Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission-Minutes-3/15/2005 .~ Texas PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - March 14, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Byerly called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Luann Edwards, John Blassingame, Denis Duffy and Jeff Byerly were present. Commissioners Thomas Dolan, Dave Dudziak and Thomas Bartkowski were absent. Barry LeBaron, Chris Fuller, Amy Shelley, Robert Woods and Scott Welmaker from staff were present. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Commissioner Blassingame. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Byerly moved to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2005, meeting with correction on page 12, paragraph 2, changing "plat" to "zoning". Commissioner Edwards seconded with the amendment. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None 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. Chris Fuller presented the case and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff if there could be two zonings on one lot and is it permissible? Chris Fuller responded correct, the two zonings are Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 14, 2005 Page 1 0'8 permissible and was approved with the PUD-C. Commissioner Byerly questioned the AG zoning for this lot, would that zoning stay? Chris Fuller replied the AG would have to be rezoned to ML. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff about the status of the CC1 on the PUD-C and the ML zoning? Barry LeBaron replied the property would retain that zoning, ML and the PUD-C as well. The applicant wants to clean up the property lines and in order to do so; the AG portion would be ML. Commissioner Duffy stated not seeing the cross access on the plat and based on the overall CC1 portion on Hwy. 26 the cross access is only 30 ft. wide. Commissioner Duffy stated any building planned in that area would cause concern for a single lane and for fire access, therefore stating the need for a second entry or exit. The only thing approved would be the monument sign. Are there any plans for the office or parking, propane tanks? Commissioner Duffy stated the Commissioners want all items of this nature to be stored inside the fence area. Barry LeBaron replied the plat shows the 15 foot utility drainage and emergency vehicle cross access easement through the length of the 30 foot strip. Commissioner Duffy stated not seeing where the sales office would be located on this plat. Barry LeBaron stated the locations of buildings are not placed on the plat. Commissioner Duffy stated having concerns, at the time of zoning, about the length of the drive and having traffic to pass. Barry LeBaron stated the applicant may be able to address those issues because those issues would be resolved at the time of issuing building permits. Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Thomas Vogt, surveyor representing the owner Howard Lawson, presented the request and briefed the Commission. Mr. Vogt stated the office building will be placed per the site plan in the PUD. Commissioner Duffy questioned the applicant about the placement of the gate? Mr. Lawson responded not bringing a site plan but the gate would be back at the end of the 30 foot strip. Commissioner Duffy questioned about the turn around for vehicles? Mr. Lawson replied the vehicles would go to the end and let someone pass through. Commissioner Duffy questioned about the placement of the propane tanks and travel trailers? Mr. Lawson replied through the gate, once again I did not bring a site plan. Commissioner Duffy questioned the landscaping? Mr. Lawson stated several trees are there and there will be landscaping. Mr. Vogt stated the site plan was approved during the zoning case for the PUD and the site plan has not changed. Commissioner Duffy stated needing the final site plan. Barry LeBaron stated the site plan was brought forth during the PUD zoning. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff about the site plan being submitted at the final plat stage? Barry LeBaron stated this platting process was one of the steps required in the PUD and that is what the applicant is trying to do. Commissioner Duffy stated issues of concern on the placement of the rental trucks and propane tanks. Commissioner Byerly stated those issues were addressed during the time of the PUD. City Attorney, Matthew Boyle concurred with Chairman Byerly. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 14, 2005 Page 2 0'8 Mr. Vogt stated the applicant will comply with what was approved during the zoning of the PUD. Commissioner Byerly closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Edwards questioned staff about the plat encompassing several different zonings, usually with a PUD-C a site plan is with the plat? Barry LeBaron replied what is presented is all that is needed. Commissioner Byerly made motion to approve Case P-05-008. Commissioner Edwards seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Commissioner Duffy stated that his vote included attaching the minutes from the previous meeting where the zoning case was brought forth and the Planning and Zoning Commission turned down the zoning case. TABLED ITEMS 2. Case G-OS-006- TABLED - Proposal to amend the Master Thoroughfare Plan as outlined in the City of Colleyville Master Plan 2004-2025 Commissioner Edwards made motion to remove case G-05-006 from table. Commissioner Blassingame seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Barry LeBaron presented the case and briefed the Commission. Commissioner Duffy suggested an alignment E, which would be, to continue down by the school, on the east side of the commercial property, to the fire lane on Larry Cole's property, then west down the center of the commercial area. This alignment E would minimize the impact on both the commercial property and to the residents of Emerald Park, yet still providing access to the new school. This alignment would serve the area and provide the separation from the commercial and residential properties. The alignments A & D, to Lavaca from LD Lockett, split property therefore taking away the rural atmosphere leaving property that would be too small to develop. Commissioner Edwards made motion to open public hearing on case G-05-006, even though not required to have to do so. Commissioner Byerly seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Commissioner Byerly opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 14, 2005 Page 3 0'8 Jeff Zimmerman, 501 W. Lavaca Trail, stating wanting the quality of life with an open feel. The best use for this road is for the school. Mr. Zimmerman stated this alignment was to always be the buffer for the commercial and residential properties. Andrew Mittag, 901 W. Lavaca Trail, concerned with congestion relief on Lavaca Trail. Mr. Mittag stated the city has a need for an east west street and the need for improving McDonwell and LD Lockett road. Mr. Mittag stated an alignment C/D would work; a connector street between McDonwell School Road and Lavaca would provide the needed access for the new school. Mr. Mittag stated the city needs to focus on Colleyville Boulevard for business. Judy Ruggere, 1013 W. Lavaca Trail, spoke on behalf of her mother at 1101 W. Lavaca Trail as well. Ms. Ruggere stated having concerns with drainage. She stated alignment A and even alignment D would be the best. Ms. Ruggere stated alignment C would create safety issues for residents. She stated the city has to become productive to survive and increase revenues. Danny Ogle, 1009 W. Lavaca Trail, spoke in favor of alignment A or D as a two lane road. These alignments would benefit the city. Mr. Ogle stated cities have to develop to continue to have revenue. Gregory Van Nieuwenhuize, representing the Lavaca Trail LLC, stated the need to hear from the school. The traffic would need to be away from the school for the safety of the children. Mr. Nieuwenhuize stated if an alignment has to be made, alignment A would be the better choice. David Markham 600 Burnet Drive, Keller, representing the Jones Family, spoke in opposition to alignments C and B would be detrimental to all commercial properties. The city would benefit more if McDonwell School Road and LD Lockett Road were improved. The alternative alignment D provides for the better future of Colleyville. Michael Dudding, 6025 Sterling Drive, stated a north south road is not needed, however, would prefer A, D or Commissioner Duffy's idea of E. Bob Huspen, 5900 Sterling Drive, stated being against alignments B & C. Mr. Huspen stated needing to expand LD Lockett and McDonwell School Rd to 4 lanes. Mr. Huspen stated alignment A would provide the need for the new school. Marty Gohr, 809 W. Lavaca Trail, stated LD Lockett and McDonwell School Rd need to be expanded. Mr. Gohr, stated alignment C would be more feasible, because it would provide the buffer needed for the commercial and residential properties. Lorraine Gohr, 809 W. Lavaca Trail, stated wanting to keep the rural atmosphere. Mrs. Gohr questioned the need for a north south street, except for the school needing the street. She stated seeing the need for the street in the master plan. Mrs. Gohr stated she will always support the most westerly alignment and the road being two lanes. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 14, 2005 Page 4 0'8 Ruth Ann Plain, 909 W. Lavaca Trail, spoke in favor of the new alignment D, 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 concerns for the water drainage issues. Timothy B. Perkins, 6032 Sterling Drive, stated liking the new alignment liE" that Commissioner Duffy. Mr. Perkins stated wanting a clean cut for the commercial and residential properties. Ken Damron, 5830 Crescent Lane, stated not liking alignment C at all, however could live with alignment E that Commissioner Duffy suggested. There should not be any roads coming down south from Lavaca because of the school. A street from Lavaca Trail to the new school would be the best alternative. Mark Christman, 5825 Crescent Lane, concurred with Mr. Perkins and Mr. Damron and would like to see alignment E to be developed. Jon Moody, 5935 Crescent Lane, stated the safety of getting children back and forth to school being an issue. Mr. Moody would like to see a buffer go in behind the commercial property and the Emerald Park addition to prevent any mischief. Mr. Moody would like to see alignment E be developed. Marty Stadjahar, 101 Williamsburg Court and owns land at 816 LD Lockett, concurs with Mr. Mittag, Mr. Gohr and Mr. Zimmerman and stated needing to widen LD Lockett and McDonwell School Road. Mr. Stadjahar stated the commercial traffic needs to stay west of Emerald Park addition. Mr. Stadjahar stated putting any development next to a Wal-Mart would hinder that business. The type of commercial would need to be picked very carefully. The ease west corridors need to be improved. Lisa Stadjahar, 101 Williamsburg Court and owns land at 816 LD Lockett stated wanting to see the new alignment E. Mrs. Stadjahar stated McDonwell School Road and LD Lockett could be widened and improved. She stated not convinced a north south street would accomplish what is wanted in Colleyville. Mrs. Stadjahar stated needing to keep the rural lifestyle in the city. She stated that Emerald Park is the buffer between the commercial properties. John Butler, 908 LD Lockett, stated having a vested interest in the land. The alignments A or D are the prime alignments and that is what is on the master plan. Mr. Butler stated Emerald Park is the buffer for those commercial properties and is a great asset to the city. Mr. Butler stated alignment E is going to happen any way, the fire lane is just an emergency access and that is what was approved. The commercial property that comes in is going to accomplish alignment E. Mr. Butler said the need for a two lane street would be good to keep the residential feel. The city needs the roads fixed and commercial property is what will help the revenue for the city. The city needs to progress. These lots were created many years ago and this thoroughfare was approved long ago in the master plan. John Mcintosh, 6636 Carston Court, representing family that still owns a 5 acre Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 14, 2005 Page 5 of 8 tract on Lavaca Trail and have since 1976, stated being opposed to alignment A, but would be in favor of alignment C. There does need to be a street to abut the school for the school traffic. Richard Batte, 5912 Sterling Drive, stated alignment C and B would not work; alignment A and D would work. Mr. Batte stated there would be access to the school off of McDonwell and Precinct Line Road. David Ray, 5909 Sterling Drive, stated the alignment E that Commissioner Duffy proposed would be the better choice. Mr. Ray stated being strongly opposed to a north south collector street. Will Butler, 908 LD Lockett, stated being in favor of alignments A and D. Mr. Butler stated Colleyville needing the revenue from retail. He also stated Emerald Park is the intended buffer for the commercial and residential properties. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Duffy made motion to break for 5 minutes. Commissioner Byerly seconded. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None Commissioner Byerly called meeting to order at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Duffy made suggestions to staff in regards to the new alignment, and all opposition to north - south street, and to support the school. Commissioner Duffy concurs with all who want to separate the commercial and residential properties. Commissioner Duffy stated being opposed to A and D south of Lavaca and forces those properties in to smaller lots, creating more density. Emerald Park already creates the needed buffer. Commissioner Edwards stated having support from citizens from Lavaca and LD Lockett. The Lavaca to McDonwell School Road proposed street is a necessity for the new school traffic. Commissioner Edwards stated Emerald Park creates the buffer. She stated there possibly being street lights at Lavaca and LD Lockett. Commissioner Edwards stated residents knowing about alignment A and have planned for this alignment for a long time. Commissioner Blassingame questioned staff about the school zone boundaries serving the area? Barry LeBaron stated not knowing. Commissioner Blassingame stated if children still ride their bikes to school, then there is a need for a north south street so that they would not have to ride on Precinct Line Road. Commissioner Edwards stated if the vote is to not put a road by the commercial, that commercial development can still develop a road. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff the new commercial development could then be responsible for their cost of the street if the street is indicated on the master plan. Barry LeBaron stated the purpose of a master thoroughfare plan is Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 14, 2005 Page 6 0'8 to provide for continuity as properties develop. Commissioner Duffy questioned staff about the drainage? Barry stated the street does provide for a good opportunity to provide drainage easements. Commissioner Duffy made motion to approve alignment "C" from McDonwell School Road, and then between Lavaca and the fire stub and stop, then when Mr. Cole develops the remainder of the commercial property then Mr. Cole could provide for a road at that time. Commissioner Duffy stated not needing a north south connecting LD Lockett at this time. Commissioner Byerly questioned staff about the fire stub out? Barry LeBaron stated it being a second entrance to the Emerald Park addition in the future. Commissioner Byerly seconded Commissioner Duffy's motion. The motion to approve failed by the following vote: Aye: Duffy and Byerly Nay: Edwards, Blassingame Commissioner Duffy stated making the motion based on the speakers in favor of the new alignment E. Commissioner Blassingame stated there is not a need for a road next to Emerald Park; the developer has already stated not wanting the road. Commissioner Blassingame made motion to approve alignment C, from McDonwell School Road to Lavaca Trail with no road south of Lavaca. Commissioner Duffy seconded. The motion to approve failed by the following vote: Aye: Edwards, Blassingame and Duffy Nay: Byerly Commissioner Byerly stated needing a road south of Lavaca and it would be consistent with the master plan. Commissioner Edwards questioned Commissioner Byerly as to why he did not support the alignment D? Commissioner Byerly stated that alignment puts too much pressure on the development of the property as opposed to keeping the larger lots. Commissioner Byerly stated Emerald Park created the buffer. Commissioner Edwards concurred that addition changed the layout of the master plan. Commissioner Blassingame stated these residents who bought in to Emerald Park did not know of a road being put in their back yards; the developer has plenty of room to be able to develop with the current flow for traffic. Commissioner Blassingame stated Commissioner Duffy's suggestion about stopping the road at the fire stub would be routing a road that would lead to no were. Commissioner Byerly questioned Commissioner Blassingame if the road was to run along the northern boundary of the commercial property then Emerald Park would not be abutting a road? Commissioner Blassingame stated if the Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 14, 2005 Page 7 of 8 suggestion is to run south along the east side of the commercial property, south of Lavaca Trail and then make an intersection? Commissioner Byerly stated to make an outlet from the road on to Precinct Line. Commissioner Blassingame concurred with the suggestion, but not to run in the commercial space, that would not be fair to the developer or the residents. Commissioner Duffy concurred with Commissioner Blassingame. Commissioner Byerly made motion to approve alignment C from McDonwell School Road then to the northern boundary of Emerald Park then to go west to Precinct Line along the property boundary. Commissioner Blassingame seconded. Commissioner Edwards questioned the necessary need for taking a maximum amount of space from the middle of the commercial development? Commissioner Edwards stated the problem with only have of the road being built when the commercial property develops. Barry LeBaron replied looking for sites with mid-box sizes to fill the space and when platting these properties, the alignment that the Commission has suggested would work for those properties. Commissioner Edwards questioned if the motion could be amended to align with the North Richland Hills Street. Commissioner Byerly concurred. The motion was approved by the following vote: Aye: Edwards, Blassingame, Duffy and Byerly Nay: None The motion being approved was to approve alignment C from McDonwell School Road south then to the northern boundary of Emerald Park then to go west to Precinct Line along the commercial property boundary. STAFF REPORTS Barry LeBaron stated the Planning & Zoning Workshop went well with the PUD regulations and the first public hearing for the PUD regulations will be on April 11, 2005. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. by acclamation. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Shelley Planning and Zoning Assistant Approved on: March 28, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes - March 14, 2005 Page 8 0'8