Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-2/28/2005 .~ l'exa9 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - February 28, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Byerly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn, ROLL CALL Commissioners Thomas Dolan, Dave Dudziak, Thomas Bartkowski, Luann Edwards, Denis Duffy and Jeff Byerly were present. Commissioner John Blassingame was absent. Barry LeBaron, Chris Fuller, Amy Shelley, Robert Woods and Chad Bartee from staff were present. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Commissioner Bartkowski. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Duffy reminds the Commissioners and the audience about the importance of speaking into the microphone when responding to applicants. Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes of the February 14, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Dolan seconded, The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 1. Case P-05-006 - 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. Case G-05-006- PUBLIC HEARING - Proposal to amend the Master Thoroughfare Plan as outlined in the City of Colleyville Master Plan 2004-2025 Barry LeBaron presented the case and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if the 60 foot Right-of-Way (ROW) would be sufficient at the far north section around the new school? Barry LeBaron responded overall the 60 foot ROW would be sufficient but would not know for sure until all engineering plans are completed. Commissioner Dudziak questioned if voting on the street alignment is a recommendation? Barry LeBaron stated the vote will go to city council with tentative dates already scheduled. Commissioner Dudziak questioned about the two different types of two lane roads and turning lanes? Is this planned Commercial area to the west and would this be sufficient road way for traffic to move? Barry stated if additional ROW needs to be dedicated, it can be done at the time of platting. The 75 foot ROW is approved in the design standards for this type of street. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Lisa Stadjahar, 101 Williamsburg Court and owns land at 816 LD Lockett stated being opposed to alignment A, but would prefer alignment C because it would help to maintain the rural feel. Overall, Mrs. Stadjahar stated she would prefer this case be tabled so that her husband could attend. Jeff Zimmerman, 501 W. Lavaca Trail, opposed to alignment A and B, would prefer alignment C. John Butler, 908 LD Lockett, spoke in favor of alignment A because it is already in the Master Plan, however, would like to have a two lane, not a four lane, residential street. Mr. Butler stated having concerns with a four lane road creating traffic hazards. Larry Cole, 400 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 of 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 Colleyville. Mr. Mcintosh stated this alignment would abut the elementary school property and would benefit that development. David Markham, representing the Jones Family, spoke in opposition to alignments C and B, basically opposed to all alignments. The city would benefit more if McDonwell School Road and LD Lockett Road were improved. Gregory Van Nieuwenhuize, representing the Lavaca Trail LLC, opposed to all alignments. Mr. Nieuwenhuize questioned the need for another collector street? Stated Colleyville needs an east west collector street, not a north south collector street. If an alignment has to be made, alignment A would be the better choice. Judy Ruggere, 1013 W. Lavaca Trail spoke on behalf of her mother at 1101 W. Lavaca Trail as well. Ms, Ruggere spoke in opposition to alignment B, it would take away her house. She stated the need for an east - west collector street. Ms. Ruggere stated having concerns with drainage. She stated alignment A would probably be the best choice and was already approved in the Master Plan. Danny Ogle, 1009 W. Lavaca Trail, spoke in favor of alignment A because that is what the city council approved. This alignment would benefit the city. Mr. Ogle stated alignment C is too close to Precinct Line Road. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Edwards stated to divide discussions into segments such as, how wide is the road going to be, location of street north of Lavaca and location of street south of Lavaca. Questioned the width of the road and stated not needing a four lane road. Stated this is just dotted lines on a map and there are no guarantees of this ever being built. Would like to keep the rural feel, the 60 feet would be great, but more in favor of a 75 foot cross section because it would give the city more flexibility. Commissioner 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 3 of 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 commercial component. The residential component was platted but the commercial component has not been platted. Commissioner Edwards questioned, for clarity, the commercial component for Emerald Park is not set? Barry LeBaron replied correct. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the PUD-C containments are included in the Emerald Park boundaries? Barry responded correct, it parallels the Emerald Park addition and completes that rectangle area. Commissioner Duffy questioned if Lavaca Trail going north with alignment C would have CC2 zoning connecting to the school site? Barry LeBaron responded correct. Commissioner Duffy stated the alignment A speakers would prefer the movement of alignment A to leave room for development. Barry replied the movement would happen at the time of platting; right now these are just lines on a map. Commissioner Duffy questioned if there is a plan for a traffic light for Precinct Line and Lavaca Trail? Barry responded not at this time. Commissioner Duffy stated alignment B would too cost prohibited because of the water plain and liking alignment C because the school would have the greater impact and the roadway impact fees could possibly be received from the school. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff where do all three alignments line up in regards to the school, on the north end? Barry LeBaron replied alignment C is on the eastern boundary of the school property and alignment A is on the west side of Rosewood addition and alignment B would split the difference between the two. Staff even considered a fourth option D, considered retaining the alignment A section between Lavaca Trail and LD Lockett and then retaining the alignment C portion between McDonwell School Road and Lavaca Trail and cutting across in a north westerly direction. Commissioner 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 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 4 of 13 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 easement but the pavement width is 24 feet. Commissioner Edwards stated alignment C could run through the commercial property, therefore office buildings could split the residential and commercial properties. Barry LeBaron stated trying to keep the commercial as large as possible, but that could be an option. The concept plan for the PUD would need to be reviewed for this roadway if moved further to the west. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff, if not most of the area on alignment A, delegated as a commercial zone? Barry LeBaron replied the whole rectangle was commercial and office. Commissioner Dudziak stated the residents bought into this area knowing alignment A would be the best option because of this commercial area for growth and also stated alignment A was approved by the city council, therefore allowing the city to develop the large area that would back up to the residential development. Commissioner Edwards questioned Commissioner Dudziak if he did not have a problem with going through those estate properties? Commissioner Dudziak replied those estate properties where already there when the Master Plan was started and also when the Master Plan was updated. The residents knew about those changes and most who have spoken are in favor of alignment A. Commissioner Byerly stated alignment A went away when the Emerald Park addition was developed. Commissioner Byerly stated alignment A would create higher density developments like Emerald Park and the residents in this area are opposed to high density. Commissioner Duffy stated having concerns with alignment A with the traffic created by the school. Commissioner Duffy stated liking staff's suggestion about a different alignment, alignment "0" to create a better flow for school traffic and commercial traffic, Commissioner Dolan stated these are just lines on a map, nothing is set. The residents have 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 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 5 of 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 all persons who spoke and others on Lavaca Trail. Commissioner Dudziak stated needing to have a reply from the Economic Development Director, Scott Welmaker on his vision for this area. Scott Welmaker stated he could get information ready for the Commissioners. However, developers request better east west routes. Commissioner Edwards made motion to approve the 75 foot cross section for the proposed road way. Commissioner Dudziak seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Commissioner Byerly made motion to table case G-05-006, Commissioner Bartkowski seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Commissioner Byerly made motion to have a break at 8:35 p,m. and to reconvene at 8:40 p,m. Commissioner Byerly reconvened meeting at 8:40 p.m. 3. Case Z-05-002- PUBLIC HEARING- Request for a zoning change from AG to R20 on 24.108 acres, Abstract 404, Tracts 1, 3A and 3C of the William Dunn Survey located at 6805 Pleasant Run Road Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commission, Commissioner Edwards questioned the line of lots on the east side? Chris Fuller replied that is the Warwick Parc addition that has been penciled in and is not part 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 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 6 of 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 where he has other developments? Mr. Fegan stated Warwick Parc and another one at White Chapel Road and 1709 in South lake, Stratford Parco Commissioner Edwards questioned if Mr. Fegan plans to connect to Warwick Parc? Mr. Fegan replied at the time of platting Warwick Parc, a street was stubbed for connection, Commissioner Duffy questioned Mr. Fegan about the open space with the large pond, what are the elevation patterns? Mr. Fegan stated making a storm drainage system for the pond, stating the pond is not function able in its current state. Commissioner Duffy questioned if there are plans to connect to the stock tank that drains across John McCain? Mr. Fegan stated yes. Tim Meadows, 6901 Pleasant Run Road, appreciates Mr. Fegan working with the neighbors. Mr. Meadows stated being happy with what will face his property, however, nervous that Mr. Fegan's lot configuration could change since this is just zoning and not platting. Mr. Meadows stated liking the stone wall feature but has concerns with the drainage issue. C.L. Madden, 6112 Hunter Lane, spoke in opposition to the R20 zoning. Dinah Stephens, 612 Shelton Drive, spoke in opposition to the R20 zoning. Bill Stephens, 612 Shelton Drive, spoke in opposition to the R20 zoning, would prefer the R40 zoning, This density in this area does not go with the estate properties. Mr. Stephens stated having concerns with traffic and drainage. Dean Davis, 6316 Pleasant Run Road, spoke in opposition to the R20 zoning. Mr. Davis stated having concerns with traffic and the pollution generated with more traffic from those homes. James Day, 805 Shelton Drive, spoke in opposition to R20. Mr. Day stated having concerns with higher density and traffic. Mr. Day stated R40 would be better. Tom Quinn, 6817 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 7 of 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 9:20 p.m. Roy Erwin, 6908 Pleasant Run Road, spoke in opposition to the R20 request. There being no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed at 9:21 p.m. John Fegan, the applicant, spoke in response to the opposition stating the areas of drainage would be cleaned. Mr. Fegan stated that the whole area is not RE or R40. Mr. Fegan stated offering to plant trees to buffer the area. He also stated having the property to be deed restricted to stone walls not just wood fencing, Commissioner Byerly stated the open space is not a requirement for R20 zoning. Mr. Fegan responded the open space would create a detention and would also be a park area. Mr, Fegan stated dedicating the old log cabin on this property to the city and he would pay to have it moved, Mr. Fegan stated he is giving more open space than he is required to for straight zoning. Commissioner Duffy stated the homes are large for the R20 lots, Commissioner Duffy questioned Mr. Fegan about the square footage planned for these homes and the percentage of lot coverage? Mr. Fegan responded having the development deed restricted to about 3,500 square feet with the homes being about 5,000-5,800 square foot homes. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff about the traffic study in the briefing, any plans to update the streets or would R40 zoning or better to cut down on the traffic, Barry LeBaron responded the city will have to deal with making improvements as needed based on the build out of R20 zoning and the road way impact fees are based on build out of R20 zoning. Commissioner Dudziak questioned if Pleasant Run could accommodate the additional traffic? Barry LeBaron stated, yes. The city has currently been focusing on intersection improvements. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if the Master Plan states open feel, large estate lots on major 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 8 of 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 and it would be approved as long as it met the requirements of the R20 zoning. Commissioner Edwards stated having concerns that the layout could change and does not feel comfortable approving the R20 zoning. Commissioner Dudziak stated some of the lots facing Pleasant Run Road could be larger and concurs with Commissioner Edwards this request would be better as a PUD because the layout could be locked in to place. Commissioner Byerly questioned the applicant if a PUD would be more feasible? Mr. Fegan responded being willing to do a PUD. Barry LeBaron stated the 20% open space requirement drives the sizes of the lots to keep the yield of the lots. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if there could be inconsistencies with the preliminary plat and final plat if both were submitted at the time of zoning? Barry LeBaron stated they would both have to arrive at the same time to city council. The Land Development Code states the preliminary plat would have to be consistent with the final plat. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if the applicant could change the request to a PUD? Barry LeBaron stated the property owners would need to be renotified, in other words start over. Commissioner Duffy stated it would be unfair to the applicant to do the work for a preliminary plat and to those who have spoken tonight especially since the consensus is to have R40 or larger zoning. Commissioner Dolan stated the applicant has done a very good job in presenting this zoning case, but the engineering and platting issues are to be done separate from zoning. Commissioner Dolan stated this layout just does not work for Pleasant Run Road. Commissioner Edwards made motion to approve case Z-05-002. Commissioner Byerly seconded. The motion to approve failed by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Byerly Nay: Dolan, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy 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 of 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 Commission, Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the addressing of Suite 240 is just a section of the building? Chris Fuller stated correct, it is a leasing space. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff since this is a church facility would it be taken off the tax rolls? Chris Fuller responded no, this is an educational facility. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if there will be a satellite antenna on the top of the building? Chris Fuller stated no. Commissioner Dudziak questioned if the Special Use Permit will stay at that location if the school moves? Barry LeBaron correct, it will stay as an additional permitted use for that space and the ordinance is written specifically to state this location or suite only. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m, Ozzie Ingram, 3000 Mountain Creek Parkway, applicant, presented the request and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Byerly questioned the applicant about the time frame the school will be there? Mr. Ingram stated not knowing at this time; however the lease is for three years. Commissioner Byerly questioned Mr. Ingram about the maximum number of students being there at one time? Mr. Ingram replied there would be at least 60 students, 30 students per class room, Monday thru Friday. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:55 p,m. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff about the number of cars per the number of students, the ratio in the code states 1 car per 3 students? Barry LeBaron stated the code needs to be updated to reflect the new number of cars per student. The ratio would be higher. The shopping center has over 100 spaces available. Commissioner Dudziak stated the restaurant would be open at the same time as the classes therefore creating possible problems with parking at peak hours. 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 ~~----...........__'"~.'___ . ~.._.,........_...._.__n___'___'_'."_""'___ 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 case P-05-004 from the table, seconded by Commissioner Bartkowski. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dolan, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy, Byerly Nay: Dudziak Barry LeBaron presented the case and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Dudziak stated each homebuilder shall construct sidewalk on the lot frontages, it does not say north south etc. At that point, the ordinance reads, the homebuilder would be required to build a sidewalk including the south side of the street. Barry LeBaron stated the applicant may be better to answer who would build that five foot sidewalk. Commissioner Dudziak questioned staff if his understanding of the sidewalk, is that a sidewalk would not be constructed on the south side of the street. Barry LeBaron stated the developer only wanting the sidewalk on one side of the street. Commissioner Dudziak stated the easements are to not to allow drainage easements along open space. Commissioner Dudziak stated it appears that the open space is being counted in and included as drainage easements and that was not the intent of the PUD open space ordinance regulations. Commissioner Dudziak states this open space does not give consideration to the city and does not contribute to the subdivision, Barry LeBaron stated this is the open space that has been considered through this process and totals the 22%, Commissioner Dudziak states the open space can not be used for drainage, This developer is using this open space for drainage not detention and should not be counted as open space. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if interpretation of this drainage can be counted in the open space is consistent with the preliminary plat at the time of the PUD approval. 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 zoning 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 lots and encroach on these land owners? Mr. Boyle stated we would do our best to insure no liability would accrue to the city, however there are no guarantees. Commissioner Dudziak questioned if there could be something put on the plat by the developer so that the city could be sure nothing would happen? Mr. Boyle stated essentially if the developer has met all the requirements of the Land Development Code, the Commission is obligated to approve the plat. Commissioner Dudziak questioned if there is an error in interpretation of how the plat is laid out, will the Commission have recourse? Mr. Boyle replied the recourse would be concluded if staff has made an erroneous decision also; the city council will need to review and approve. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff if the HOA owns the drainage area but fails to maintain the drainage area, then is not it the HOA's responsibility? Barry LeBaron replied correct. Commissioner Duffy questioned if the drainage area were to fail, would the responsibility fall back on the homeowner's and not on the city? Barry LeBaron replied it depends. Mr. Boyle stated the green areas are the responsibility of the HOA, if the Commission is concerned with the failing of the bedding then that language is what needs to be stated clearer. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned if the city owns the creek? Barry LeBaron replied the city does not own the creek. Commissioner Bartkowski questioned if the city does not have responsibility to maintain the drainage way? Barry LeBaron replied correct and stated the city may have some drainage easements through there; however, staff is not sure at this time. Commissioner Dudziak stated wanting to see the final draft of the covenants to make sure the HOA will be the one responsible for the open space. Barry LeBaron stated not having a copy of those covenants. Commissioner Dudziak stated those documents are required now, at the time of final plat. Commissioner Byerly questioned if those documents have been submitted? Barry LeBaron replied 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 12 of 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 days of submittal for the application? Barry LeBaron stated if an approval is not made tonight; the 30 days will be an issue. Mr. Boyle stated it would be better to deny and leave for the city council to clean. Commissioner Byerly questioned if the Commission denies, could the applicant go to city council for an over ruling? Mr. Boyle replied once the developer gets the issues resolved, he can go to city council for an over ruling. Commissioner Byerly stated the developer has met all the requirements and the Commission can make an approval subject to receiving the remaining documents. Commissioner Dudziak made motion to deny case P-05-004. Commissioner Edwards seconded. The motion to deny was approved by the following vote: Aye: Dudziak, Bartkowski, Edwards, Duffy Nay: Dolan, Byerly Mr. Quinto, questioned the Commission, for clarity, if the covenant documents were the only issues outstanding? Commissioner Duffy replied to the developer is being sure to cover all bases. STAFF REPORTS Barry LeBaron questioned Commissioners if a workshop for next Monday night March 7, 2005, would work for the Commissioners? Commissioners concurred. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Duffy stated wanting a check list for the PUD zonings. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 10:31 p,m. by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Shelley Planning and Zoning Assistant Approved on: March 14, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - Februray 28, 2005 Page 13 of 13 --.,.-----------..-..-...-----.--...---------- ---