic back-up and hazard area as cars turn East off of Precinct Line and then stop to turn onto the new road while waiting on West bound traffic. This would create a bottle-neck at each intersection as traffic counts grow over the coming years. This would occur on L.D. Lockett and Lavaca Trail, as well as on McDonwell. Alignment "N' helps avoid this traffic problem. Additionally, if the Alignment "N' road is placed to the East side of our property line and to the East side of the properties north of us this would make a definitive boundary/transition line. To the West of the road would be currently zoned commercial land and lots sizes similar to Emerald Park. To the East properties could be designated for larger lots. This could simplify future zoning requests for this area and give a definitive and practical line that could satisfy the desires of different property owners in this area. Sincerely, John Butler John Butler 908 L.D. LOCKETT ROAD. COLLEYVILLE. TEXAS. 76034 ( ( Case Nu mber G-05-006 Dear Board, My name is Danny Ogle and I live at 1009 W. Lavaca Trail. In my opinion plan "A" would be the most practical of the three plans. The other two plans are too close to Pricinct Line Road to have much of a real help to traffic. "A" would leave more room for develope between Pricinct Line and the "A" street. As the commercial property develops alone Pricinct, the parking areas will connect to each other serving as a thoroughfare between L.D. Locket and McDonwell School Road. I do not think we need a four lane road for plan "A". A two lane similar to plans "B" and "C" would be enough. Thank You for your time, D~~~ Danny R. Ogle RECEIVED FEB 2 4 2005 Per ............. 1 ORDINANCE 0-02-1366 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 A 36.264 ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF THE W.C. NEWTON SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1182, FROM THE R40 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO THE PUD-R PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE PUD-C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL; 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 Larry Cole for Norma J. Jones and Jerrell W. Jones on July 29,2002, under Case No. Z-02-Q23; 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 by metes and bounds description attached as Exhibit "B", by changing the zoning of said property from the R40 Single Family Residential district to the PUD-R Planned Unit Development Residential district and the PUD-C Planned Unit Development Commercial district, as shown on the attached Exhibit "C". including any other conditions and restrictions imposed and approved by the City Council, which are incorporated herein. Sec. 2. Ordinance 0-02-1366 Page 2 of 6 THAT the PUD-R area shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. GENERAL a. The purpose of the PUD-R area is for single-family residential development, constructed at an approximate density of 3.53 dwelling units per acre. 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 Residential lot requirements and setbacks shall comply with the following provisions: a. Minimum Lot Size b. Minimum Lot Width c. Minimum Lot Depth d. Front Building Line e. Side Building Line f. Rear Building Line 7,200 square feet 60 feet 120 feet, except cul-de-sac lots 20 feet 6 feet 10 feet 4. DWELUNG UNIT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS a. The minimum dwelling unit size shall be two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet. At least two thousand three hundred (2,300) square feet shall be located on the first floor of the dwelling unit. b. The exterior wall surface area of each dwelling unit shall be constructed of ninety percent (90%) brick, stone, stucco or other masonry material. The area of window and door openings shall not be included in the calculation of this requirement. This requirement shall only apply to the first story of the structure. c. The front elevation wall surface area of the dwelling unit shall not be constructed of Siding or non-masonry material. Ordinance 0-02-1366 Page 30f6 d. The primary roof of the dwelling unit shall be constructed with a roof pitch of not less than a 10: 12 pitch. e. All chimneys shall be constructed of brick, stone, stucco or other masonry material. f. Not more than forty percent (40%) of the garage doors shall face the street. Garage doors shall be constructed of wood or wood-faced steel. 5. OPEN SPACE a. The PUD-R area shall provide a minimum of twenty percent (20%) 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. 6. 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 "C", which shall not be considered the preliminary plat. The actual street and lot arrangement may differ from that shown on Exhibit "C" to accommodate physical, topographic, drainage or other conditions. b. Prior to the issuance of any development permits within this PUD-R and as a condition to the development of the subject property, the developer shall obtain approval of a preliminary plat and a final plat of the property in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Colleyville Land Development Code. 7. SIDEWALKS a. The developer shall construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk along L.D. Lockett Road at the same time as other public improvements are constructed in the subdivision, 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 constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Colleyville land Development Code. Sec. 3. Ordinance 0-02-1366 Page 4 of 6 THAT the PUD-C area shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. GENERAL a. The purpose of this PUD-C is for office, retail, and office- warehouse land uses. 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 The PUD-C area shall be divided into two sub-areas as shown on the attached Exhibit "C" and the list of permitted uses shall be limited to the areas designated for each use, as shown below: a. Sub-area 1 permitted uses allowed by right: (1) All uses allowed in the CC1 and CC2 District (2) Along Precinct Line Road, the building floor area in the front two hundred fifty (250) feet shall consist of sales tax- generating retail uses b. Sub-area 2 permitted uses allowed by right: (1) All uses allowed in the CC1 and CC2 District (2) Office-warehouse c. Sub-area 3 permitted uses allowed by right: (1) All uses allowed in the CC1 and CC2 District (2) Eighty percent (80%) of the building floor area shall consist of sales tax-generating retail uses 3. CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS AND PLATTING a. The locations of land uses shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan attached as Exhibit "C", which shall not be considered the preliminary plat. The actual street and lot arrangement may differ from that shown on Exhibit "C" to accommodate topographic, drainage or other conditions. b. The arrangement, location and footprint of buildings within the PUD-C may differ from that shown on the attached Exhibit "C" and will be determined at time of site plan approval. However, the combined total square footage of all buildings within each sub-area shall not exceed the following, which may be in one or more buildings, provided that any large commercial building Ordinance 0-02-1366 Page 5 of 6 shall comply with any additional requirements of the Land Development Code: (1) Sub-area 1 - 48,100 square feet (2) Sub-area 2 - 30,000 square feet (3) Sub-area 3 - 54,000 square feet c. Prior to the issuance of any development permits within this PUD-C and as a condition to the development of the subject property, the developer shall obtain approval of a preliminary plat and a final plat of the property in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Colleyville Land Development Code. 4. LOT REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS The lot requirements and setbacks shall the following minimum standards: a. Minimum Lot Size b. Front Building Line c. Side Building Line d. Rear Building Line e. Maximum Building Height none 40 feet none (25' abutting residential) none (25' abutting residential) 35 feet 5. OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING a. Each building site shall comply with the minimum landscaping requirements of the Land Development Code, which shall satisfy the open space requirements for the PUD-C area. b. The common open space may be utilized for storm water detention purposes. 6. SIDEWALKS a. The developer of each individual commercial lot shall construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk along L.D. Lockett Road, unless funds are escrowed with the City for future construction of the sidewalk. b. The developer of each individual commercial lot shall construct a ten (10) foot wide hike and bike trail along Precinct Line Road. 7. OTHER a. The developer of each individual commercial lot shall construct a six (6) foot tall masonry screening wall where the commercial lot abuts a residential lot. Ordinance 0-02-1366 Page60f6 b. The architectural design score for all commercial buildings shall be a minimum of 30 points, as described in Chapter 6 of the Land Development Code. Sec. 4. 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. Sec. 5. THAT the Land Development Code of the City of Colleyville, Texas, shall remain in full force and effect, except where amended by this ordinance. Sec. 6. 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. Sec. 7. THAT this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon publication. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the /1~ day of ~kIc) 2002. T~ second reading and public hearing being conducted on the /.!iZ: day of m;n J.e/LJ 2002. ATTEST: tz:o~~ City Secretary CITY OF COLLEYVILLE: ~~ Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Ross T. Foster City Attorney I I ~~ I . [. I ~ ~~_.. r-~ . I 'J-, ,~. r---I EXHIBIT A - ZONING MAP ! I -,. LY I I I - .1.... ~ ~ ~ ~ r- r--'f F\, ::is ~-:r~... '..~' ~~ >1 '- \'.~ -e- 1\ I=- = - '", -v:r...~'- ~-~ '. '-/rc..J,O ~- t\ c;:.,q .\ ~ -' ~L--i '- l.--. ~~~. --, ~ ~ ,~I-- I-- _--. :J.'I?' j J ~ ........~. site I'C""'~ f.- . " _~, 1 0-99-1146 .;.", ' .. .~I ,pP :();96.1~ J.- ~ ~ . 00ll-1_ "', --.--- '-- 1----1' RlAIl t '. ~ I ~ j 1 \ tt~t ~ I I ~ I -- ~. . ..~ r~ ,}...... ~,.ft.~. ~..!~f1 :,~, ~ . ~.i f/" ,v r".- I . EXHIBIT B - METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION BEGINNING at a pipe in the north line of County Road No. 3126 (L.D. Lockett Road), a distance of 1,227.26 feet East and 1,346.73 feet South of the southwest comer of the R.H. McEwing Survey, said pipe also being at the southeast corner of a tract conveyed to Mrs. Ruth Walker Jones by J.E. Walker and wife, Myrtle L. Walker by deed dated March 19, 1955, recorded in Volume 2914 Page 575, Deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas; THENCE North along a fence 1,346.73 feet to a pipe; THENCE West along the north line ofthe W.C. Newton Survey, A-1182, 245.00 feet; THENCE South 88 degrees 32 minutes 32 seconds West along the north line of the W.C. Newton Survey 680.00 feet to an iron pin; THENCE South 02 degrees 55 minutes 10 seconds West 110.00 feet to an iron pin; THENCE South 89 degrees 26 minutes 19 seconds West 270.00 feet to an iron pin; THENCE South 00 degrees 54 minutes 49 seconds East 590.48 feet along the West line of the W.C. Newton Survey, A-1182 to a point; THENCE South 646.25 feet to a point; THENCE East 950.00 feet along the north line of County Road No. 3126 to a point; THENCE East 245.00 feet along the north line of said County Road to the point of beginning, containing 36.264 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT C -CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ~... ;JfIIJ#I1 .1 ..... I PUD-C I PUD-R ORDINANCE 0-05-XXXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION: WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Master Thoroughfare Plan on September 1, 1998 by approval of Resolution R-98-1408; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has held a public hearing, received citizen input and has made recommendation regarding the proposed amendment to the Master Thoroughfare Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 10 days before such hearing; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation in Colleyville at least 10 days before such hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the Master Thoroughfare Plan adopted by Resolution R-98-1408 is hereby amended to incorporate the following changes: A. The un-named Major Collector extending between L.D. Lockett Road and McDonwell School Road as shown on the current Master Thoroughfare Plan, attached as Exhibit "A" is hereby relocated to the general alignment shown on Exhibit "B". B. The un-named collector roadway shown on the attached Exhibit "B" is hereby changed from a four-lane Major Collector roadway to a two-lane Minor Collector roadway with a 75-foot right-of-way width and a 42-foot wide pavement width as shown on the attached Exhibit "C". Sec2. THAT the Master Thoroughfare Plan, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, except where amended by this ordinance. Sec3. THAT the City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an alternate method of publication provided by law. Ordinance 0-05-XXXX Page 2 of 2 AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the 2005. day of 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: Matthew C.G. Boyle City Attorney !H IL \ \\ i ~ f-- '-- = - f- ~ --F ~ EXHIBIT" A" Location of future four-lane major collector street as shown on current Master Thoroughfare Plan :I -t~\ II - == f-- - - /- L- ---1 u, I ~ ""- /' - -'- j v '<;::>~ 1 II I I I .J-- >- '- ~E \ I }../ I I - 11 If r; I ffire'\ .,=i. -- ~ =- 0 L~o~ =~ i=G :~t: 81B 1~ L- t- ~ "... . . . II . ",,-' ~ '~~:(' . MUS '"<;_ TR l ~>: . I ~ \ / k ~ 1"'- ! 1-1 7\ ~~ \\.<~ i ~ j) Y. ""I I 11 f--.- >---,f- ~ . . . . . . . . ., - - L--,-- - ->-- c- c- GST ig t = o l f- ~--- T I<A S - t-'i__ __ ~N~_ n~>:J.<( ~~~ ~ ~ - ----, ~ L~6kJf L // I/Af- ~- J;aA~t= ~ / --1, :p~ \1 ~''yJC'- tl..,1 F-i1~ U I I I l I I t:~ ,-- G ~ EXHIBIT "B" Location of future collector street (insert map of recommended roadway alignment) EXHIBIT "C" Right-of -Way Information I 75' ROW l ~ 0:: . . 16.5' 42' Back to Back 16.5' Parkway Parkway - s: o 0:: TYPICAL SECTION MINOR COLLECTOR 2 LANE UNDIVIDED STREET